Month: October 2021

A World of Illusions

crimson

I started another post a week ago. It was about simulation, as it relates to the topic of simulacra. I hope to finish it at some point and continue that discussion. However, I may need to readdress the topic of simulacra at the same time, as I think my interpretation may still be problematic. That all said, personal life reared its ugly head, and that is why I’m only getting back to writing now.

As I get older, and hopefully wiser, I understand many things that I did not understand in my youth. I see things I could not see before. Those concerns I had as a child have not gone away. Instead, I can recognize them more, seeing the fine edges; the sharp edges.

We are still amid a global pandemic. To be clear, it may be well beyond a year, but the pandemic is still going strong. The COVID-19 virus is still running rampant through most populations. So why doesn’t it feel like it anymore? At least, it doesn’t to me. You see, where I live, cases are down pretty low. In my community, if anyone happens to be infected right now, they are not spreading it.

The local university students have been particularly problematic in this regard. There are restrictions and rules governing people’s behaviors and actions. For example, there are not supposed to be groups of more than 50 people congregating outside. So when those students hold gatherings in excess of 8000 people, there are concerns. They didn’t do this just once either. They held similar outdoor gathers over the course of two consecutive weekends. As the pandemic is ongoing, this should worry me, shouldn’t it?

I am concerned, because a group of people are voluntarily breaking this rule. A rule in place to protect the community from a virus. However, now that these parties have concluded, there has not been a significant increase in cases. The fear that large groups will “cause” an outbreak seem unfounded. Breaking the rule seems to have had no serious consequences.

It is possible we are all simply lucky. If there is no one infected among the 8000, then of course there will be no transmission. But then why the rule? The rule is in place “just in case.” If there were people infected, then the probability of infecting others goes up dramatically if people are congregating in these large groups. The rule is not in place to prevent a certain event, only a possible one.

It gets better. The reason many of these rules were implemented at the outset of the pandemic declaration were to give time for our various health care systems to prepare. That is, it takes time to train medical workers and care givers, to create beds and equipment, to make space for the grievously ill. The rules were in place not to prevent the spread of disease entirely, only to slow it. It has been over a year; have the appropriate preparations been made?

In my part of the world, the short answer is no. No preparations have been made. The health care system is firing on the same four cylinders it was at the beginning. Some new equipment has found its way into their hands, but that equipment is by and large disposable. No new staff. No new beds. No new space. What happened?

In truth, I don’t know. I’ve been trying to get by like so many others, primarily focused on myself and my family. My area of expertise is not medical, and neither is my partner’s. We do our part, following the rules and not requiring the health care system to attend to us. But we don’t contribute to that system directly either.

It seems to me that the current rules I am asked to exist under were created with the intention of buying time for society to prepare. However, the time to prepare has passed. Those decision makers appear to have confused rules to delay for rules to protect. That is, these current rules were not intended to prevent the spread of disease, only slow it down. But it seems like decision makers seem to think that the rules will prevent disease. The rules are no longer serving the purpose they were intended to serve.

Are we, as a society, expected to remain at home indefinitely? The decision makers will suggest this is not the case. Of course no one is being expected to remain at home indefinitely. In fact, we need people to get back to work (as the supply chain crisis is making clear). However, I am receiving conflicting information in this regard. Don’t congregate in large groups, for fear of spreading a disease, but do congregate in groups at work (as is necessary) to maintain the continuance of our consumerist society. So which is it?

There is no straight or simple answer here. This is a pandemic, and the truth is there is no cure. We cannot stop the disease. COVID-19 (and its various variants) will continue to be a part of our world indefinitely. I imagine these viruses will continue to exist in some form even when I am much, much older than now. Probably even beyond my expiry date.

What seems important now is not to perpetuate false hopes and insincere mandates. Not to become seduced by rule worship, where we all simply follow rules blindly for the sake of those same rules. The rules ought to be rules for a reason. If there is a rule commanding me to remain at home, there ought to be a logical and sound reason for me to remain at home. Not simply “stay home because the rules says so.” Something like “stay home because it will protect others from infection.” However, if that happens to be the reason to follow the rule, and no one in my community is infected, then the rule is serving no actual purpose.

