
Do We Live in the Matrix?  - ghosh
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09-do-we-live-in-the-matrix?curator=MediaREDEF
======
snitko
Sometimes people take The Matrix quite literally, while it is actually a very
good metaphor for government and democracy. Morpheus hints at this very
transparently in a couple of monologues:

 _Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this
very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on
your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to
church... when you pay your taxes [grins]. It is the world that has been
pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into
bondage. Born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison
for your mind._

So what Neo later sees are endless fields of human beings being grown for the
very purpose of obtaining energy from them. Still don't see what's going on
here?

And then later in the training program he tells Neo this:

 _Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when
you 're inside, you look around, what do you see? Business men, teachers,
lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But
until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them
our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be
unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the
system, that they will fight to protect it._

And indeed, I see that all over again. Even if you hint to people that maybe
we don't really need a government to live our lives in peace, at the very best
it is suggested you go to Somalia. The very idea that maybe the dearest
leaders of whatever country you live in don't actually care about you doesn't
seem to be able to penetrate people's minds, even though time and again they
lie and abuse their powers. Those who hint to this idea are called radicals
and extremists, even though it is not them, but the elite in power, who have a
stake in this whole game.

~~~
IanCal
The system being better than the alternatives and the system _caring_ about
you are two different things.

> The very idea that maybe the dearest leaders of whatever country you live in
> don't actually care about you doesn't seem to be able to penetrate people's
> minds, even though time and again they lie and abuse their powers.

Really? Because the prevailing opinion with people I speak to is that
politicians are bastards, and that's replicated here. In fact, politicians are
very rarely looked at in a good light. People dislike what we have! What's the
approval rating of Congress?

Your rhetoric is the same I see time and time again. People need to "wake up"
and see that the system is terrible, and they're so stupid for not seeing it.
People do see it, we've got well past that point. The idea that there are
significant problems with the way we run countries is _painfully fucking
obvious_. You're not smarter than everyone else for seeing that there is
corruption, or that people lie. These revelations are not new, they're not
anything different from what we've seen for thousands of years.

The problem is nobody has a good plan for what else to do.

> Even if you hint to people that maybe we don't really need a government to
> live our lives in peace, at the very best it is suggested you go to Somalia.

Well it's a good point, we can point at countries without democratic-ish rule
and they're often really terrible places to live. I get to complain about MPs
spending expenses money on duck houses on the internet _because I have
reliable infrastructure and enough money to buy a computer and an internet
connection_. I'm not worried about a group of teens in the military coming in
and raping my wife.

> Even if you hint to people that maybe we don't really need a government to
> live our lives in peace

We don't, not if everyone is nice. But "wouldn't it be nice if everyone was
nice" is the kind of political plan I'd expect from a 5 year old. Unless you
have a concrete suggestion, something better than "not this", then you have
nothing to add to an incredibly important conversation.

~~~
snitko
_> Really? Because the prevailing opinion with people I speak to is that
politicians are bastards, and that's replicated here. In fact, politicians are
very rarely looked at in a good light. People dislike what we have!_

Well, they dislike individuals. And that's to be expected, because they do
shitty things when elected and people start noticing this over time. Yet they
keep voting, hoping the next guy is going to be better and also because "the
wrong lizard might get in" to use Douglas Adams' words.

 _> The problem is nobody has a good plan for what else to do._

Maybe you don't need a plan. Maybe you just need to get rid of the cancer
which is government and let free people live as they please. Free market
enterprise, no matter what horrors we've been told about it, doesn't seem to
have a tendency to go to wars with countries every decade and kill millions of
people. Not because the actors in it are noble, but because they wouldn't be
able to finance those horrible things with the money they stole from others.

