Ay, ay counsellor Harma… ehrm… Ushgarak.🙂 Sometimes you simply have to break an argument down into parts. That up there was part one: No parallel Universe. Next step would be, only one thing happening pr space-time event. The third: Then there will be a real world and a virtual world… and we’re back on topic!
Parallel Universes, whether true or not were represented in the Matrix movie. I thought that's what these threads addressed? Check out the article on Parallel Universes in the May 2003 Issue of Scientific American:
sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000
But, don't take any theory too seriously people, they're just mental exercises to give us a better understanding of reality. There is a difference between theoretical or mathematic models of the real world and the world itself. Not just with inaccuracies in the models which would be an obvious difference, but models are just simplifications. The only real accurate theory of the universe would be the universe itself.
But, parallel universe theory has nothing to do with time travel nor are such parallel universes to be confused with dimensions. Does the fact that things lie outside our event horizon mean they don't exist?
I don't doubt you know what you are talking about Omega. But, that's my point. There are millions of points of view, and each of us are but one. However, you and Ush can no more prove the existence of absolute truth then you could prove the existence of God. Both are far from the realm of science and perception and in the realm of faith.
You're right Ush, I cannot change the concept of absolute truth, after all it is only an idealistic concept that cannot be perceived only imagined. It only exists as far as we know in the world of ideas. If I changed it, it woud be just another idealistic concept - but not absolute truth. But, I'm not trying to address idealist concepts, I'm trying to address the Matrix and how it pertains to our realities and the choices we make as addressed in this particular thread.
Questioning reality was in the matrix. It is germain to this discussion. Why is that verbotten? Ush, if you've some power or authority over this thread or these forums, please explain that relationship to me off list.
But, your reactions seem way beyond the blue pill and the red pill, take a chill pill. Spouting off who's right and who's wrong and what questions can be addressed sounds a bit obsessive. Running a trace program? Sending agents after us if we address even a closely related question?
Give us a break.
Absolute truth is not an idealistic concept to the rational mind- it is simply logic.
I am a mod here, Archpublican, and it is part of my jopb to keep these things germane and to the point. This thread is actually relatively simple- it is nothing to do with soulful insights on reality. Merely on whether it is worth leaving the Matrix for the depressing real world. Try not to complicate that.
Interesting. You actually started the digression of this non-germane discussion of objective truth in your posting in this thread on 06-11-2003 at 01:43 AM!
Anyway, I applaud you. Logic is a method and theoretical logic like absolute truth is an expression of it's highest form in my opinion.
But, physics and metaphysics are both subjects which merit the employment of logic. The dividing point is defined by whether a theory is experimentally testable, not by whether it is weird or involves unobservable entities.
So, Ush wants us to simply answer whether we would chose the matrix or the real world. But, you cannot employ any soulful insight of reality in coming up with your answer!
When talking decoherence and ergodicity, one will surely be met with incoherence and egocentricity. <grin!>
Actually, objective truth was directly relevant, Archpublican. I could directly state that people would want to leave the Matrix because what they were experiencing was not objective truth- that is how simple and direct it was.
I simply do not want the subject taken to too obscure a length- of all the philosophical debates here, this is the simplest- pleasurable deceit versus hard truth. I felt you were straying ntoo far from that subject, especially when you got onto parralel universes.
Parallel Universes are NOT employed by the Matrix. A virtual world is not a parallel Universe. It is simply a virtual reality, distinguishable from a “real” reality by its employment of programming, codes etc. No one programmed the real world, the real world simply is.
And popular science magazines love time-travel, faster than light travels, teleport and other sci-fi subjects, like any science-fiction fan. At the bottom of the link-page you submitted it says “So far, however, the evidence is against them.” Them being the two people advocating this theory, and I agree. There is zero evidence for such a theory.
Theories are fine, scientist probing the frontiers of reality is all fine and dandy and how science and our understanding evolves. But taking a hypothesis as basis for an argument doesn’t work. As long as the hypothesis isn’t tested it’s just… a mind game.