The last point I wish to make here is with regard to the vaccinations and lethality. That is, do the vaccines serve their purpose? Are people who are vaccinated actually protected from being infected. The short answer is no. There are many people who have been fully vaccinated who have ended up in the hospital with serious, life threatening conditions. Having said that, the number of vaccinated people who end up in hospital is much, much less than the number of unvaccinated people. So vaccination does seem to provide some protection, and so yes, people ought to get vaccinated for that reason.

But what about lethality? That is, does being vaccinated reduce the probability of fatality? Evidence seems to suggest so. Those who are vaccinated are dying less than those who are not vaccinated. I know how statistics work, so I am well aware of the various ways this can be delineated. Yes, if you look at the proportion of total deaths, and then look at how many were vaccinated people and how many were not, you will see that the number of vaccinated people dying has certainly increased since the beginning of the pandemic. But that only makes sense because there were NO vaccinated people at the beginning of the pandemic, and now there are tons of vaccinated people. It only stands to reason that the number of vaccinated people dying will increase as there is an increase in the number of people vaccinated.

So what am I saying then? What I am saying is that OF the number of people who are vaccinated, the percentage of them that die is less than OF the number of unvaccinated people, the percentage of them that die. In other words, if you are vaccinated, the probability of you dying as a result of COVID-19 is much less than if you are unvaccinated. Meaning, remaining unvaccinated increases your risk of dying as a result of infection. Conversely, being vaccinated decreases your risk of dying as a result of infection. There is also evidence to suggest that being vaccinated may reduce the probability of becoming infected, but that evidence is less clear.

What I am getting at here is that, purely from an egoist perspective, it is in my own interest to be vaccinated, as it reduces the probability of me dying as a result of infection, if I happen to get infected. Furthermore, if I follow the current rules, I am also less likely to become infected, as I am staying at home and not interacting with other people. In other words, if I remain a hermit who has been vaccinated, I will have a very, very small risk of dying.

Unfortunately, this is where the egoist argument ends, because if we all are egoists, nothing will get done. That is, if I remain at home, I am not producing any products or providing any services. I am not working. All those lovely luxuries I take for granted have to come from somewhere. My running water. My electricity. My food. It is through the efforts of people that all these things happen. So some people will have to go to work and not remain at home being hermits. Some people will have to throw themselves into the line of fire.

In our modern world, it is often suggested that equality ought to be considered very important. That is, everyone ought to be treated equally. This is what is meant by Human Rights: if you are human, then you are entitled to these rights. If we all are entitled to these same rights, then in that way we are expected to be equal. For example, no one ought to be forced to throw themselves into the line of fire. If one voluntarily does so, that is their choice and we can commend them and thank them for doing so. But no one ought to be forced to do so…

So this ends up being about freedom. That people ought to be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves if they want to sacrifice themselves for the good of society. In North American societies, where consumerism and capitalism are greatly valued, where egoism is commonplace, who do we expect to sacrifice themselves? And, over time, if all those who sacrifice themselves eventually die off as a result of infection, all that will remain will be the egoists who remain at home, slowly dying as a result of lack of food.

As I see it, this is one ridiculously messy situation. The problem, it seems to me, is that our currently established culture and value system is of concern. The rules of society are the problem. Not just the rules themselves, but how those rules are established. Even how the decision makers are decided upon. The decision makers are the egoists. The “common people” are being forced to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the egoists. The wealthy and powerful remain at home (because they can) and ask those who cannot stay at home (the common people) to sacrifice themselves in order to perpetuate a society that is in slow decline and ruin.

The problem is class. The problem is wealth. The problem is… Me… I am the problem. For I see all of this. I worry about all of this. I have a skillset that employs me such that it does not require me to embed myself within the masses of people out in society. Don’t get me wrong, I am far from wealthy. And I am not a decision maker. But I have sufficient wealth to be able to get by safely.

