"The Matrix" (De)Appreciation Thread

[Locutus]

[SOLVED] "The Matrix" (De)Appreciation Thread

I find it highly probable that the upcoming release of The Matrix: Reloaded will become the most successful movie of all time. Many of the fans of The Matrix adopt the cultish theories behind the movie, such as "There is no spoon" and that we all live in a fabricated reality.

Since this "scientific" viewpoint will undoubtedly work into the minds of many who watch it, I was wondering what others thought about the movie's concept.







Personally, I find the idea of a fabricated reality to be completely irrelevant. It seems no more credible than any arbitrary idea of the universe being some soap bubble floating in someone's bathtub, for example. If the universe were not "real", it would not change a single thing in my life because I would have no basis upon which to live differently.

Besides, who could possibly have the perspective to challenge the reality of the universe? The reality of the universe is the fundamental axiom behind everything we know, and someone who claims the universe to be fake must be outside the realm of the universe.

To me, "The Matrix" is a pop-culture fad that does not even fall under the most liberal definitions of sci-fi. The "real world" as shown in the matrix is only a gimmick to justify the countless action scenes in the rest of the movie. Unfortunately, not all of the general population realizes this and takes the movie's message to heart.

Any other ideas?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Many philosophers have held that we do live in a manufactured reality - the reality of modern consumerism. The fact that it's our minds rather than our bodies that are enslaved is just a detail. It isn't machines sucking our bio-energy, it's corporations sucking our life earnings. etc. This is quite common on the left and the original Matrix was greeted with delight by many of these philosophers.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Locutus
Personally, I find the idea of a fabricated reality to be completely irrelevant.

Heh. You wouldn't think so if you woke up in a pod full of goop, as weak as a baby, and with a bunch of cables hooked up to you.

To me, "The Matrix" is a pop-culture fad that does not even fall under the most liberal definitions of sci-fi. The "real world" as shown in the matrix is only a gimmick to justify the countless action scenes in the rest of the movie.

Well, Descartes thought he had disproved the existence of the "Evil Genius", and many people--rightly or wrongly--accept his proof. Now here is a movie that posits a plausible scenario in which the Evil Genius could exist, and all of a sudden the proof is not so convincing, even if you do accept it as logically valid.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

It's a kung fu movie. Other than a few over eager fans using obscure character names for handles on message boards not much will come of it.

 

[Locutus]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Many philosophers have held that we do live in a manufactured reality - the reality of modern consumerism. The fact that it's our minds rather than our bodies that are enslaved is just a detail. It isn't machines sucking our bio-energy, it's corporations sucking our life earnings. etc. This is quite common on the left and the original Matrix was greeted with delight by many of these philosophers.

Yes, I can see that the idea behind the matrix is interesting to draw parallels to and from, but I think the Matrix takes it too far when they say that the entire universe is composed of a computer program and we are just figments of memory cells.

I still find this premise irrelevant. If I woke up in a pile of goo, I would suddenly come to the realization that I have never had a single genuine thought my entire life. Thus, my existence up until waking up in that goo is completely null and void. In a way, it is like imagining the sudden collapse of the universe. If I had taken serious thought to the idea of the matrix while I was in the matrix, or if I hadn't, the outcome is the same: that these thoughts never existed in the first place.

Therefore, the idea of a matrix is irrelevant because life as we know it cannot be lived on the premise that life as we know it does not exist.

 

[wuliheron]

The Matrix is just a modern pop movie about ancient Zen Buddhist ideas. The first movie I found exceedly good in conveying these ideas, and I have hopes that the second one will do equally well. So well did this movie integrate these ideas, that most of the people I've talked to about the movie never realized the movie revolved around a paradox.

In the first movie the hero, Neo, refuses to believe in fatalism and that his life is unreal in some sense. Later he finds out his life is unreal and an oracle demonstrates the power to see the future, implying he does not have free will. Still refusing to accept his life is fated yet having to accept that somehow it might be, he finally becomes enlightened when forced to choose to die and leave his love behind or rise to the occation.

Along with these paradoxical plot elements, the nonstop intense drama of the situtation clearly demonstrates the Zen philosophy of the movie. Buddhists believe this "reality" we experience is illusory and behind it lies a unified undifferentiated reality. You can claim it is obviously wrong, just a movie, but nobody can really prove that. Like Neo perhaps the best we can do is live our lives as if they are real until something proves us.

