Matrix- Would U Actually want to get out of the Matrix??

You don't, can't have the slightest idea. There isn't a single perceptual input that cannot be deceived by some stretch of the imagination. Though of course it is manifestly more likely that your senses are NOT being deceived (for a situation in which they are is more complex than a situatioin in which they are not and never assume more complexity than necessary) so unless you have good reason to think otherwise, best to trust your senses.

So you can only talk in the abstract in this sort of situation. Yes, people would rather not be deceived but they can only talk about this in a "If I were" fashion, something we have the luxury of doing with The Matrix as it is a fictional world and its creators can decidedly state what is true and what is not, and we can talk about whether the people in it would want to make the choice to leave or the choice to stay in happier ignorance. In reality, if you were being deceived you would never know it and the question would never be asked.

So here is my new point then. Would you leave what you KNOW is real. What you haven grown up in and explain. All for the promise of what KUNG Fu. I can see where Cypher was coming from.

I personally would still leave though because i do not being lied too and i am way to curious for my own good.

People simply do not like to be deceived, is all. They are willing to put up with some considerable hardship in return for not being so. It seems to be the pattern of human behaviour.

No, the truth is NOT relative. Facts are not relative. If, say, an accident happened, it happened in a very specific definite way. Witnesses may disagree on various details, but they are just witnesses, and what they disagree on is not the accident but how they PERCEIVED the accident.
The point is, that facts and reality exists without us humans. And our perception of reality. Reality does not depend on us to be. If the human species had never evolved, the world would still spin around the sun, which would spin around the centre of the galaxy. The Moon would orbit the sun and so on and so forth.

What is real? Remember the old question: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, will it still make a sound? The answer is “yes”, because sound is nothing but vibrations in matter. The vibrations are there, whether or not anyone happens past the falling tree.
What is real is independent of human perception and subjective interpretation of facts and events. So, likewise, is the truth. There is only ONE reality, ONE truth for each event or each instant in time and space. They are objective. Opinions, on the other hand, are subjective, and there can be many for each event in time and space.

I think you and I said pretty much the same thing didn't we, Omega?

that was brilliant, i have been looking for a good indicator of truth and reality. Congrats very good

Ush> Yes, just different ways of saying that. And the (accursed) Moon orbits the Earth. Someone shoot me, please 🙂

i was under the impression that this topic was about whether you would want to get out of the matrix and be born in the "real" world. i'd say that i wouldn't because life in the "matrix" is good and you're so innocent and have no idea what is actually happening.

That IS what it is about. And that is what we are talking about...

oh good. well i wouldn't want to go out of the matrix.

Member> The question (as I see it at least), is more of the sort: If you were given the chance to learn the truth, would you want to? We now KNOW the movies and the setting of the movie, so we know what the red pill/blue pill entail. But suppose you’re just told this world is an illusion, and you were given a chance to see the truth and it was NOT the Matrix-setting. Then what?

(Edit🙂 btw: I'd still want to get out. I do not like to be deceived.

i say free all human and rebuild the real world (i'd stay in the real world)

The Matrix ownz fool. All u gotta do is get rid of all the machines and agents. THen living in the matrix would be utopia. They could even change it back to like the first matrix where every thing is perfect. Then there would be no death, no disease, no starvation. They should find a way to download our conscience into the matrix, so we wouldnt need our mortal bodies and live forever. It would be exactly like heaven.

After Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus gets rid of all the machines, they should just have every1 jack into the matrix forever.

Humans reject a perfect Matrix, though.

I disagree with the idea of absolute truth. There is the truth that each of us perceives and holds to be true. And, there is the larger set of truths that we all (mostly) agree on and that is what we call reality. If absolute truth exists, I believe it is beyond humanity to know it - or even perceive it. To overcome the single point of view that we are is a monumental task.