I am down a rather deep rabbit hole presently. I often feel like there is no point to any of this. This world where we are all like hamsters on the big wheel, running very very fast and getting nowhere. But it isn’t like the hamster wheel, because we are not actually going nowhere, we seem to be going backward.

Everything we do simply makes the situation worse. Every problem we solve generates several more problems that need to be solved (and sometimes these new problems are much, much worse than the original problem). No one really benefits, though there is a minority out there that are certainly more comfortable than the rest of us.

I was once told a story about robots, constructed to perform mining operations on other planets. The robots mine ores and other materials, and then use those materials to create more mining robots. It is a practice of efficiency, where the population of mining robots grows, allowing them to mine materials faster over time. This all sounds lovely, but the question I would pose is “why?” Eventually, the robots will be so plentiful and the planets to mine so few, until there are no planets left. Then what? It is a pointless venture. And what do we do with all the robots at the end?

I was taught in philosophy that I ought to present an alternative before I criticize something. If I think the current system is bad (for whatever reason), I ought to offer an alternative system to be used in its place. The truth is, I have several. However, each of these alternatives is considered outrageous and unreasonable. For example, one of my alternatives during this pandemic is that the health care system ought to prioritize people who are vaccinated over those who are not. In fact, I would suggest that the health care system turn aware the unvaccinated entirely.

This requires some further explanation. It has been over a year since the pandemic began. It has been over six months since vaccines have been made available to the populations (at least in my part of the world). Those who support the existing system have had ample opportunity to get themselves vaccinated. Most of them have in fact been vaccinated at this point. The majority of those who remain unvaccinated have done so by their own choice. This entire situation is an expression of people’s freedom.

It is the health care system that has made vaccination possible. It is the health care system that has urged the populations to get vaccinated, in order to alleviate the preventable stress on the health care system itself. Getting vaccinated amounts to supporting or “buying into” the health care system. In other words, those who choose to get vaccinated are choosing to support the health care system. Conversely, those who choose not to get vaccinated are choosing not to support the health care system. If someone isn’t supporting the health care system, then why is the health care system supporting them?

The health care system is like insurance. Not everyone who purchases insurance ends up using insurance. It is a way for a group of people to work together toward assisting individuals. If everyone “buys into” insurance, then those few who need to use insurance coverage will have much more resources available to support their need. In the case of health care, if everyone “buys into” health care, those few individuals who need support can receive much better, and more expensive, support. This all works ONLY if most people who are supporting the system do not need to receive from that system. If everyone who buys in also needs support, then the system breaks down and each individual would be better off supporting themselves (generally, there still may be good reason to support such a system in order to equalize the support for those who are able to buy in less than others).

In our present situation, we have a large number of people supporting the health care system by getting vaccinated. We also have a significant number of people choosing not to support the health care system by not getting vaccinated. We also have a group of people who would like to get vaccinated but are unable (mostly small children at this point). What I suggest is that those who actively choose not to get vaccinated ought to be turned away by the very system they are not supporting. We don’t give insurance support to individuals who did not buy insurance, so why should this be any different?

The obvious controversy in this scenario is that it amounts to allowing thousands of people to simply die. (Also, the logistical nightmare in implementing such a process is likely untenable.) The value system we seem to have adopted is one suggesting that we do not allow humans to die. (I know people think we have adopted a system where all life is precious, but to them I suggest you start by investigating where your food comes from.) Thus, in order to implement this alternative solution, it would require a shifting in our current value system. We would have to reduce the prioritization of human life.

Is this a good solution? I’m sure many would think not. But I would point out that our current system, the manner in which we have already been running, thousands of people are already dying. Changing to this alternative system would likely not change the numbers of people dying (certainly not in the short term); it would really only change which people were dying. It would effectively reduce the lifespan of those who do not support the system.

Simulacra

crimson

It is time to elucidate my concept of simulacra. In reviewing Jean Baudrillard‘s version of simulacra, I realize that my perspective (while heavily influenced by his perspective) is probably not quite the same. My original intention today was to discuss his perspective, and then try to related it back to my ongoing topics. However, I realize now that the better approach is to discuss my perspective instead.