 

[Locutus]

Originally posted by wuliheron
You can claim it is obviously wrong, just a movie, but nobody can really prove that.

I do admit that it is impossible to prove "The Matrix" wrong, but just because something can't be proven wrong doesn't mean it's right.

Like Neo perhaps the best we can do is live our lives as if they are real until something proves us.

I agree, however i would replace "until" with "unless".

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1580" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by dr-dock
from

"the matrix movie".

Noe is at the oracle's place looking how that kid (candidate to be the chosenone) twists a spoon without touching it and after that the kid explains its self:
"You cannot twist the spoon with your hands.It's impossible.Instead try to realize the truth for the spoon and you'll realize that it's not the spoon that is twisting but it's only your self".
Noe gets the point,tries to twist the spoon and actually (in the matrix) the spoon twists.

This is really strange! Because I just rented that movie and watched it for the first time last night (Sunday, April 27th), and this was one of things that really stuck out in my mind. Wow, maybe the matrix really does exist and, that somebody (from the other side?), prompted this to happen?

Whereas I do know for a fact, of at least one person who is capable of "honing in" on my own personal reality (by telepathy if you will or, similar to the experiments conducted by the CIA regarding "remote viewing"). I also know that he happens to exist on this very forum board, under any several of aliases. Do you think I'm crazy? Well let's just say we leave it at that.

The guy's name in the movie was "Neo" Anderson by the way.

 

[megashawn]

Wow, maybe the matrix really does exist and, that somebody (from the other side?), prompted this to happen?

psst. It's me, Morpheus. You'll get an email in 10 minutes. Click the blue or red button.


j/k


Anyhow, the matrix kinda sort of makes sense. At least that it could be possible. I mean, how far are technologys that would allow a person to be hooked up to a machine and its perception completely hijacked. Then all would be required is the domination of the entire species, mass cloning to produce the lifeforms needed.

It seems to me to be a After the robots in Terminator killed off the rest of the humans and took over the world.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I would want to go back in the Matrix once I knew what was out there for me. It would be a much better, much happier place. What is outside? A scorched Earth. I would especially want to stay in if I knew that I could be a super-hero!

Locutus, they would still be your own thoughts. Your brain would just have been interacting with different signals than if you had not been hooked up to a computer.

If you remember, the Matrix had glitches...any computer program would. There are no glitches in our world, so I'd say that that's pretty good evidence that we aren't living in a computer world...not that it really matters.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Locutus
If the universe were not "real", it would not change a single thing in my life because I would have no basis upon which to live differently.

You will notice that in the movie, the knowledge that you lived in the matrix empowered you to control events within that matrix. This knowledge would change your attitude to life. You would try to use it.

Besides, who could possibly have the perspective to challenge the reality of the universe?

Are you saying that you know what the reality of the universe is?

The reality of the universe is the fundamental axiom behind everything we know,

That's an assertion. You have no idea whether your inner-perceptions of a universe are reflective of an actual 4-dimensional reality, existing beyond your perceptions of such a thing.

and someone who claims the universe to be fake must be outside the realm of the universe.

Certainly not. Such a person might suggest that the universe exists solely within the mind.

 

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
If you remember, the Matrix had glitches...any computer program would. There are no glitches in our world, so I'd say that that's pretty good evidence that we aren't living in a computer world...not that it really matters.

Yes, and common sense dictates that if we were really in the Matrix, we also wouldn't have produced a movie about it either.

Locutus, they would still be your own thoughts. Your brain would just have been interacting with different signals than if you had not been hooked up to a computer.

Perhaps they would still be your own thoughts, but they would be in response to artificial stimuli. Thus, artificiality is used to manifest one's thoughts.

Now how about this idea: Neo wakes up in his pile of goo, saves the world from a bunch of machines, only to find out that it was originally the matrix that was real and real people in the matrix made up this whole "the one" business just to give him a psychological exam. What if it is the "real world" that is the fabrication and the matrix that is indeed real.

I can't imagine a single thing in the universe that could declare itself the judge of reality, so to say. If there is no basis to judge reality then the possibilities of what is real or not fall into a cataclysm of countless cycles between possible realities (such as the one previously described). If we doubt the universe's existence as the way we know it, we advance ourselves nowhere.

 

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Lifegazer

Are you saying that you know what the reality of the universe is?

