[lit-ideas] The Matrix Hypothesis
- From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:55:41 -0400
At 02:45 PM 10/25/2004, you wrote:
>Mike Chase writes:
>
>Le 24 oct. 04, =E0 14:13, Robert Paul a ecrit: Mike has the advantage of me
>here, for I haven't read Chambers, et al, on [The Matrix?]...
>
>M.C. 'nuff said. A serious discussion would presuppose precisely such a
>reading.
>--------------------------------------
>Just so there isn't any confusion let me point out that I have read plenty of
>Chalmers, and a considerable amount of et al, but I haven't read what they
>have
>to say about this film.
>
>I've now read 'The Matrix as Metaphysics,' by David Chalmers:
>
>http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/matrix.html
>
>If anyone would like to have a serious discussion of this paper, I'm game.
I would like to. That would be fun. However, I fear that people would get
bored after about 4 posts. In any case, I'm feeling a bit introspective
today, so here goes:
Part I Brains in Vats
As a start, I would say that the "brain in the vat" theory seems to
contradict what Stephen Wolfram terms "The Principle of Computational
Irreducibility" which basically asserts that there is no way to mimic the
universe without BEING the universe. In other words, there are no short
cuts to allow a computer to quickly 'model' the universe without ACTUALLY
modelling the universe and this would take 10 billion years -- because,
well THAT's how long it took. Talk about a tautology. In computer terms,
the universe is incompressible.
So RP is right, I just wrote 4 lines discussing (sort of) the Chalmers
article, but said nothing about "the Matrix" the film itself.
He [Chalmers] says "As Nick Bostrom has suggested, it is not out of the
question that in the history of the universe, technology will evolve that
will allow beings to create computer simulations of entire worlds." This
argument is interesting, but seems to be completely unprovable and falls in
on itself because of it. Bostrom ignores terms like 'past, present, future'
but uses the different tenses to discuss what might already have happened,
but might also happen in the future. Surely this paranoid delusion [that we
ARE just brains in vats -- something which almost EVERYONE I know has told
me was a feeling they've had at least once in their life] IS confusing, but
NOT all that novel in scope. Surely, almost everyone's childish egoism has
at one time or another made them think "this was all made for me and some
dude is playing a trick on me!" Bostrom simply puts into words what
everyone has felt.
Opinion: "The Matrix" does the same thing, but fails in the end because it
is even more open-ended than reality. Nobody knows what reality is but they
look to the Matrix trilogy to give an answer to what their (the
W83*&&^%$%^ski brothers) vision is. The reason I think the third film fails
is that there IS NO RESOLUTION or ANSWER to the what the matrix hypothesis
says. It's bound to disappoint. Reality probably won't, no matter what it is.
Part II Envatment Reconsidered
Does it even matter? In his book "The Physics of Immortality" Frank Tipler
basically argues [while not ostensibly against Wolfram, it turns out that
way] that one day, inevitably, there WILL be computers that are powerful
enough so that they can basically render us all forever. This makes us
eventually immortal. Questions arising from this kind of thinking (and from
the discussions in part two of Chalmers' paper) are:
1) is that possible?
2) If yes, has that already happened (back to the brains in vats)
3) If it has happened or does happen, does it matter? Is there any way to
bridge the gap between the two worlds? Surely if the matrix exists, then it
must BE somewhere! So Russell may have been a philosopher after all.
But these all seem to be -- while quite eloquently argued -- fairly
childish questions that any concerned human would have. Whether or not we
ARE in a matrix, who cares? Hey, isn't this paper supposed to be sort of,
kind of, about "THE MATRIX"?
Part III The Metaphysical Hypothesis
Chalmers States it:
"First, physical processes are fundamentally computational. Second, our
cognitive systems are separate from physical processes, but interact with
these processes. Third, physical reality was created by beings outside
physical space-time. "
Addressed in a different order he concludes that NONE of these three can be
ruled out "conclusively". Okay, so that was a waste of several pages. But,
in discussing the overall metaphysical hypothesis, he comes to probably one
of the most important conclusions: even if it's true, "most of our ordinary
beliefs about the external world will be left intact." Once again, one must
come to the conclusion that "does it matter if we are or if we aren't?"
Part IV 4 The Matrix Hypothesis as a Metaphysical Hypothesis
Basically he is saying that a matrix hypothesis implies a metaphysical
hypothesis (combination of physical, cognitive and outsiders) and vice
versa. Okay, no problem here.
Part V Life in the Matrix
If we are in a matrix, it's not worrisome. It just changes the fundamental
belief system that we have. Our reality is the same as it is now, just with
a different foundation. What I think Chalmers says quite well in this
section is that our world is what it is; however, the reason for it being
that way might be a whole lot different that what a lot of people think it
to be. Since no one really knows, it doesn't matter.
Part VI Objection: Simulation is not Reality
Chalmers goes on to say: "To rebut this objection, we can appeal to two
principles. First principle: any abstract computation that could be used to
simulate physical space-time is such that it could turn out to underlie
real physical processes. Second principle: given an abstract computation
that could underlie physical processes, the precise way in which it is
implemented is irrelevant to whether it does underlie physical processes.
In particular, the fact that the implementation was designed as a
simulation is irrelevant. The conclusion then follows directly."
This is clear enough and again, rather a moot point.
Phew, that's enough for now! I'll let someone else raise all the objections.
One more comment about the film and the hypothesis:
When I left the first movie (of the three), because of the obvious
biblical/ancient characters imagery, I found myself thinking a lot about
the Christian religion and how its obvious allusions fit in with The
Matrix. As I thought about it more and more, the imagery sort of worked
with the major characters, but the further afield I searched, the less it
was obviously anything to do with Religion. Chalmers touches on this in his
paper. As a result of this, I found a completely open-minded viewing of the
2nd and 3rd movies more possible.
I think it's a deliberate Red Herring to invoke religion (our present way,
no matter what our beliefs [even if atheist]) to compare the matrix vision
to. The VAST majority of people, regardless of their religious beliefs, DO
NOT truly believe that we live in a matrix. Perhaps it's because it's
seemingly inconceivable to understand that. What Chalmers does, if not to
discuss the film, is to describe clearly that our reality is what it is and
the reasons for it being that way do not change what it is. "The Matrix" is
a movie which deals with _an_ alternative speculation as to the what, not
the why of our lives. In the end, it's just fun to think about it. The ways
in which it (the movie) makes us think are not too different from the ways
in which a cloud made a Mesopotamian think thousands of years ago.
Obviously, sophistication hasn't helped us one bit. We still don't know
what the heck is going on. I kind of like it that way.
4-time matriculant without a clue,
paul
##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] The Matrix Hypothesis