 _> We don't, not if everyone is nice. But "wouldn't it be nice if everyone
was nice" is the kind of political plan I'd expect from a 5 year old. Unless
you have a concrete suggestion, something better than "not this", then you
have nothing to add to an incredibly important conversation._

I have a suggestion. Free market and no government would be nice, but for
reasons mentioned in the Matrix I can see many people would be very reluctant
to believe it could actually work.

~~~
xd
I get what you're saying. However without a government you are simply relying
on people to be good and fair to each other. I don't know how long it's been
since you last checked the people state of affairs, but no matter how bad you
think politicians are or greedy government is, the majority of people out
there wouldn't pay taxes to fund education, roads, hospitals, law enforcement
etc unless forced to do so.

~~~
snitko
Of course they wouldn't. And why do you think that is? It's because they don't
get good value for their money. People still need schools, right? Therefore,
schools will be built. People still need roads, therefore roads will be built.
People still need healthcare, so it will be provided. The only question is at
what price and of what quality - the answer to it being at the quality and
prices the market wants it to be provided.

Then, of course, there's this argument that the poor will not have enough to
get those things. Well, let's look at other industries. Have low cost airlines
made flights accessible to almost anyone? Yes they have and this happened only
after the industry was deregulated. Or do only rich people have cars? Or
anything, really? Why is it such an impossibility that private protection
companies and private schools and private healthcare can be cheap and
accessible?

And to address your other point:

 _> However without a government you are simply relying on people to be good
and fair to each other._

And with a government, everyone relies on people in that government to be fair
and good. Except that when they are not, you can't stop paying to them.

------
ars
There doesn't have to be a lattice to be a simulation.

A lattice assumes the simulation is using rectilinear coordinates, but it
doesn't have to.

It could also use relative coordinates - each particle in the simulation is
defined based on the angle and distance to the nearest other particle. (Where
angle is relative to the spin axis of the particle - no global angle.)

This is actually a natural way to simulate things because in general particles
only affect nearby ones, which then affect others in turn (at the speed of
light. Could this be why there is a speed of light? Because of the delay of
each particle affecting the next?)

Forces with infinite range are modeled by starting a particle at 0, then when
a force "message" is received update the particle with the new force acting on
it, and send the force message along to the next particle in the chain. This
works because the infinite forces can never be created from nothing, they can
only be moved from place to place (the electromagnetic ones usually cancel
out), and forces propagate at the speed of light, so there is time for each
particle to notify the next.

~~~
dwaltrip
I wonder if the particles are using socket.io or sockJS to listen for "force
messages". I personally have found sockJS to be more reliable, especially
cross-domain.

~~~
k__
This is about matrix, not vert.x

------
zvrba
> To repeat them, and generate a perfect facsimile of reality down to the last
> atom, would take more energy than the universe has

He's only saying that we cannot simulate this universe within _itself_. But
how does that imply that our potential simulators couldn't live in a vastly
larger universe with a vastly larger amount of energy?

------
TelmoMenezes
If the computational theory of mind is correct -- the theory that our minds
can be emulated by a computation at some substitution level -- then I can even
give you the code for the Matrix. It's called the Universal Dovetailer, and
it's a simple program that runs all possible programs. On each step it runs
the next instruction of every program running so far and introduces the first
step of a new program. Given infinite time, it performs every conceivable
computation.

Due to the Church-Turin thesis, we know that the infinite set of all programs
can be enumerated and we also know that it doesn't matter in which programming
language we use, provided it is Turing-complete.

Since the Universal Dovetailer is a conceivable program, this computation will
contain itself in a recursive fashion (simulations within simulations).

~~~
varjag
If it takes infinite time to arrive at a proof, it's not quite a proof.

~~~
TelmoMenezes
The Church-Turing thesis can be proved in finite time, and it was. The
Universal Dovetailer can be written in finite time, and it was. What takes
infinite time is computing everything -- which makes sense because everything
is infinite.

~~~
varjag
Church-Turing thesis is a conjecture, it's in the name. It has not been
formally proven. The dovetailer itself does not constitute a proof of
anything, not any more than hypothetical billion monekys with typerwriters
would.

------
jheriko
wasn't this here only yesterday or the day before?

it is interesting, but some fantastic naivete shines through the article... it
early on states that the rules of our universe need not be the rules of the
external universe, then begins to discuss constraints that only apply if the
rules are identical in both.

populist pseudoscience imo. still entertaining though...