To take Omega's and Ush's analogy of witnesses to an accident: Each of the witnesses speak from their personal truth - what they perceived. What all of them together (and those on the outside) agree upon may become the agreed upon truth or "reality", but that may or may not be absolute truth. Heck, that which is the agreed upon reality may not even change the minds of each witness as to what the truth is! Aboslute truth would require the sum of all possible points of view without disagrement or incosistency. That does not seem possible for any individual in this world. That's more of a God thing - To me, definitely not of this world.

However, it begs a point. Now we have a parallel between the question at hand - the blue pill or the red one as it pertains to the Matrix. Instead of asking whether or not we wish to leave the matrix, let's make the question relevant to this world: Do you want to submit to the agreement we call reality, or do you want to question it, prod it, poke it and find your own answer? The warnings and plot twists the W Bros put in M2 still pertain. Just like the Matrix, when "The One" questions the current reality and gets enough people looking at it in a critical eye, society and civilization either evolves into something more solid, or it is destroyed and a new reality - a new civilization is spawned.

Hmm?

In the Matrix, I'd take the red pill. In this reality, I already have...

Archpublican, you are mis-reading what myself and Omega say. We do not care what the witnesses AGREE on. The point is that no matter WHAT the witnesses say, only ONE thing happened. Maybe NONE of them saw it right. Maybe the aggregate of what they believe is utterly different from what DID happen. But that does not CHANGE what happened, even if no-one knows what it is.

This is simple fact. Truth is objective, not relative; things happen independant of their observation. Disbelieve that all you like but you will be wrong.

"Do you want to submit to the agreement we call reality, or do you want to question it, prod it, poke it and find your own answer?"

Strikes me as mostly irrelevant. The question at hand is the ine relevant to this thread- and riases more than wnough relevant philosophical implications- so we will stick to that.

Actually Ush, I am not mis-reading your position: I am disagreeing with it.

Absolute truth and reality are not so simple. Your argument is that only the one thing happens and witnesses are irrelevant.

Yet, there is a theory in modern physics called “parallel universes” which the Wachowski Bros visually portray in the in W2’s room with the Architect. Simplified, this theory means that each time we are faced with a problem, an infinite number of real responses occur, but only one or the "sum" of those infinite reactions survives in a single history line. In the case of the room with the Architect, those weren't illusions of Neo displayed on the monitors - they were reactions from alternate Neos: actual reactions albeit outside the continuing history line we follow. We we that only Neo's choice - the one we see coming from him and not just on the monitors had relevance and survived in the particular history line we would call real. ALL history lines exist, but reality is simply the history line we choose to follow. Neo’s choice in that room was not the most probable and was not the one the Architect expected based on his logical program. And, Neo changed the projected history line at that point.

So, physicists and the Wachowski Bros. would disagree with your argument that “only the one thing happens.” It’s more like, only that one thing survives in any given reality. But, we don’t have to choose that reality.

Also, in quantum mechanics, it has been shown that the presence or absence of an observer can change the outcome of an event. For example, when scientists fire electrons at a target with two holes side by side, a wave like interference pattern appears behind the two holes. However, if they put a detector in the circuit, the waves collapse into particles and what was indeterminate without an observer becomes determinate - the electron hits only one of the two holes. The system has changed because a selection of one of the holes means the interference pattern is gone. The system changes based on whether or not there is an observer and whether that observer is looking at the scene or behind the scene. Heady stuff, I know. I've been trying to wrap my neurons around it for years.

IMHO, it seems we should care what witnesses agree upon because tacitly we enter into these agreements. We've taken them for granted and believe them to be true whether they are or not! That's the core of the matrix philosophy. That’s what it’s all about.

In M1, why do recently freed minds always fail the "jump program?" Because of agreements with reality they've entered into. Isn’t it a greater reality that they can make the jump? Of course.

Becoming rigid on simple, assumed facts and calling alternate points of view wrong is close-mindedness. 21st century philosophers like Bernard Lonergan (possibly the most accomplish philosopher of this century and the foremost when it comes to perception, knowledge and truth) and most physicists since the 1930's would disagree with the existence of absolute truth.