In short, for me a simulacra is akin to an imperfect copy of something whereby the original being copied no longer exists, and those who view the copy no longer realize the copy is a copy. There is a lot going on in this description, so I will break it down into parts and discuss each aspect individually.

The first aspect of a simulacra is that it is, in fact, a copy of something else. That is, at some point, in some distant way, the simulacra is related to something real. I will call this real thing the “original.” The original does or did exist. The original was a real thing, observed or experienced. The original is real, in some fashion.

However, the connection between the copy and the original is somehow disrupted. Perhaps the copy bears so little resemblance to the original that one is unable to connect the two together. Perhaps the original has been lost, through time and decay. Perhaps the original has been forgotten. Somehow, the connection between the copy and the original has been lost, so that the copy is all that remains to discuss, without an original to related it to.

The last aspect, which is critically important, is that the copy is no longer regarded as a copy. That is, for the observer, the copy is its own thing in reality. The copy possesses signification and meaning in itself without needing to relate back to the original. Without the knowledge that the copy is, in fact, a copy of something else, it becomes regarded as an original in its own right. This, for me, is when it becomes the simulacra.

This description belies a major problem: if no one knows the copy is a copy and is regarding the copy as its own original, real thing, then how does one come to realize it is a simulacra in the first place? After all, if we all believe the thing is real and original, then we would not suspect its dubious nature as simulacra. This is the point for me. This is the reason I consider the situation significant and in some sense malicious.

The best way to discuss this concept is going to be by discussing examples of simulacra. Due to their very nature, those examples I now present will be wrought with controversy. This will be because I cannot provide “hard evidence” to support my claims. If the evidence existed, then the examples wouldn’t be of simulacra, but instead of known artificial copies of things.

The example I most often raise in discussions of late is of gender. I believe gender is a simulacra. Gender, as I see it, is an imperfect copy of sex. Sex, being the physical description of a living entity, often incorrectly delineated as being either male or female, is a flawed manner used to describe certain aspects and traits of an entity. A male is usually considered to be the portion of the population that has the masculine sexual characteristics; in humans, this would include such things as the possession of a penis, testicles, and a significant amount of facial hair growth. A female is usually considered to be the portion of the population that has the feminine sexual characteristics; in humans, this would include such things as the possession of a uterus, ovaries, and a significant lack of facial hair growth. A problem should be apparent in such descriptions, as there are entities that can exhibit both or neither sets of characteristics. What sex is a person with both a penis and a uterus? I will not probe further into this inquiry, as my interest is in gender, but it should be clear that if gender is an imperfect copy of sex, it will inherit many of these problematic qualities.

Gender, as I understand it, is a way to clarify the problematic situation of sex. Gender, unlike sex, is not predominately focused on physical characteristics, though physical characteristics will influence an entities initially determined gender. That is, an entity whose sex is considered male, is likely to have their gender considered male as well. Similarly, an entity of sex female is usually considered of gender female as well. However, in our modern times, there are definitely those who are of sex male but of gender female (often a trans woman), and of sex female and gender male (often a trans man). One whose sex and gender match are usually referred to as being cis gendered, while those whose sex and gender do not match are usually referred to as being trans gendered. These are very broad descriptions, and I’m sure there will be those who can find fault with them, but I am trying to simplify something very complicated in my discussion to present my point.

In the ways I have described above, gender clearly has a relationship with sex. However, sex itself is problematic, and human societies have often attempted to reduce sex to a false dilemma in order to accomplish some, unknown to me, agenda. It will frequently be said that there are only males and females, and anything else does not exist. Sometimes it will be said that males and females make up the dominant portion of a human population, and the non binary component is in great minority. I do not know what to think about this, as I suspect the amount of the non binary population is far greater than we are led to believe. This is where gender steps in.

Gender, in its greater artificiality, can claim the false dilemma much more strongly as it is not focused on physical characteristics. To say one’s gender is male is to suggest that they possess certain characteristics that are expressed by their behaviors and temperaments. A man is masculine: he likes sports, he likes cars, he is loud, and he drinks beer. A woman is feminine: she likes children and small animals, she likes cooking and cleaning, she is quiet, and she drinks wine. These characterizations are just that: characterizations. They are also very much artificial. The descriptions of man and woman a century ago would likely be quite different. In fact, the description I just provided is technically about 30 years old, as the current descriptions are likely different still.