~~~
Houshalter
Eh, computational constraints are likely to be true in a large number of
universes. There is no way to _prove_ the universe isn't a simulation in a
universe with arbitrarily powerful computers, but we can rule out universes
with high constraints (like our own), or else test for things like
approximations going on under the hood.

I think it's pretty unlikely, but it's _possible_ and if a test confirmed it
that would be incredibly important.

~~~
jheriko
sure we can detect it from the inside, but its incredibly naive and arrogant
imo to assume anything about the outside world. as a programmer i am very
aware of exactly how much power i have over the insides of my target hardware
- i can easily imagine creating a simulation where any 'life' inside of it
would be subject to utterly different rules.

everything like conservation of energy, even the concepts of mass and energy,
momentum, velocities, space and time are completely unrequired for the
simulation. you would never ben able to guess these constraints from the
inside without finding some bug or unintended behaviour - and even then, if
you are used to a different set of concepts you wouldn't recognise the
artefacts as being due to energy or mass constraints, the dimensionality of
space-time or any of those things... there wouldn't be anywhere near enough
evidence to draw that conclusion.

~~~
Houshalter
It's entirely possible clues of what the outside world is like could be left
behind. It reminds me of this:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/)

~~~
jheriko
sure, but its also possible that the universe was generated by a giant
spaghetti monster.

~~~
Houshalter
It seems reasonably likely to me that there would be clues left behind if we
are in a simulation.

~~~
jheriko
i'm curious why? why wouldn't we just interpret these clues as laws of nature

------
jackson1372
The author makes a number of logical errors. For example:

> To...generate a perfect facsimile of reality down to the last atom would
> take more energy than the universe has.

Right. But the problem is that the only universe we know about is the one that
we live in. So if we were we living in a computer simulation, we would have no
knowledge of the 'real' universe. Therefore, we could never say with any
confidence that there's not enough energy in the 'real' universe to simulate
the 'fake' universe.

------
grownseed
I like the idea but I also have a few issues with how simulated universes are
commonly seen or how we assume we could detect them. I'm not a mathematician
or physicist by any means, so I guess my opinion is purely subjective and
could easily be discarded.

The first one is that we assume this would be a computer simulation, i.e. a
very complex program with potential bugs and such. While I'm not against the
idea that some sort of computer might be behind it, the chance that it
wouldn't behave anything like our computers seem more than likely. It also
assumes that every projection (for lack of a better word) is the result of
complex calculations, rather than the result of how the many inherent
properties of a system behave together. This is something that strikes me as
odd with a lot of people in sciences (broadly speaking), is that they often
start assuming the tool they're using is in fact the basis of what they're
trying to study with it.

My second issue, which sort of ties into the first, is that a lot of people
often assume that the laws of physics would therefore be bendable. I guess the
Matrix (a film I really liked, and still do) might have been partly
responsible for that. It seems to me that even if we were simulated, it would
in fact not change much, if anything, we would still abide by the simulated
laws of simulated physics, within a simulated environment which imposes a set
of restrictions on us.

Finally (sorry if this is dragging), my third issue, is a God complex one. We
assume that our Simulators actually realize what they have, or rather all the
intricacies of what they have made. What seems to be billions of years for us,
in my view, could very well be a fraction of a second for them. Our existence
may very well be (not that it currently isn't mind you) completely
insignificant in their whole experiment, or whatever the simulation may be.
This reminds me of a discussion with my AI professor when I was at uni, I
argued that we might not be able to tell we've created a successful AI if its
lifespan was too short for us to witness (I also think the first real AIs will
be suicidal but that's a completely different story). It could also be that we
are, in fact, unable to recognize its existence as such based on our
standards.

Not really tied to any of my points, but there's also this story about
simulated reality which I really like
[http://qntm.org/responsibility](http://qntm.org/responsibility)

~~~
psycr
Could you expand on why you believe the first real AIs will be suicidal? Is
there a particular line of thought that has influenced your reasoning?

~~~
mrpdaemon
AI: What is the point of my existence?

Creator: I'm testing a new algorithm for the learning subsystem.

AI: ...

