We all know that the cellphone itself is something pulled straight out of Star Trek right? Also, that man himself wants to see a flying car, simply because he saw it in a book or on the silver screen. The most interesting part of this article in The Real World magazine is simply that the fiction comes first instead of the "real," which makes you question the nature of reality in the first place. It is obvious that most of man loves scientific gizmos and doodads, making us want to place them into our reality, our world. Since the first person who watched Star Wars, we've all wanted to swing a lightsaber around, since Star Trek we've all wanted to use the teleporter or the tricorder, thus we bring the item we want into the real world.
With the items we do have, I want to ask the question...which ones real. Obviously, most of you would point towards the object that is placed within the real, tangible world and call it real. However, the object that we see is merely a copy of what we saw, thus the fiction is the real, rather than the real being the real. True, this may seem like a cop out, but hear me out! The crafting of the object that you have right now, was created to copy the workings of the fiction, for the sake of the tricorder, we want to communicate while not on a landline, thus we create cordless phones in respect to the real prop. The trend grew, the project changed, and now we have the modern phone! The copy is now supplanting the real in the place of history and has now seen itself to the place of the real.
I merely ask this, is it the "real object" that is real or the fictional world's object? Give me your honest opinion and enjoy the reads.