When you hear someone tell another to “be a man,” you are witnessing the called individual being shamed into conforming to whatever the currently established characterization of “man” is. Perhaps he isn’t fulfilling his responsibilities, something a man would do. Perhaps he isn’t drinking beer. It could be any number of things. Similarly, to be called “a woman” bears similar connotation. This sort of shaming is highly suggestive of the source of gender. Unlike sex, where the source of the description is focused on physical characteristics which are incredibly difficult to alter, with gender, the source of the description is on aspects that should be relatively easily changed.

For example, my friends told me that I ought to enjoy drinking beer as I am considered of gender male by them. I do not like beer, and regardless of the expectations put upon me, I refuse to consume it. In an attempt to get me to consume it anyway, I was told by one of them that no men really like beer, they just learn to like it over time. Whether he was correct or not, I believe he was attempting to get me to conform to the established description of the gender I am supposed to belong to. It wasn’t important whether my personal preferences or characteristics actually matched my gender assignment, what was important was that I conformed to it anyway. As one who has gender male, I am supposed to like beer; if I happen to not like beer, I need to change until I conform to my assigned gender.

The problem with gender is that it is not a reflection of my attributes, it is a guide to the attributes I ought to possess. Sex, it can be argued, is at least reflective of a reality: I have physical characteristics and my sex is a reflection of those characteristics. Gender, on the other hand, is an established set of characteristics I am meant to adopt as my own. Those of gender male are supposed to like beer, therefore I ought to learn to like beer. If I do not demonstrate a liking for beer, then I am to be shamed and pressured until such time as I start to exhibit those desired traits.

This is how gender becomes a simulacra. It is not actually associated to a reality. I never liked beer. If one goes far enough into history, before there is a history that we can properly trace, can it be shown that men have always enjoyed beer? What about before beer even was invented? The gender of male became associated with the liking of beer through the ages, by mechanisms I know not of. To be a man means to like beer. To drink beer is a manly thing to do.

I have focused on this one aspect and example, but I hope it is clear this applies to so many more. Like how the gender of woman includes such characteristics as wearing make up, dresses, and liking to cook. If a woman today does not exhibit these characteristics, she is shamed and pressured until she does. This is how human society works.

Therefore, gender is something that is an imperfect copy of something else (sex), but has lost its connection to the original (it no longer reflects a reality, instead creating a reality). Gender is its own thing. Gender is itself real, and we are meant to conform to it. But gender also does not reflect any sort of reality itself. Think about it. How does one’s fondness for a beverage relate to anything about that person, other than their preferences. One cannot say that a person who likes beer is also a person who likes cars; to do so is to perform a stereotyping upon the person. Like relating the hue of one’s skin to their intelligence, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

In these ways, I believe gender is a simulacra, and an insidious one at that. After one is born, they are assigned a sex based on their characteristics. Immediately after this assessment is made, their gender is assigned to match their assigned sex. And it is their gender that is used to instruct that individual’s upbringing. They are trained and conditioned to like wearing dresses if female, or pants if male. They are trained to cut their hair short if they are male and long if they are female. They are trained to fix machines if they are male and raise babies if they are female. Wearing blue if they are male, and pink if they are female.

I hope this all makes sense so far. In my next post I will bring social media into this mess, and try to demonstrate how social media is also a simulacra. How individuals who create profiles of themselves (copies) in social media, end up trying to reflect their profiles instead of allowing their profiles to be a reflection of themselves.

What is “Real?”

crimson

Before I can really dive into simulacra and social media, I need to take a moment to discuss something I brought up in my last post. The challenge to determine what is “real.” While I may want to believe this should be obvious, as the last post suggested, this is not the case.