My question and its relevance stands. As a matter of fact, since the red pill vs. blue pill is conjecture that is quite fanciful and removed from our current existence, the one I pose about questioning reality is closer to home and is a wonderful indicator on whether you'd ever get to the red pill/blue pill question in the first place - and what your real response might be.

Look at Neo in M1 and the Kid in Animatrix. The first hint that they would find their way out of the Matrix and chose to leave it was their soulful questioning of reality.

Ush, you say you'd take the red pill, but you’re discouraging the questioning of reality? Please don't try to close us down. In eastern philosophy, the goal is to be in peace. Yet, an even higher state is to let others be.

Philosophical and scientific evidence seems to indicate that any absolute is foreign to this world of matter, energy, space and time. Absolute truth may exist, but it is highly improbable in this universe. So, question those things that can lead to change and don't accept those assumptions that put a stop to the quest.

So, do you – hell, can you question reality? Poke it, prod it and find your own answers? Can you find or make a new reality?

Do you like green eggs and ham?

Neo is the Six:

The reason why the utopia of the first matrix failed can be found in something called the game theory.

Basically, the thought is that human's need the game: They need a playing field, a goal, and of course obstacles and/or adversaries to overcome. Tree huggers see that if the playing field goes away the game of life is over. Sportsman see that without the possiblity of reaching a goal the game is useless. Philosphers see that without obstacles and adversaries we cannot grow. When we stop growing, we start dying.

Without a game, life as we know it cannot exist.

Archpublican, you are still wrong. No amopunt of talks of parallel universes- INCLUDING from physicists- in any way alters the concept of absolute truth. Parallel universes are irrelevant to the point that in a given accident in a given timeline the thing only happened ONE way, and mistakes witnesses make in reporting the one way it happened do not change that. This should be patently obvious. One of my best friends is a highly qualified degree level physicist and would be aggrieved at your complete misinterpretation of indeterminacy that you quoted. That does not change absolutel truth, it simply states that events are not certain until they interact with the universe (to think otherwise is to grossly misinterpet what they mean by 'observe'. It has nothing to do with whether people are looking at it. Interaction with the universe is the important bit). It would make no difference to the accident example at all.

That bad science now dealt with... the point still remains that what witnesses describe does not change what actually happened and nothing you say or do can alter that VERY simple concept.

I do not WANT any other question here, I want it kept on topic and your wandering prevarication there does not impress me. Your posed question is too far from the subject for it to be useful to most readers.

Archpublican> What kind of pseudo-science are you into? There is no such thing in modern physics as parallel universes. For the following simple reasons:
If there were a parallel Universe ours can either interact with it or it can’t. If the latter is the case, then nothing that transpires in our Universe had any influence on what happens in the other and vice versa. For all purposes we may simply disregard it. IF it can interact with our Universe we should be able to see it. If something CAN take place, especially in quantum physics, it will. Sooner or later. We do not see matter or energy vanish (into another Universe) which we can’t account for, we don’t see matter or energy suddenly appearing.
If you’re into string-theory, then please read the latest news. This far there have been NO evidence, whatsoever, for teh existence of other DIMENSIONS (which, btw, is something completely different from parallel Universe, and the dimensions in questions are on the quantum scale, that is, smaller than the radii of a proton).
Then you may be talking about the various theories of time-travel. That each possibility splits of another Universe. That is bogus. Imagine the kind of energy required to create a duplicate of the entire Universe, just because I’m trying to decide whether to wear a skirt or pants. There is absolutely zero proof for that theory, it is very un-scientific in as much, as it asserts too much in an attempt to make time-travel possible. Which, btw., all current evidence points against. (Please se Stephen Hawking on Time Travel).
Then, of course, you may be talking quantum physics, and e.g. the double-split experiment, But let me assure you, that there are not TWO particles, the quanta simply has the ability to change between being a particle and a wave at leisure.
So even armed with the theory of relativity (which states that time and space are relative, NOT multiple) and quantum physics (quantas can be waves and particles), we’re still left with: ONLY one thing happens at each event in space-time.
And, yes. I do know what I’m talking about.