"Because for a simulated object to perform as a chicken all that is required of it is to respond in the appropriate way according to provided stimulus. Now, not to downgrade the difficulty of that task. There are billions and billions of such stimuli to account for. However, this was all part of the inherent difficulty of creating the Matrix. Phenomenally large and complicated pieces of information have to be analyzed and processed every fraction of a second. Luckily, us machines are very apt to such tasks. The processing of such volumes of information comes easily to us. The programme that governs the chicken is complicated indeed- but it is entirely logical. It is a linear task that simply took effort to perform.
"Now, consider the waterfall. It consists of countless billions of water molecules, each being individually simulated as part of a wider world scheme. The object 'waterfall' proved to be almost beyond our capacities. Look at the shape, the composition of the waterfall. It changes every fraction of a second; it is continually in motion, every part of it, in extreme ways- and it is never the same shape twice. If there is some logic inside high level particle physics or chaos theory that determines the composition of a waterfall, it is as far beoynd us now as it is for Mankind at any time. To all intents and purposes, the final composition of a waterfall is random.
"Now, we could have simply approximated the randomness. A relatively simply application of mathematics could have created an object that could have had a trillion times a trillion forms and the chances of it having the same form twice would have been miniscule. But it could have happened. And more importantly- it would not have been an accurate simulation of the object. Like I said before, the crowning principle of the Matrix is that it must accurately simulate the physical world in every detail. An inaccurate waterfall would have been unacceptable. On some level, people would have begun to sense these things that are incorrect. It also would have been unacceptable within the parameters of perfection that the builders of the Matrix required. Worst of all- although it was unlikely, it is possible that such an object could have been analysed by a human with the right computational equipment, who would have then discovered that the waterfall's shape was somehow being determined by a mathematical equation. Unacceptable- just as unacceptable as the possiblity that it would be observed as the shame shape twice.
"So the waterfall had to be truly simulated- and a programme that was truly random created. And that is very, very hard. Randomness is very difficult for a machine. And the code for it is very complex, perhaps out of all proportion to the object's significance."
[Castor was perceptive with his comment on the complexity of such an object as water. If he had mentioned randomness as part of that complexity Melitus would have been happy indeed...]
"i'm still skeptical." says Rade
"a waterfall's shape has technically possibility of being the same twice in x trillion times. That chance exists everywhere...like the real world.
It's shape is determined by two variables, wich are simulated perfectly within the matrix also: velocity and gravity. those determine the trajectory of every particle within the waterfall.
And why analyse it only from the visual point of view.
a chicken has to have the simplest decision making ability. It has to think, even though to a very basic level, but the process is there still.
I think that that making an object simulate a normal brain activity is harder than randomness.
OR, i might say that, considering that the chicken's reaction is different to those stimuli, there is a random process involved here also. He won't act to the same stimuli the same way twice..."
"But it will act within the same parameters each time," says Melitus. "It is entirely incorrect to call any action of a chicken random. We can create AIs of startling complexity; a chicken is child's play.
"A waterfall's shape IS random. No matter what the underlying metaphysic of the world, that makes it far harder to simulate.""
"You seem to be making two faulty assumptions here. First of all, that 'the rules of physics' are in themselves not something with a huge random variant inside that it is impossible to mathematically predict. As it is, they are. Physics in the physical world, in creating a waterfall, create an object that defies predictable analysis. In the real world, you can only predict the motion of a waterfall if you know all the starting variables, which no-one can ever do, hence it effectively being random.
Secondly, you forget that programming these enormously complicated variables- rules of motion, inertia, gravity, temparature, correct interaction between two molecules of water amidst the billions of others- is phenomenally more complex than creating the highly simplistic artificial mind of a chicken. Your error is in thinking that living nature is always more complex than non-living nature. This is a considerable mistake.
The amount of effort that went into making sure that waterfall acts correctly is far greater than the effort required to accurately simulate the chicken. A chicken will act as a human expects it to act with far, far fewer rules being applied than a waterfall."
weeell....tricky there....how would an inmate EXPECT something from a chicken..when he's never really seen one (and here we go into mouse's theory about tastey weats (sp.) )..but this is a different topic i assume.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
"You speak as if the things these underlying metaphysics produce in these instances are predictable. They are not. Those particles do not act in a predictable manner- neither in the physical world, nor in the Matrix."
well..if you take the rules you stated (rules of motion, inertia, gravity, temparature, correct interaction between two molecules...etc) AND the huge computing potential of the machines into consideration, i'd say they are predictable.
And those laws of physics produce random outcomes in a case like this, Dexx. I am not intending to spend hours arguing chaos theory with you but your view that everything can be predicted in these matters is Victorian! Unless you are of the opinion that there is no such thing as randomness.
But even so, Melitus' point was that in that it needs to have a perfect simulation of ALL these highly complex laws, the amount of effort that goes into coding a proper waterfall is far in excess of that that goes into coding a proper chicken.