I believe in the reality of the universe because to not do so would contradict my existence. Besides, how would we know if at any time the "real world" outside the matrix is real? We could endlessly ponder about how many levels of fabricated universes are controlled by computer programs down to our very existence, but this gets us nowhere. In order to progress as a human race, we must accept the reality of our universe and learn about it under this assumption.

Certainly not. Such a person might suggest that the universe exists solely within the mind.

Yet that person would still agree that the universe is real. Especially if reality is unique to the individual, nowhere would a power exist that could question reality if it were to be an inherent property of one's thoughts.

That's an assertion. You have no idea whether your inner-perceptions of a universe are reflective of an actual 4-dimensional reality, existing beyond your perceptions of such a thing.

Once again, imagining whatever may lie outside our perceptions will not change what we do percieve. We are human beings, not gods of the universe, and we will never accomplish anything by worrying about questions and realities that we are in no place to answer.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Locutus
I believe in the reality of the universe because to not do so would contradict my existence.

Your existence is an inner-existence, comprised of inner-sensation; reason; emotion; will. You have self-existence: self-awareness.
The non-reality of the universe (outside of your sensations of one) does not contradict your existence. Your existence is ascertained by self-attributes. Not by the universe.

In order to progress as a human race, we must accept the reality of our universe and learn about it under this assumption.

It is easy to counter this. I could just say that in order to progress as a 'race', we must accept the reality of the Mind, and learn from this knowledge of self-existence.

Yet that person would still agree that the universe is real.

The inner-awareness of a universe is real. The external-reality of a 4-d universe is open to challenge.

Especially if reality is unique to the individual, nowhere would a power exist that could question reality if it were to be an inherent property of one's thoughts.

It is easy to show that the reality of a 4-d universe is unprovable.
It is also easy to show that the sole means of knowing about existence is gleaned via attributes of the mind. We have a mindful-existence. Science is the study of inner-sensation. It is not the study of an external-reality.

We are human beings, not gods of the universe, and we will never accomplish anything by worrying about questions and realities that we are in no place to answer.

We have reason. We are in a position to ponder many such things as this. That's what philosophy is all about.
Your position here is that 'reality' is an external-reflection of our inner-awareness. But you have not used reason to come to this conclusion. Because no such reason exists. Our existence is entirely inwards. And yet you would have us ignore this fact and blindly-accept the reality of an external-realm. And then, finally, you would kill all further debate (worry) about such matters; thus closing our minds to 'reality'. Such methods kill philosophy.

 

[Locutus]

You seem to believe that whatever one senses in his mind is his universe. Correct?

Well part of existing is interacting. A universe cannot merely be confined into one's mind and nothing else. For example, my thoughts right now are obviously part of my universe. They, however, are not part of yours because you cannot experience their sensation. A man needs interaction in order to confirm his existence, it must be physical as well as mental.

For example, a man can believe with all possible conviction that he has traveled to Alpha Centauri and back overnight. However, this does not mean he actually did so. The mind is certainly a gateway through which we may interpretate and percieve the universe, but it alone cannot dictate the universe. Philosophy is exploring the symbiosis with the cognitive and physical, not subjugating one to the other.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I happen to believe that Neo is very sick in the head. He's like a religious fundamentalist that is willing to justify anything in the name of his religion. How many people did he kill in order to "free" them? Remember, when you die in the Matrix, you die in reality.

 

[Psychodelirium]

Well, I am sympathetic with the notion that there is something irrelevant about Matrix scenarios, but perhaps for a different reason. It's not that it makes no difference whether we really live in the Matrix or not; it's not that we couldn't ever tell, so we shouldn't care. There are many possible circumstances under which we could tell, such as if we found glitches in the programming, or woke up in a vat of fluid with cables stuck in our bodies.

In fact, Nick Bostrom has a good empirical argument, the "simulation argument", that it is in fact more probable that we do live in a computer simulation than not. The argument suggests that our descendants will probably have enough information processing ability to simulate worlds like ours, and they will probably want to do so. Indeed, they may even simulate predecessors who are also more advanced than us, and who can create their own simulations, and so forth. Anthropic reasoning would suggest that we should expect - perhaps with overwhelming odds - to find ourselves in a simulated world.