And things beyond a event horizon DO exist, they’re just not able to interact with us. This far, though, the only event horizons that exist are around black holes. You could go further and argue, that galaxies that have moved beyond our vision have such horizons, too, but with the current work on wormholes I wouldn’t say it’s a proper word.
Each person can have his or her own opinion. They’re just not all equal in standing. If a doctor of medicine claims a pill works, and a farmer says no, I’ll trust the doctor for example. Knowledge is the basis of understanding, and a claim is worth nothing, if you can’t prove it or point to facts of nature.
And when I speak of TRUTH here, I speak of it in the sense of facts. That only one event can happen pr space-time, independent of human observation. Otherwise we soon move to the field of metaphysics and strange philosophy, that somehow claims the Universe gives a damn whether or not we exist. A species of intelligent apes on a tiny tiny planet, in a normal galaxy among billions? Hardly.
“But, physics and metaphysics are both subjects which merit the employment of logic.”
Now that is an odd sentence. Physics is BUILD on logic. Metaphyics isn’t. Hence it’s name.
And the point here is, whether or not you’d want to stay in the Matrix or get out, and WHY you’d choose either way. Or simply choose the truth?
Omega: You obviously didn't get past the introducton in the article on parallel universes. I thought the Sciam article was quite cool. And, you might want to watch the Artictect scene again in M2. But, we can move off that point at Ush's request. Still, it's an intriguing article.
However, you say "Physics in BUILDS on logic. Metaphysics isn't. Hence it's name." Metaphysics means "beyond physics." As I said, logic is an intellectual method, a type of formal reasoning that can be applied to most any subject. Plato in the 400s BCE was one of the first to strongly portray the metaphysical concept that the ideal world - the world of immutable ideas was more real that the world we perceive. His biggest metaphysical concept was absolute truth.
So, you disagree with Ush? Absolute truth isn't logic?
Yet, the question at hand isn't about truth, it's about whether you would leave the matrix to the world of Zion like Neo and Sipher did.
I would leave the Matrix not because of any concept of the truth, but because it would expand the game I live it. I could live in the world of Zion and I could go into the Matrix too! Leaving would involve a greater challenge and an ability to gain a greater mastery over my environment. To me, it's not about truth, it's about self control. Thus, outside the Matrix I would have more freedom, and more choice to command my own destiny.
In the Matrix, I would be constantly at the risk and whim of the AI and the agents. The Merovingian seems to have left the Matrix, and he sure appears to have a good time when he plugs back in.
Archpublican> And you obviously didn’t get my point. And what the Architect does in M2, or what happens in that scene is hardly proof of anything in regards to objective truth.
We can agree on what metaphysics means if you translate it directly, but I’m sure you’re not claiming it’s the frontiers of science.
Plato had funky ideas, so did many of the venerable philosophers of Ancient Greece. Sure they did. They did, however conceive their ideas, without the knowledge of how the Universe is, that we have today. History is full of thoughts and religions that somehow tried to make mankind and important part of the PURPOSE of the Universe and/or reality. Today we know better. I’m not advocating against philosophy, conscience is an odd thing to say the least.
I don’t know how “absolute truth” sneaked it’s way into this debate. We’re talking “objective truth” here. As in, can you distinguish the matrix from the real world? What is real? The point being, that in the movies there IS a real and a virtual, and would you want to leave the latter for the former, even if it was more comfortable?
I still would. Not because I was making my way to the top of Maslows pyramid, but because I adhere to the old saying “the truth will set you free.”
Ojective truth and absolute truth are synonomous. Relative truth is from our view point as observers, and objective truth is considered absolute as the theory goes...
I thougth "the truth will set your free" referred to telling the truth? You know, when caught in a tangled web of deciet, the truth will set you free?
