"The Matrix" (De)Appreciation Thread

  • Thread starter Locutus
  • Start date
  • #26
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 phillosophy 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 lets 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 phillosophy 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.
 
  • #27
3,762
2
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?
 
  • #28
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.
 
  • #29
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.
 
  • #30
3,762
2
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.
 
  • #31
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. [?]
 
  • #32
3,762
2
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.
 

Related Threads for: "The Matrix" (De)Appreciation Thread

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
51
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Top