The reason why I think there is truth to the notion that Matrix scenarios are not really relevant is because I think the intuition underlying it - that we should expect most of our beliefs to be true - is in fact legitimate. That is, even if something like the Matrix scenario turns out to be the case, most of our beliefs, such as that we have bodies, or that we drive cars, or that we live in New York (or wherever) will still be true - in the same way that the sentence "someone is behind me" could be true in the context of a good Counterstrike match, even if no one is actually standing behind you and looking over your shoulder while you're playing. The Matrix scenario is not a skeptical scenario in the way Cartesian evil geniuses are (though to be honest, I doubt the coherence of such skeptical scenarios, anyway). I haven't the time to give a defense of this suggestion now, but I can link you to one that David Chalmers recently wrote for the Matrix philosophy website: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/matrix.html

As an aside to Locutus, I doubt anyone really takes kung-fu movies "to heart", except morons and academic philosophers, so no need to worry.

And as an aside to Tom, I really doubt that anyone (nevermind "many people") takes the Cartesian circle seriously.

 

[Mentat]

Daniel C. Dennet, in his book "Consciousness Explained" poses an argument against the "Evil Genius" mentality. By his reasoning (or, rather, by my limited understanding of his reasoning, I may be entirely wrong)), free will is a factor that doesn't allow for anyone to project a "real-like" reality. The "Evil Genius" would have to account for every possible choice, of every person, at any given time. This is simply too much information, and doesn't allow for any kind of random-chance occurance, which the computer could not possibly compensate for.

Perhaps someone with a greater knowledge of Dennet's philosophy could explain it better...?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Psychodelirium

As an aside to Locutus, I doubt anyone really takes kung-fu movies "to heart", except morons and academic philosophers, so no need to worry.

Hey! I resemble that remark! Jackie Chan is my hero!

Long Live the Drunken Master Monkey King!

 

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Mentat
free will is a factor that doesn't allow for anyone to project a "real-like" reality. The "Evil Genius" would have to account for every possible choice, of every person, at any given time. This is simply too much information, and doesn't allow for any kind of random-chance occurance, which the computer could not possibly compensate for.

Thank you, Mentat, this is an excellent point.

Originally posted by Psychodelirium
It's not that it makes no difference whether we really live in the Matrix or not; it's not that we couldn't ever tell, so we shouldn't care. There are many possible circumstances under which we could tell, such as if we found glitches in the programming, or woke up in a vat of fluid with cables stuck in our bodies.

However, even these scenarios would not prove that we lived in the matrix. If one woke up in a vat of goo, he may reason either "My whole life has been in the Matrix and now I have finally awaken in the real world" OR "My whole life has been in the real world but now I have just been transported to the matrix".

Both scenarios have equal probability of being true, so I truly think that we would never be able to determine whether our universe is "real" or not. Therefore, the best assumption seems to be to accept our universe as real, because carrying out life on the assumption that our universe is not real is fundamentally flawed.

The reason why I think there is truth to the notion that Matrix scenarios are not really relevant is because I think the intuition underlying it - that we should expect most of our beliefs to be true - is in fact legitimate.

I agree. Some things in the universe must be assumed true. For example, the five axioms of Euclidean geometry are assumed to be true, for they are the basis on which all other ideas of Euclidean geomitry are based. One cannot question his existence, for in order to pose the question he must exist in the first place.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Locutus
Thank you, Mentat, this is an excellent point.

Thank you. BTW, I highly recommend the book, "Consciousness Explained", to anyone interested in that kind of thing.

One cannot question his existence, for in order to pose the question he must exist in the first place.

This is the point I've been trying to make on the thread, "I think therefore I am". It's so basic, and obvious, that I didn't think I would get such a fight against it.

You should perhaps have said "One should not question his existence... One can if one chooses to, but there is not point, for the reason that you bring state (quoted).

 

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is simply too much information, and doesn't allow for any kind of random-chance occurance, which the computer could not possibly compensate for.

Perhaps someone with a greater knowledge of Dennet's philosophy could explain it better...?

Pretty much. The point Dennett was making (as I recall - it's been a while since I read CE) was that a simulation that was rich enough to fool us would run into combinatorial explosion while trying to match valid world outputs to valid user inputs. This renders Matrix type scenarios impossible given the present limits on VR technology, but there is every reason to think that future limits on future VR technology will be orders of magnitude less restrictive. We may not be able to produce the relevant simulations, but our posthuman ancestors a hundred years from now will not be burdened with the same technological constraints.