What happens in M3 if what we thought was the true, real world outside of the Matrix turns out to be virtual? Does that mean that the truth is now false?
of course you would want to leave the matrix it isn't real.
i world without borders and boundries, not just the fact that you can fly but the mental restrants that we all live under.
deadlines exam pressures and relationship worries. in the matrix they are all multiplied in the real world you are free
red pill back real world blue pill back to the matrix
Objective is not synonymous with absolute. What, pray tell, is the difference between truth and absolute truth? The good Einstein for example told us there is no such thing as absolute space and absolute time. It does not mean either does not exist objectively.
To me “the truth will set you free” means a lot more than just telling it. The truth of history doesn’t care what I may say, but learning what really happened gives me, personally, a deep sense of satisfaction. The same goes for facts of life. I would prefer to know it if my husband cheated on me, if my friends betrayed me. Or, as the case is here, if my entire life was just an illusion. It’s a paramount step towards total freedom.
Or, since you like the word, absolute freedom 🙂
And if it turns out that Zion is another program, Ush answered that quite eloquently.
Trinity> Huh? Say again?
According to the dictionary, objective in this case means "independent of the perception of any particular mind or minds." Absolute in this case also means what the thing or event actually is - completely independent of what it might appear to any or all of us. That's what I mean by the two phrases being synonomous. Not the words objective and absolute, but the phrases as they relate to this specific metaphysical topic.
However, all our knowledge, beliefs, history - even our computerized analysis of data goes through the subjective filtering of our senses, our memories, our imaginations, our judgment, etc. All to some extent subjective. Objectivity - like Einstien's notions of absolute spacetime may exist - just not in the realm of this physical universe occupied by us humans. My point is not that they cannot exist, but that they cannot be perceived and are thus a matter of faith, metaphysics, ideals or whatever you want to call them.
If objectivity exists - and the religions side of me hopes it does - it is in the realm of faith not in the physical universe.
Even Scientific Method itself does not have pretensions regarding truth. A good scientific theory is only the best case scenario at the time and only valid until it is proven wrong. According to this widely accepted method, scientific theories can be bolstered by supporting evidence, but never proven true: Only proven wrong when that one contradictory case is satisfactorily tested and documented.
My comment about the "real" world of the matrix and truth is meant in this vein: If the only truth we can experience is subjective, we should alway test what we think is true and real, but as soon as we take it as absolute, we stop testing, stop learning, stop growing.
Ush said my example about if the "real" world is shown to be "virtual" in M3 only proved that the theory was wrong. Agreed. Yet, could it ever be proved true?
The only way a theory can be proved true is to see it tested in every event, from every angle, from every distance and every point in time both future and past. But, omnipresence and omniscience are traits normally reserved for God or limited to the realm of the heavnes. Yet, only in this way could we claim a theory or any perception is objetctively (or absolutely) true. We can believe things on faith. But, if we do so, we should understand what it is we are doing.
How do u play multieplayer mode in enter the matrix
How do u play multilayer mode in enter the matrix plez tell me if u know how pm me or e-mail me at [email protected]
good lord.
it's very late. i can't sleep. and i just read eight pages filled with very difficult vocabulary.
*sigh* unfortunately, i have a very strong stance on this issue and feel compelled to answer. i'll do what i can to answer this (seemingly) simple question -- hopefully i'll keep it simple so no one else reading this thread has to deal with metaphysics and the theory of relativity and the likes.
truth is objective.
if every single man, woman, child, creature, and living thing on this planet was BLIND, leaves on a summer tree would still be green and cherries would be red. regardless of wether we saw it that way or not. our perception does nothing, absolutely nothing, to change that (omega, i think your moon orbiting example hit on that as well).
similarly, if all 6 billion of us believed -- believed with all our hearts, to the point of saying we KNEW it to be true -- that elephants could fly, it would not make our statement true. perception means precisely squat in reality. objective, by definition, is not subjective. it sounds stupid, but think about that: someone's opinion on that car accident does mean the car accident happened that way. so no, their perception does not make a separate truth of their own -- it simply means they're wrong.