I will begin by lumping some other ideas in with this idea of the “real.” There is the idea of what is “true.” There is also this idea of what is “I,” the pronoun used to describe what I consider to be myself. These ideas all have something very much in common: while I feel confident I have a solid grasp on them, so that I use them constantly in my day-to-day life, it turns out when pushed, I cannot for the life of me explain what exactly they are.

In the case of “I,” it seems like what makes up me is what is not outside me. That is, if I assume the existence of the world, then I am not the world. If I suggest the universe is made up of me and the world, then I might suggest that I am the part of the universe that is not the world, and vice versa. However, this quickly devolves if I considered how my body sheds cells and molecules constantly. I consume parts of the world, taking them into myself and using those pieces to generated more of myself. Later, I will shed parts of myself and those pieces will again become part of the world. I am my own personal Ship of Theseus, bringing with it the same challenges to identity.

This line of reasoning holds until I raise the question of the unmeasurable. That is, if all that I am is these molecules, the billions upon billions of them that constitute my cells and body parts, then the Ship of Theseus thought experiment seems to hold true. However, what if there is something more? What if there is a part of me that is not merely these molecules, something unmeasurable? Then what is me may not be as simple.

The intention of this post is not to focus on identity issues, so I won’t dive any deeper into this topic for now. But I hope my point is clear. To explain myself in a way that is clear, to describe myself in a way that delineates me and only me, and not anything else, is quickly becoming a rather challenging endeavor.

The idea of what is “true” is similarly challenging. For my discussion, trying to explain what is true has a strong linkage to what is “real” as well. In fact, part of what I believe most people would want to say about truth has to do with what is real. The explanation I chose to go with in my previous post was to suggest that truth is in some way matching up with how reality is, and reality is what matches up with what we all, collectively, agree to.

That last statement probable raised some hairs, so I will elaborate more. When I utter something, you will likely want to say that what I’ve uttered is true or false, but how do you decide? If possible, you are likely to look to your world and verify my claim, comparing it to your experience of the world. If I suggest that the sky is blue, you will look to the sky and see for yourself if the sky really is blue. If it is, you will say that I uttered a truth. If I instead said the sky was green, you are likely to suggest I uttered a falsehood, as the sky is not green.

Immediately there is a problem with all of this. For a truth assessment to be made, there needs to be something to assess the statement against. Something like facts and evidence. However, there are many, many things I might utter that you will be unable to verify in any way. For example, if I utter “what I see when I look up at the sky appears green to me,” you will have no recourse. You cannot say whether that statement is true because you have no access to my experiences. You could look at the sky and compare your experience to mine, but that would not tell you if my statement were true or not. It would only provide you a possible correlation to my experience.

This is where the idea of “my truth” comes from. The idea is that my perspective on the world, and my experience of the world, is mine and mine alone. No one else can experience the world as I do, and so what is true for me is indisputable. It is my truth that the sky appears green to me, and no one can verify my claim either way. And there are a great many better examples I can give than simply my experience of the sky.

This brings us to the idea of the “real.” For me, what counts as real is a personal experience. I assess when reality is real, and when it is not. This is not to say I cannot be deceived or make errors in my assessment; only that it is ultimately up to me what makes up what is real. What is more, if I do make an error, I have to come to the conclusion that I came to an error on my own; no one can tell me I made an error. To be more accurate, others can tell me I made an error, but I will not necessarily believe them; I have to believe I’ve made an error myself before I will see beyond my assessment of the real.

It is a messy business determining for one’s self what is real, what is true, or who one is. It requires a great deal of effort. It can even be painful. This is why I believe so many people defer these sorts of judgments to others. It is much easier to simply allow others to dictate the answers to these questions than to work tirelessly one’s self to determine the answers. This problem is further compounded when groups of people decide to collaborate their efforts together, often with an aim to convince those around them to their side. From what I’ve seen, this appears to be the job of main stream religions, as well as modern commercialism.

I hope that it is apparent to you at this point that I have spoken very little about science and the universe. Not that these things are unimportant, especially in a discussion about what is true or real. What I want to emphasize here is that what science tells us about what is true or real is unfortunately quite biased. And this is what also brings us to Jean Baudrillard‘s simulacra.