 

[wimms]

I find Matrix is a smart movie. Amazingly. Not because what it says, or because of main idea it puts forward, but because it plays like an instrument, striking chords over a lot of quite different philosophies. To notice that, you need to know them, and the more you know them, the more you find them being "touched", set to chime inside you. Its quite a soup, and most amazing about it that its working out quite well, and is intriguing and understandable for average stupid that's its major audience. To put that amount of deep thought into action movie with Reaves, is just revolutionary.



Don't underestimate computing power available. If human would be plugged, his own brain can be used for computing aswell.
Matrix presently not possible, but they say they won't stop until VR is indistinguishable from R, and that they'll be there in few years in gaming. Limited scope, not matrixlike obviously, but from there its just quantity. Also, don't ignore that to model VR from R is much more difficult than doing that for tabula rasa. We have reference to compare to and say its doesn't feel right. But if you burn, live and die in that VR, its perfect.
I don't find anything impossible in fooling your mind completely so that you don't know what's real. Its not that hard at all. Brainwashing is old art.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by wimms
I don't find anything impossible in fooling your mind completely so that you don't know what's real. Its not that hard at all. Brainwashing is old art.

Dreams are even older. The mind can believe anything. Our dreams prove this.

 

[Locutus]

Originally posted by wimms
VR is indistinguishable from R

You use this to describe the future of gaming (which would be cool if games could get this sophisticated, of course) AND the framework for a construction such as the matrix, I presume?

I agree with the quoted statement for reasons I have stated before, yet I will state them again: There would be no way of knowing whether the "real world" outside the matrix is really "real", or just another matrix. In a scenario such as this one, when multiple "realities" are incorporated, one "reality" becomes indistuinguishable from the other.

In all my criticisms of The Matrix (the movie), never once did I describe the possibility of human beings one day designing a computer fabric by which to stimulate the minds of others as impossible; Stargazer, you are right in saying that the mind can believe anything. All I have been saying is that it is illogical for us to assume the nonreality of our universe, for to do so implies an alternate reality that exists above us. Once multiple realities are introduced, they become indistuingishable. Questioning the reality of the universe also questions the nonreality of anything unreal. And vice versa.

The bottom line is, we can never definitely prove that the universe is real. As I have shown, questioning the reality of the universe is irrelevant because the reality of the nonreality of the universe may in fact not be real either. I think we can all agree (stargazer), that there is no such thing as real.

"The Matrix" neglects this. They present the world as a black/white contrast between reality and nonreality. But we know that there is no discernable difference between reality and nonreality. This is the issue I raise against "The Matrix".

 

[greeneagle3000]

the matrix is happening?

i happen to be a big fan of the matrix because it changed the way i see movies and things. i considered it and took the red pill
but the moive is made into a kungfu movie to actually attract audience. they are not going to spend a two hours talking about this world being an illusion. that would be a doucmentery.
i think it is like a sci-fi movie but it dosen't really catogorized there.
the matrix has it philosophy. the directors are heavy readers into philosophy and they recommend the book by jean baudrillard "simulacra and simulation" i read it and it is good although i could get better.
it is a very smart movie because it dares to go against the mainstream and go with it at the same time.
i found out that m2 might suck but let's see what they have. i will always like the first one and that's it.
you guys can go to the official website and check out the philosophy section. the matrix
it is true even descrates thought abuot this. even buddism says that this world is an illusion and i believe this strongly because i feel that i don't belong here.
you will never believe this until you open your mind to it.
of course there are some stupid things and things are going to get stupier in the matrix. i can point that out but i won't.
that's not what I'm here for.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Psychodelirium
Pretty much. The point Dennett was making (as I recall - it's been a while since I read CE) was that a simulation that was rich enough to fool us would run into combinatorial explosion while trying to match valid world outputs to valid user inputs. This renders Matrix type scenarios impossible given the present limits on VR technology, but there is every reason to think that future limits on future VR technology will be orders of magnitude less restrictive. We may not be able to produce the relevant simulations, but our posthuman ancestors a hundred years from now will not be burdened with the same technological constraints.

So he was talking about techonological constraints? I thought there was more to it.

Well, what about the fact that some things are absolutely random? QM shows that this is true. How can any computer (no matter how great the technology) possibly account for these phenomena?

 

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Mentat
So he was talking about techonological constraints? I thought there was more to it.

You might find while reading Dennett that he is much more interested in "practical" constraints than he is in "principled" constraints. I think Dennett is basically a functionalist, so I can't see any reason why he would say that Matrix scenarios are impossible in principle.

