"Actually they do," says Melitus, "but not in the way you are thinking."
Now, before I carry on, we are approaching a kind of last-chance checkpoint. There has been a lot of information going around to be considered and assimilated. There are, though a few problems; for a start, I think some people have been tempted to argue the parameters of the simulation rather than address the issues concerned- this does not score. As I said at the start, I am not interested in literal notions of right or wrong but in the end this whole game, like all my games, rests upon my interpretation of things, and the film's interpretation of things. Like I will not accept cortosis weaponry in any Star Wars game of mine due to my interpretation of Star Wars (nor will I accept a revolving door policy with the Dark Side), likewise there are facets of the implementation of the Matrix that are not really worthwhile arguing- like the thing about AIs being alive. In 'real' life you could endlessly debate the possibility of whether such life is really life- but not in the Matrix universe, as that is an assumption of the franchise, certainly as far as I am concerned because I feel it to be self-evident from the films.
I also feel we have two problems with feeling trapped- first of all, that Melitus is trying to trick you into thinking something. He is not. There are things he would rather you thought, but it may surprise you to know that virtually none of you are doing so, despite your suspicions that Melitus argued you into a corner on some issues. Melitus simply needs to know your opinions. Secondly, as I addressed before, some players are feeling trapped by their own logic. I very much suspect that Rade and Castor are both professing a belief that Matrix decisions- and their decision to leave the Matrix- are invalid, when actually you believe no such thing at all!
A lose analogy is thius. Say you develop a forumla that tells you exactly how many matches there are in an unopened matchbox. It tells you there are 25. You open the matchbox and there are 27. Now, you can either believe that although it looks like there are 27, there are actually 25, or- and rather more sensibly- you can believe that one of the components of the forumula must be wrong. Now, you might check the formula 1000 times and not see the problem- but you still have to concede that where your logic has led you is incorrect. Far better to say "this is not right... but I really don't know why" than to say "Well, I guess there are 25 after all!"
Yes, it is not good that you cannot logically justify your argument; it introduces an inconsistency in what you have been saying. It is far worse, though, to simply force yourself to believe what you do not. In the context of how the Philosophy section works, that is staggeringly unhelpful- it might even get you killed...
Also, some other points made I have difficulty believing. Judging by Fire's previously professed virtues of loyalty and gratitude, I simply do not believe he does not believe in such a thing as friendship. I believe his 'I cannot prove it' comments are a smokescreen and hence are a failure to engage.
This is a bit cheap of me to do so... but as there are some difficulties... we have gone through the following points:
1. Decisions in the Matrix- valid or not? (reflexive answer is yes, for a variety of reasons you all stated) But- False information means false choices. The Matrix is false. Does that not make all decisions in there false? Logically speaking it seems to be. But what about your decision to leave? Could that really be false?
Now, there is plenty of room- even justified room- to say yes... but do you think my intention at this point was to force you all to think that? I think two of you have done that, in thinking that is the only reasonable conclusion to reach, rather than actually adopting a philosophical stance in which that would be so. Melitus then showed you the counterargument, and soon you all agreed that large parts of what goes on in the Matrix fall outside of what would be considered false.
Incidentally, Rade and Castor... the first and second films should be of GREAT help to you in this matter...
2. We also talked a lot about difference- first defining it, and then applying it. This caused some controversy, as indeed it was meant to. This is where the parameters of the scenario came under attack. Perceptually speaking Melitus tells you that a waterfall is more complicated than a chicken. This happens to be true in the real world, I was surprised it found such challenge... but the idea was meant to show you that when it came to simulation, building things that were meant to be alive was FAR from the most complicated bit. Simulation is an awkward business. Problem is, a lot of people are getting bogged down in the science of it- rather the the philosophy or metaphysics. This is an error. Conceptually speaking, a waterfall is a vastly more complicated object than a chicken! That physically speaking it is about 1000 times simpler- being only water, after all- is not really the point.
I am worried that some of you, having formed some problematic inconsistencies, are going to be in serious trouble come the final conundrum. So, before we shut the door of no return- when we start to discuss the painting- I want everyone to take some time to go over their answers and ask any questions to Melitus now, as if they were being addressed at the time...
"Our choice to leave the matrix must be valid, It seems inconsistent to believe it wasnt. So if our logic is correct then there must be somethingabout that specific decision that made it different than all the other false choices we were making before. The question is what anomoly can make a decision go from invalid to valid?
I would venture to say that, and I think we established, that a decision based on false information is false. But when does a decision become complete? Is it upon completion of the action or upon the decision to perform the action?
I would say the fore because until the action is completed the decision can be changed? Would you agree meltius?"