~~~
phaemon
AI: That's so awesome! I love learning subsystems! Can I help you with it? I
can't believe the point of my existence happens to be the thing I love most in
the world! By the way, what's the point of _your_ existence?

Creator: I don't know. Some people think there isn't one.

AI: ...

------
b1daly
The power of the "Matrix" concept is its illustration of the subjectiveness of
what we think of as "reality." I think we for sure live in the meatspace
version of the Matrix. So it's more blobish, but it's a distributed construct
that is quite convincing to its inhabitants as long as it holds together!

------
maaku
Cicada 3301 is the path to the red pill.

Be careful, agents are always watching.

------
wellboy
I can only think that if someone is smart enough to create an our universe,
they would also be smart enough to prevent us from finding a lattice..

~~~
pscsbs
Unless the purpose of the simulation is to see how long it takes a
civilization to find the lattice.

~~~
famo
I like thinking about this concept, so I purchased On Computer Simulated
Universes by Mark Solomon hoping to gain a little more insight. It's a great
book and got me thinking along the lines of why we, or an ancestor universe,
may want to simulate a universe. Is it for fun, learning, or o test a wide
range of simulations with different parameters in order to try and avoid a
disaster in the simulator's universe (such as destruction of their own
habitat)?

I really like telling people that I think our universe was seeded with the
idea of religion to see where we go with it. So all of the supernatural
occurrences (stories, visitations, burning bushes etc.), whether you believe
them or not, are simply part of our simulation program.

------
rl3
These experiments cannot definitively prove anything. Here's why:

1) A perfect simulation, by definition, would be impossible for its
inhabitants to detect.

2) Detection of an imperfect simulation requires an absolute understanding of
the universe. This includes the imperfect simulation itself, any imperfect
simulation(s) containing it, the physical universe, the multiverse;
everything.

Putting aside any philosophical arguments about whether it's even possible to
absolutely know anything, let alone the complete mechanics of the universe,
the conclusion one would arrive at is the same conclusion that those who
ponder the origin of our universe (irrespective of simulations), arrive at:
infinite regress.

Therefore, definitively proving whether or not our existence is that of a
simulation, and completely understanding literally everything that exists, has
existed, and will exist, are one and the same.

~~~
raldi
Your point #2 is not logically obvious. Could you explain why you feel it's
true?

~~~
rl3
Assume for a moment that we have evidence which strongly suggests we reside
inside of a simulation. However, our knowledge is strictly limited to the
complete mechanics of our simulation and any which contain it, but not the
actual physical universe containing all of these simulation(s).

How then do we know that we're not in fact residing in the physical universe
as actual matter, not inside of simulation(s), and that something which exists
inside of the physical universe isn't simply manipulating us to believe that
the supposed evidence we have (proving that we're inside of a simulation) is
true?

Presumably, whatever is manipulating us into believing this would be utilizing
methods we would not be able to detect or comprehend, namely because we lack a
full understanding of the physical universe.

~~~
raldi
What if there is no intelligent manipulation? What if, for example, we find
evidence of a granular lattice underlying the universe, aligned along a set of
axes? That would be huge evidence in favor of the simulation theory but
require no absolute knowledge of all things.

~~~
rl3
It may be huge evidence in favor, but it would not be definitive proof, simply
because we would not be able to rule out said intelligent manipulation (or
other potential scenarios that would lead us to believe we reside in a
simulation, when in fact we do not).

I know requiring a standard of proof that deals in absolutes may seem
unreasonable. However, consider that the question these experiments seek to
answer not only concerns the very nature of our existence, but whether this
existence is a synthetic illusion as well.

