6 ms·
To be 100% correct in literature you would need a time machine and a mind-reading device. To be the closest evidential approximation to correct, you would have
by JulianMorrison 17y ago
To be 100% correct in literature you would need a time machine and a mind-reading device. To be the closest evidential approximation to correct, you would have to do your best to simulate these machines using every possibly accessible causal consequent of the relevant past remaining in the present. This is the "gold standard" but it would be technologically and financially implausible. Thus, "doing it right" is impossibly hard. Only "doing it wrong" is easy.
- anamax 17y ago> To be 100% correct in literature you would need a time machine and a mind-reading device. Even that's not enough. It is generally agreed that the author's intent isn't binding. There is no generally accepted definition of "correct" in literature. One could say that the lack of "correct" makes literature harder, or one could say that asking for correct or judging it by that basis is wrong. If you do the latter (which seems reasonable), you can't compare it with physics on the basis of "harder".