I'm excited to announce that I'm working on an audiobook for Hooves of Fate. I started with Chapter 63: Rivers. This way, long-time readers of HoF can reorient themselves to the momentum of the story before the upcoming release of Chapter 64 (text) this Saturday.
I stayed up till 2am last night talking with a friend - orchestrating a plot - theorizing what precisely it would take for (young adult) Flurry Heart to successfully depose both of her parents, and Twilight Sparkle.
I think that there might be some slight issues with your reasoning there. :) But then, I expect you also know the story about the sheep, the bush, and the question of the nature of truth... :)
(Oh, for those reading this who might not, though: Person A is walking down a road and passes a field. A little further down the road, Person B asks Person A if there was a sheep in the field. Person A, who believes they saw a sheep in the field, says yes. Here's the thing, though: There was indeed a sheep in the field, but it was actually out of sight of Person A. What Person A thought was a sheep was actually a sheet draped over a bush. So, Person A made a statement that both a: was factual and b: was believed factual by Person A at the time they made it. However, the foundation of Person A's belief was flawed such that they would have believed it to be factual even if it was counterfactual. Was Person A's statement to Person B, then, true?) (...Actually, after typing that out, I'm not entirely sure how relevant that is to this question specifically, but I came to mind and I think it's philosophically interesting enough to be worth sharing, so... [shrugs].)
So, does this mean that Celestia is also real, or is there actually no such thing as daytime?
Truth! Verily, our Princess of the Night doth exist and is most wonderful!
5540449
The Sun is just reflecting the glorious light of Best Princess' Moon.
I think that there might be some slight issues with your reasoning there. :)
But then, I expect you also know the story about the sheep, the bush, and the question of the nature of truth... :)
(Oh, for those reading this who might not, though:
Person A is walking down a road and passes a field. A little further down the road, Person B asks Person A if there was a sheep in the field. Person A, who believes they saw a sheep in the field, says yes.
Here's the thing, though: There was indeed a sheep in the field, but it was actually out of sight of Person A. What Person A thought was a sheep was actually a sheet draped over a bush.
So, Person A made a statement that both a: was factual and b: was believed factual by Person A at the time they made it. However, the foundation of Person A's belief was flawed such that they would have believed it to be factual even if it was counterfactual. Was Person A's statement to Person B, then, true?)
(...Actually, after typing that out, I'm not entirely sure how relevant that is to this question specifically, but I came to mind and I think it's philosophically interesting enough to be worth sharing, so... [shrugs].)