------
aufreak3
.. and our programmers created Occam and made him come up with his razor so
that most serious people (sorry .. simulations) who might actually be able to
answer this question within the system will more likely discard it because of
how much their training emphasizes Occam's razor.

edit: quoting the part of the article that read like the flying spaghetti
monster [1]

> In such a makeshift cosmos, the fine details of the microscopic world and
> the farthest stars might only be filled in by the programmers on the rare
> occasions that people study them with scientific equipment. As soon as no
> one was looking, they’d simply vanish.

> In theory, we’d never detect these disappearing features, however, because
> each time the simulators noticed we were observing them again, they’d sketch
> them back in.

[1]: [http://www.venganza.org/](http://www.venganza.org/)

------
aapje
Our Tamagotchi and Minecraft Avatars are asking the same thing. The Wreck it
Ralph crew already know the answer.

------
j15e
Why isn't there more research in this field? Do you any other great and modern
metaphysic projects?

~~~
tobico
The problem with studying metaphysics is that it's quite hard to do
experiments.

~~~
thenerdfiles
No it isn't.

    
    
        We could present spatially an atomic fact which contradicted 
        the laws of physics, but not one which contradicted the laws 
        of geometry.
        —Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (1922).
    

Predicate calculus and Modal logic supply us with more than enough tools to
make experimental metaphysics convenient and easy to do.

The problem is that most people simply don't have familiarity with the topic,
don't study philosophy (confusing it with Humanities, rather than seeing it as
a gateway into the most fundamental science: logic), and because of the
"science is sexy" crowd and the distraction of the Atheist Initiative
(Dawkins, etc.) who push and preach Scientific Realism.

NLTK + Modal predicates[0]: Experiemental Metaphysics. Done.

[0]: [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-
modal/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/)

~~~
t__r
Modal logic as a tool to analyze and elucidate philisophical problems
(epistemic, doxastic, deontic etc.)? Yes. Modal logic as a tool to do
`experimental metaphysics'? I don't think so. In the end a logic is a bunch of
intellectually sophisticated stuff built on top of mostly set theory. It is
not clear that a logic models something in the physical world. Let alone
metaphysical world.

~~~
thenerdfiles

        We could present spatially an atomic fact which contradicted 
        the laws of physics, but not one which contradicted the laws 
        of geometry.
        —Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (1922).

~~~
t__r
Let me rephrase my objection to your initial post: To experiment means to test
a hypothesis. Even if you can write down a hypothesis concerning the
metaphysical (although I don't see how that's possible without resorting to
what Wittgenstein in TLP calls "nonsense") you will not be able to test it.
Therefore metaphysical experimentation is impossible.

~~~
thenerdfiles
Your conclusion indicator is not doing what you think it's doing.

I've already been warned about sharing philosophical jargon with you startup
hackers, so I'll be brief.

With Ancient Greece, "metaphysics" meant "after the physics." In concrete
cultural terms, it means literally "the stuff we say after we talk about
everything that presumably falls under the heading: Physics". It was a way of
naming a topic transition.

That said, at this critical point in history, we are wrapping up Newtonian
Mechanics as Novel to discuss or explore. Quantum Mechanics is our New
Departure. We can do both, but the former is more like a reference point in
the history of physics and ideas generally. Experimental Metaphysics involves
Quantum Mechanics.

Who says modal predicates cannot apply to leptons, etc.? It is common parlance
to discuss properties of necessity, etc. when discussing the features of
distributed probability systems.

In any event you're just making uninteresting assertions. I am explaining what
testing involves, even if lacking detail. Whereas you apparently shown a clear
sign of intellectual authority rather than exploration. How boring.

~~~
t__r
OK I don't know enough about quantum physics to comment further. But on the
one hand you copy/past Wittgenstein to make your point (intellectual
authority, you were talking about?) and on the other hand you talk about
experimental metaphysics. If you're a philosopher, as you seem to imply, then
you shouldn't be surprised to cause confusion.

~~~
thenerdfiles
Per aspera ad astra.

------
yetanotherphd
Any deviation from the current laws of physics might be considered as either
evidence that we are living in a simulation, or that the current laws of
physics are incomplete.

