Matrix is a nice metaphor, but what exactly does it mean?
If it only means that there is some lower level below us, something like ones and zeroes in a computer memory, I agree—we are constructed from quarks and similar particles, which we don’t see in normal life. By scientific theories and experiments, we can discover these elementary particles, just like people living in a computer simulations could experimentally discoves some basic properties of their universe. Are we just using “computer” as a metaphor for “physics”?
There is more in the movie Matrix metaphor. It says that there are intelligent beings outside of this universe, and that this universe was designed and is manipulated to fulfill their goals. It also says that there are bugs in this program, which allow people to do magic, win against these intelligent creators and escape outside.
Note that the manipulation is necessary for the metaphor, because if this universe is just a fair simulation of physical laws, there is no difference from being a real universe. We can discuss whether a simulated universe has the same “qualia” as the original one, but the point is that if the simulation is exact, then the same things will happen in both universes, therefore your suspicion of being in a simulation is useless, and you cannot break out of the simulation any more than “2+2=4″ could break out of your calculator. And psychologically speaking, the manipulation and possiblity of escape is what makes all this Matrix discussion interesting, isn’t it? If you say “let’s assume that some aliens outside of our universe made a detailed movie of it, and are watching it now, so in some sense we both exist in the reality and as a movie stars” that’s boring. It would not motivate you to do anything differently.
The motivation in the Matrix movie did not make sense—even if the basic idea wouldn’t contradict thermodynamics, the machines would have made a smarter choice by using pigs instead of humans. Let’s say that instead of energy they would harvest human thoughts. (We could assume machines that don’t understand their own design, can’t build a machine-friendly AI, so making a simulation for humans and letting them solve problems is useful for them.) Even so, it would be completely stupid to make a simulation where people can break the rules simply by the power of their imagination or will or whatever. How exactly is the gravity simulation routine programmed that when Neo simply thinks “I believe I can fly” strongly enough, the simulator will change the gravity vector of Neo’s body? And by the way, if the Agents can posess anyone in the Matrix, why can’t they simply possess Neo (instead of running after him) or why can’t they simply kill him? Why can’t agents do the same kind of magic and make Neo levitate helplessly in the air? Why shoot at Neo when levitating any object could kill him just as well? Simply, why the simulation constrains the machines to some rules, but not Neo? It does not make sense, except as the classical paranoid setting—an enemy that is both omnipotent and omniscient, but at the same time kind of stupid and helpless against an adversary who knows.
The difference between “Matrix hypothesis” and “simulation hypothesis” is that the former is a pseudo-scientific justification for whatever, while the latter adds up to normality. This world may be real or simulated, but the rules remain the same, so you should not care; what difference does it make whether the quarks are simulated by computer, if the simulation if flawless? If the simulation has flaws, they may appear as new physical laws and maybe we can use them to extract some energy—so in this sense it is useful to look for them, but it falls under the umbrella of particle physics. (A simulation hypothesis is not helpful here, unless it contains details about how exactly are we simulated and what kind of bugs can we expect in the simulation.)
Matrix is a nice metaphor, but what exactly does it mean?
If it only means that there is some lower level below us, something like ones and zeroes in a computer memory, I agree—we are constructed from quarks and similar particles, which we don’t see in normal life. By scientific theories and experiments, we can discover these elementary particles, just like people living in a computer simulations could experimentally discoves some basic properties of their universe. Are we just using “computer” as a metaphor for “physics”?
There is more in the movie Matrix metaphor. It says that there are intelligent beings outside of this universe, and that this universe was designed and is manipulated to fulfill their goals. It also says that there are bugs in this program, which allow people to do magic, win against these intelligent creators and escape outside.
Note that the manipulation is necessary for the metaphor, because if this universe is just a fair simulation of physical laws, there is no difference from being a real universe. We can discuss whether a simulated universe has the same “qualia” as the original one, but the point is that if the simulation is exact, then the same things will happen in both universes, therefore your suspicion of being in a simulation is useless, and you cannot break out of the simulation any more than “2+2=4″ could break out of your calculator. And psychologically speaking, the manipulation and possiblity of escape is what makes all this Matrix discussion interesting, isn’t it? If you say “let’s assume that some aliens outside of our universe made a detailed movie of it, and are watching it now, so in some sense we both exist in the reality and as a movie stars” that’s boring. It would not motivate you to do anything differently.
The motivation in the Matrix movie did not make sense—even if the basic idea wouldn’t contradict thermodynamics, the machines would have made a smarter choice by using pigs instead of humans. Let’s say that instead of energy they would harvest human thoughts. (We could assume machines that don’t understand their own design, can’t build a machine-friendly AI, so making a simulation for humans and letting them solve problems is useful for them.) Even so, it would be completely stupid to make a simulation where people can break the rules simply by the power of their imagination or will or whatever. How exactly is the gravity simulation routine programmed that when Neo simply thinks “I believe I can fly” strongly enough, the simulator will change the gravity vector of Neo’s body? And by the way, if the Agents can posess anyone in the Matrix, why can’t they simply possess Neo (instead of running after him) or why can’t they simply kill him? Why can’t agents do the same kind of magic and make Neo levitate helplessly in the air? Why shoot at Neo when levitating any object could kill him just as well? Simply, why the simulation constrains the machines to some rules, but not Neo? It does not make sense, except as the classical paranoid setting—an enemy that is both omnipotent and omniscient, but at the same time kind of stupid and helpless against an adversary who knows.
The difference between “Matrix hypothesis” and “simulation hypothesis” is that the former is a pseudo-scientific justification for whatever, while the latter adds up to normality. This world may be real or simulated, but the rules remain the same, so you should not care; what difference does it make whether the quarks are simulated by computer, if the simulation if flawless? If the simulation has flaws, they may appear as new physical laws and maybe we can use them to extract some energy—so in this sense it is useful to look for them, but it falls under the umbrella of particle physics. (A simulation hypothesis is not helpful here, unless it contains details about how exactly are we simulated and what kind of bugs can we expect in the simulation.)
In other words: If you believe that we live in Matrix, what testable predictions do you make that you wouldn’t have made otherwise?