simply put (too late, i'm afraid), someone in here asked "what makes something real." the answer is, NOTHING. if it is real, it is real. if it is truth, it is truth. and objective truth wavers to nothing.
so, to answer the question.
anyone who chooses a perceived and utopian "reality" (the subjective truth) of the matrix over the reality (the objective truth) of the real world is simply a deficient human being. no fully developed ego, in the freudian/kohlberg sense, would choose the matrix over the real world.
it has nothing to do with fear of the matrix crashing. it has everything to do with "i cannot live in something that is false." if i was presented with the choice, but promised nothing would ever go wrong in the matrix, and promised that i would have -- i don't know -- no arms in the real world, i would still choose the real world.
someone raised the point of, what if you were some big shot with a great life in the matrix? well . . . better to be a lamb in heaven than a lion in hell, i say.
and so, my choice is and always will be the red pill. objective truth over subjective falsehood.
PS: ush, you remind me of my 11th grade theology teacher with all that objective vs. subjective talk.
two things i want to add to my own post:
first, when i said, "someone's opinion on that car accident does mean the car accident happened that way," i meant, "someone's opinion on that car accident DOESN'T mean the car accident happened that way."
second, a couple of you alluded to the story of the cave (plato, right?). i think it's a very appropriate story, especially in relation to the matrix. if you know the story, skip this set off passage below. if not, i'll save you the trouble of looking it up by explaining it as best as my memory serves me. . .
-----------------------------
what if, for our entire lives, we've been living in a cave? we've been strapped down so that we cannot move, and our heads can not turn anywhere. therefore, for our entire lives, all we can see is the cave wall in front of us. behind us on a ledge are men with a fire, casting shadows on the far cave wall that we can see (but not our own, since we are at the base of the ledge). whatever shadows they put up on that wall is reality to us. we never question it, because that's all there is. we are not aware that we are being shackled, because we were born like this. so these men have a strong control over what is truth TO US.
now say one day a man was let go. just up and released. he would have a hard time understanding the men with the fire behind him. to him, even though this was all strange and new, the shadows on the wall still represented reality. now say he left the cave, and went outside for the first time ever. it would take him some time to adjust to the sunlight. he would have to start by keeping his eyes closed. then only looking at the ground. then only seeing the sky's reflection in water. then, finally, he could look up at natural sunlight (in this case, the real truth. the objective truth. reality). he would see real trees, instead of a shadow of a tree, and so forth.
it would then be this man's duty, as a human being, to do what he could to free all the others in the cave from a false reality, and show them truth. they, of course, would be hard fought to accept this. they would hold on to their shadows as long as they could, bent to the idea that this is their reality because it's all they've ever known.
-------------------------
i just thought this story was a lot like the story of the matrix. morpheus even says in the first one that most people are so deep in the matrix that they would fight to save it. but, nevertheless, he would do all he could to show them truth. i mean, clearly it's a lot like what neo went through. he had a very difficult time grasping on to the concept, because he had been in the matrix for so long. but it is, however comforting to us, a world of shadows beyond our control and choice. regardless of its utopian aspect compared to the real world, it is not an ideal life to live.
again, i choose the red pill.
Nickjs21> Ah, I see we agree completely on the definitions on real, truth, objective and subjective.
” so, to answer the question.
anyone who chooses a perceived and utopian "reality" (the subjective truth) of the matrix over the reality (the objective truth) of the real world is simply a deficient human being. no fully developed ego, in the freudian/kohlberg sense, would choose the matrix over the real world.”
And this, exactly btw. is why the anomaly arises, since humans still, unconciously choose to the virtual world over the real world.
But the point here is whether or not YOU would chose to stay in the Matrix, or for that matter any virtual world. It doesn’t really help if you already KNOW that you’ll be unplugged learn “kewl” kung-fu and get to wear designer clothes. What, perhaps, is amazing, is that some people around here would chose the virtual world over the real world. Scary thought.