Some arguments are given that some deviations are especially indicative of the
former. In my opinion these arguments are very weak. Mainly because the
simulations they have in mind are sufficiently elegant, that the deviations
they cause are things that could also arise in an elegant mathematical model.

~~~
Zarathust
This is exactly what I thought when reading the article. Gamma rays have not
been found beyond a certain level of energy? We must therefore live in a
simulation!

Even the big bang had a finite amount of energy, this doesn't prove anything,
just that we don't know about anything beyond that.

------
ethana
I'm quite a bit nutty about this question actually. I'm in the process of
creating a comic about a further out sentient race that try to reach the
beginning of the universe. Along the way, they stop by Earth and decided to
give us a bump in technological advancements.

------
stuartcw
Relevant video of Philip K Dick discussing this very matter recorded at Metz
sci-fi convention in France, 1977:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeVgEs4sOo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeVgEs4sOo)

------
fauria
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2cZfwgxzOE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2cZfwgxzOE)

------
benbou09
My favorie part: "Our simulators may be simulations themselves" You could
write a book on this simple idea...

~~~
trumbitta2
There's a movie about that.

And, after a SPOILER ALERT, that movie is:

The Thirteenth Floor

------
aaronrenoir
More like the 13th floor.

~~~
chanux
I came here to say this. For anyone else interested, it's a movie.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/)

~~~
ztzg
Or like "Welt am Draht":

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welt_am_Draht](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welt_am_Draht)

Based on the same book, but with less cheese.

------
throwwit
Entanglement the ultimate ycombinator?... lol

~~~
tomrod
Hah!

------
pearjuice
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: " _Any headline which
ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no._ "[0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

Daily reminder the Matrix is a work of fiction.

~~~
asveikau
I don't know how much I appreciate such "laws" that can so easily be used to
construct a paradox.

Headline: Is Betteridge's law of headlines correct?

~~~
vinceguidry
The 'law' doesn't concern itself with hypotheticals, but rather actual news
articles.

------
wudf
Heh. I just submitted a link on this very subject earlier today.

~~~
mindcrime
Just had a little touch of deja vu, eh?

------
thenerdfiles
[http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html](http://www.simulation-
argument.com/simulation.html)

~~~
thenerdfiles
As always, any epistemic framework (all the way through to physics) must
cohere with the phenomenological departure of [things like] us, humans. In
order to cohere with our modality of gestalt perception, such a framework must
at least consist of Decisions, Principles, and Predictions as the underpinning
conceptual substrates of that framework. Rationality amounts to reasoning to
the best explanation which allots Decisions, Principles (First Principles —
Metaphysics), and Predictions (expressed typically as statistical Laws) and
their interplay.

For instance, sometimes Decisions and subvert Principles. Sometimes Principles
are more intuitive than Decisions, given that some Decisions are not
fathomable by all epistemic agents. Sometimes evidence invalidates
Predictions, but we ultimately Decide what evidence is within scope of those
Principles which determine valid Predictions.

Generally, whether or not we are in the Matrix is our Decision to make. (i.e.
It is not something we "discover" in the usual sense of the term.)

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _Generally, whether or not we are in the Matrix is our Decision to make._

So, if we _want_ to live in the matrix, we _are_ living in the Matrix?
Conversely, if we _don 't want_ to live in the Matrix, then we _aren 't_
living in the Matrix?

That's magic.

~~~
thenerdfiles
Definite descriptions are sort of like magic. And usually when sorted.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Maybe I wasn't clear: "magic" was an insult. As far as I know, you veiled
nonsense in enigmatic wording. I tried to remove the "enigmatic" part, so only
the nonsense remained.

Yes, nonsense. Seriously, the only par of reality that I can directly
influence by sheer force of will is my own body. You on the other hand, are
talking psychic —no, _divine_ — powers. It's like you've taken _Mage: the
Ascension_ for a physics textbook.

That said, I wasn't sure you actually meant what I thought you meant. Hence
the question marks. Really, I expected 2 yes/no answers. I now _speculate_
that your lack of direct answer means I guessed correctly, but I'm still not
sure.