Well, what about the fact that some things are absolutely random? QM shows that this is true. How can any computer (no matter how great the technology) possibly account for these phenomena?

But what does that have to do with anything? The idea is to create a simulation that is rich enough to fool us into thinking that it is real (not to beg any questions about "real-ness", to be "real" in this case is just to not be simulated). It is not, however, to simulate a state-for-state replica of the real world. What would be the point of that?

All of the quantum effects that we observe could be governed by deterministic constraints (and in fact, some rival interpretations of QM suggest just that). Even if, for some bizarre reason, you wanted the simulation to have irreducibly random features, it's a trivial matter to build in some kind of quantum amplifier into the computer.

 

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Locutus
However, even these scenarios would not prove that we lived in the matrix. If one woke up in a vat of goo, he may reason either "My whole life has been in the Matrix and now I have finally awaken in the real world" OR "My whole life has been in the real world but now I have just been transported to the matrix".

Both scenarios have equal probability of being true...

Not at all. Suppose you go to a VR lab in Australia, where a bunch of programmers explain to you that they are testing a new video game. They wire you up, push a few buttoms, and you suddenly discover yourself in the middle of a dungeon with a sword in your hand. In this situation, it would be rather perverse to suppose that Australia was the simulation and now you are in the real world.

On the other hand, suppose that you live in New York, and that one day your life is abruptly interrupted - you discover yourself in a vat with cables stuck in your body. If you plug the cables back in, you go back to New York. In this situation, it would be rather perverse to suppose that New York is real and the vat with cables is the simulation.

Perhaps you are just put off by the word "real", so if it makes you feel more comfortable, replace "real" with "unsimulated". So instead of a "real" and a "fake" world, you have a "simulating" and a "simulated" world. Neither world is inherently better than the other, of course; which world you happen to like more is an entirely contingent matter.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Psychodelirium
You might find while reading Dennett that he is much more interested in "practical" constraints than he is in "principled" constraints. I think Dennett is basically a functionalist, so I can't see any reason why he would say that Matrix scenarios are impossible in principle.



But what does that have to do with anything? The idea is to create a simulation that is rich enough to fool us into thinking that it is real (not to beg any questions about "real-ness", to be "real" in this case is just to not be simulated). It is not, however, to simulate a state-for-state replica of the real world. What would be the point of that?

All of the quantum effects that we observe could be governed by deterministic constraints (and in fact, some rival interpretations of QM suggest just that). Even if, for some bizarre reason, you wanted the simulation to have irreducibly random features, it's a trivial matter to build in some kind of quantum amplifier into the computer.

True. And yet, I don't see how that answers the "free will" question. Yes, you could make all of the people's actions be programmed, and set; but, if that were so, no one would ever leave the Matrix (the agents wouldn't let them, and they (the people) would have no "will" to try it).

Also, how does one explain the fact that Neo bled (in the real world) after having hit the ground in the simulation? That questions been bothering me for a while.

 

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Mentat
True. And yet, I don't see how that answers the "free will" question. Yes, you could make all of the people's actions be programmed, and set; but, if that were so, no one would ever leave the Matrix (the agents wouldn't let them, and they (the people) would have no "will" to try it).

But users' idiosyncratic input historoies aren't programmed into VR simulations. What is programmed are the VR responses to possible inputs. This is precisely why a VR program that was as good as the Matrix would run into combinatorial explosion while trying to figure out how to respond to the user. There are just too many things that users can do, and the program has to react to all of them convincingly.

Also, how does one explain the fact that Neo bled (in the real world) after having hit the ground in the simulation? That questions been bothering me for a while.

That I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of feedback mechanism that the brain could use to cause internal bleeding if the brain was convinced that there was, in fact, bleeding. [?]

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Psychodelirium
But users' idiosyncratic input historoies aren't programmed into VR simulations. What is programmed are the VR responses to possible inputs. This is precisely why a VR program that was as good as the Matrix would run into combinatorial explosion while trying to figure out how to respond to the user. There are just too many things that users can do, and the program has to react to all of them convincingly.

Do you mean that a computer has to be ready to handle all possible actions at any given time? This was my point, and I just don't see how it could be done. But, then again, I guess future technologies will allow for something like that.

That I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of feedback mechanism that the brain could use to cause internal bleeding if the brain was convinced that there was, in fact, bleeding. [?]

Well, actually, it would have to (somehow) sever many layers of his flesh.