I will go into much more detail regarding simulacra in my next post. For now, I will simply say that a simulacra is something like an imperfect copy. Initially, the copy is of something real, but over time the copy no longer refers back to the thing copied. Where there may have originally been a linkage between the copy and the real, no linkage exists any longer. Like if you photocopied a piece of paper over and over repeatedly; eventually what came out of the photocopier would not look at all like the original.

The significance of the simulacra with science is the very same. Science is a process. It was first used long ago by the likes of Aristotle, nearly 2500 years ago, though he never used the term “science” back then. Science is about taking something, like a procedure, and repeating that procedure endlessly. To run an experiment, and to see what the result is. If I run that same experiment repeatedly, do I get the same result each time? How about if others run the same experiment I did, do they get the same result? It is about agreement and consistency. And it is about reality.

However, if you and I and many other people all run this same experiment and we all observe the same results, does that mean we have found a truth? Does it actually tell us something about reality? It was believed that all swans were white for a very long time, until one day a black swan was discovered. It was believed that the Earth was flat for a very long time, even when there were people out there fighting to suggest it was round. It is interesting to me that even today, there are still people who argue that the Earth is flat.

If one follows pure logic, and deductive reasoning, one can feel very, very confident in the results of such experiments. If I assume that Socrates is a man, and that all men are mortal, then I can be very, very confident that Socrates is mortal. However, note that I made 2 important assumptions at the outset: that Socrates is a man, and that all men are mortal. Were either of these assumptions shown to be untrue, my conclusion suddenly looses its veracity.

Science, like so many things, begins with assumptions. So long as we can agree that those assumptions are good assumptions, then what follows can be trusted. But we cannot prove an assumption. Circular reasoning cannot be used. To say that God exists because it is stated so in the holy scripture that He Himself wrote is circular reasoning; the evidence neither proves nor disproves his existence. It simply provides no meaningful information.

What is real is an assumption. It is clearly a critically important assumption that we all must make. Even if we do not do so consciously, our actions and choices will be a reflection of that assumption. When I walk across the floor of my kitchen, I have assumed that the floor is a real thing, trusting it to support my weight and allow me to get to the door I wish to go through. I’ve made the assumption, even if it isn’t obvious.

This is the key to everything, in my mind. Not to suggest our assumptions are necessarily bad assumptions; but to recognize that we are making assumptions. When we fail to recognize the assumptions we make, we mistake confidence for certainty. We take something that we are 99% certain about and make it into something we are 100% certain about. In general, this may not seem like a dangerous choice to make, but if we continue to make this assumption repeatedly, over and over, taking the results of one experiment as the assumptions of the next, we will end up with something that does not match up at all with the original. We will end up with a simulacra of reality.

The Matrix Resurrections: Trailer, Part 3

crimson

I’m dying to move on to another topic that has recently caught my interest: social media and simulacra. However, before I do, I would like to conclude my discussion of the latest Matrix film trailer, and more to the point, ideas raised by the previous three films that may prove quite significant in this latest film.

The last idea I wish to discuss is related to the theory that perhaps leaving the Matrix does not actually result in the removal from a simulation. Some have referred to this idea as being like an “inception” theory of the Matrix. I do not believe this is what is going on in the Matrix story, and now I will discuss why I think this way. As always, be aware there are very likely spoilers about to be discussed, as particular details of the story are a part of this discussion.

To begin this discussion, I will put aside the Matrix story itself, and talk about simulation theory in general. For those unfamiliar, simulation theory is the theory that we all exist in some sort of simulated reality. That is to say, the real world is not real, in some way. I keep suggesting a vagueness in what I say because it isn’t entirely clear what one might mean by “real world,” and therefore it is challenging to suggest what might “not be real.” This is a very challenging idea, so I will elaborate more on this.

What is reality? What is “the world?” There is a philosophical idea called solipsism, which suggests that one cannot be certain that anything at all can exist outside one’s mind. That is, following from René Descartes Meditations, there is virtually nothing we can be certain about. For Descartes, he suggested that my own existence is one of the very, very few things I might be able to be certain of, and suggested it in the phrase “I think; I am.” That is, when I utter the statement “I think,” or if I even conceive of the idea that I am thinking (like in the case that I think the thought “I think”), there must be something doing this thinking. Ergo, the thing that is thinking (in this case “I”) must necessarily exist in order to do the action of thinking. If this logic holds, then “I” must necessarily exist. Hence “I think; I am.”