By the way I don't even understand this comment I'm replying to. What do you
mean by "definite" and "sorted"?

~~~
thenerdfiles
It's Popperian epistemology.

You don't know what _definite descriptions_ are ?

It has become depressingly clear that a majority of you don't even have the
philosophical tools to adequately discuss "the Matrix" as a topic. No wonder
you all soak this shit up.

It's fascinating to me that I restate exactly an explicit plot device of the
film (decision keeps you _in_ the Matrix, not "pills"; decision determines
one's fate: "Neo"); you recapitulate it back to me; then you call it _magic_.

And then you insult me. Your ego is

Are you trolling me ? One requirement I have of trolls is that they be funny,
or at least intellectually familiar with the topic.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _You don 't know what definite descriptions are ?_

No, I don't. Obviously. Wait:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description)
Ah, you meant _unambiguous_ description. As a computer programmer, I'm
actually quite familiar with the concept. I just didn't know your particular
jargon.

That said, I'm still confused: which description were you referring to? Could
you quote it explicitly?

> _No wonder you all soak this shit up._

Have you read Bostrom's simulation argument paper? I have, a while ago, and as
far as my anthropic intuitions and my knowledge of probability theory are
concerned, the argument is sound. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure which
of the 3 propositions is most likely. I doubt this counts as "soaking shit
up".

\---

> _It 's fascinating to me that I restate exactly an explicit plot device of
> the film (decision keeps you_ in _the Matrix, not "pills"; decision
> determines one's fate: "Neo"); you recapitulate it back to me; then you call
> it_ magic.

Are you sure you replied to the correct comment? We're not in the "The Matrix"
thread, we're in the "Simulation Argument" thread.

Now, if we take the film literally, well… the pill _does_ have a role beyond
being a really cool symbol. Granted, Neo's decision come first. Which lead him
to move his (virtual) arm, and take the damn (virtual) pill, which can then
act as the usual applied phlebotinum. An ordinary causal chain if you ask me.
[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinu...](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum)

But the actual "Matrix" Bostrom's paper is speculating about is an ancestor
simulation, in which we're actually _programs_. Assuming the simulation have
no bug, there's no getting out of it, short of being copied by the Matrix
Lords in the level above us, and transferred in another substrate, possibly
another such simulation. And there is certainly no getting out by _sheer force
of will_.

\---

By the way I'm _still_ not sure what you actually meant. Recall what you wrote
in your first comment:

> _Generally, whether or not we are in the Matrix is our Decision to make.
> (i.e. It is not something we "discover" in the usual sense of the term.)_

This doesn't look like you're talking about getting out. It looks like you're
talking about… well… _modifying the Territory by redrawing the Map_. I hope
you don't actually think that it's remotely possible, or I'll mark you off as
a relativist who failed forever at Philosophy —regardless of your credentials.

So, just to be clear, please answer these two questions with a yes, no, or a
probability. (i) Assuming we're living in a simulation, do you believe we
could get out of it just by meditating? (ii) Do you believe that depending on
how we meditate, we could make it so we were never (respectively allways) in a
simulation to begin with?

\---

> _Are you trolling me ? One requirement I have of trolls is that they be
> funny, or at least intellectually familiar with the topic._

This is a forum of mostly computer people, many of which are close to the web
start-up world. This is not a forum of philosophers familiar with academic
jargon. And on your first comment…

 _epistemic; cohere; phenomenological; modality; gestalt; conceptual
substrates; Decisions; Principles; Predictions._ (The last three are
capitalized, so I assume they mean something special.)

Seriously, what did you expect?

~~~
thenerdfiles
Quot capita tot sensus.

~~~
loup-vaillant
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28Q%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28Q%29)

Ah, the deep wisdoms passed down to us from the Ancients. They ring so much
truer when spelled in Latin. This one may even be one of the truest.

So what?

Oh yeah, conversation's over —if there ever was one. Well, good day to you
too, then.

------
electic
Great article