There is a whole line of philosophical thought that follows this sort of logical reasoning, called Phenomenology, where it is believed that by following this sort of reasoning, we can be absolutely certain about many, many things. Unfortunately, the logical process that is allegedly required in order to accomplish this is exceedingly difficult to understand and follow, and the person responsible for trying to lay the process down (Edmund Husserl) never had the chance to finish his work.

Returning now to the question at hand, what is reality? I think most people would generally agree with me in suggesting that reality is something like that which exists in spite of us. That is, the world is somehow outside and separate from us. The world can exist even if we do not. The world can exist, even if I do not exist. The world is in some sense objective, where I am subjective. What makes the world so important is that the world presents a bridge between myself and other possible consciousnesses.

Reality, then, is the world as occupied by myself and possibly others. Reality is populated by the world and (hopefully) many consciousnesses. Those consciousnesses have some limited amount of control over the world, but generally are subject to the rules and laws of the world. For example, I am subject to gravity, as in I cannot simply leap away from the Earth and float wherever I may wish. The world and all the consciousnesses bound to that world make up a reality.

This leads us to raise a simple question then: how can the world then not be real? If we exist in it, and if it provides a bridge between ourselves and others, and if it can exist without us in it, then is it not the case that that world is “real?” In the case of the Matrix, being a simulated reality, does it not exhibit all of these features? Many will be quite confident to suggest that the Matrix, or any other simulation, is clearly not “real,” especially when they compare it to what they consider to be “real.” But in those cases, how do they know with such certainty? What is it about the simulated reality that is unlike the “real” reality?

It seems to me the main difference occurs with regard to how the two realities relate to one another. That is, the Matrix EXISTS inside the “real” world. The Matrix is a construct generated within the real world. Therefore, the Matrix is in some sense lesser than the real world. After all, the rules of our world already seem to suggest that things that are larger cannot be contained in things that are smaller (nod here to those Doctor Who fans who are now uttering about TARDISs).

Putting this another way, Descartes in his same Meditations offered what he considered evidence for the existence of God. For Descartes, he questioned how a human, being limited and finite, could conceive of the infinite. A finite being should be unable to conceive of something infinite, because the infinite is clearly much larger and more complex. As before, something that is larger cannot be contained within something smaller than itself. Therefore, for Descartes, for humans to have an idea of the infinite, we would have had to have that idea imprinted in our minds from some outside source. This outside source must be something that is infinite, such as God. And therefore God must exist, in order to give us this infinite idea.

There are certainly weaknesses that can be attacked in his argument. As I often try to impress upon people, infinity is NOT a number. Infinity is an idea regarding boundlessness. That is, to speak of infinity is to speak of something that is unbounded. There is no number that is infinity; to count to infinity is the same as saying I will count without stopping, ever. Infinity has no size to speak of, and therefore it makes no sense to speak of infinity being “too large” for a finite being to comprehend. In fact, to say finite is simply to say that something has boundaries; so even talk of the finite is not to be talking about size either.

This all amounts to misunderstandings. In the case of the simulated reality of the Matrix, it is clearly in some way contained by the “real” world. If one grants this simple fact, then one can suggest that escaping the confines of the Matrix is possible; escaping into a “larger” world. If all this is true, then it is also conceivable that one might escape the “real” world into something larger still.

What this brief exploration shows us is that if there is such a thing as a simulated reality contained within another greater reality, then it is ALWAYS possible for there to be further greater realities one could escape into. The scope and nature of each greater reality is impossible to speculate about until such time as one has successfully escaped into that greater reality, just as Morpheus suggests that “no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.”

No amount of evidence can be provided to prove with certainty that this reality we exist in is definitively the top level reality. It is ALWAYS possible that our reality is simply a simulation contained within another, larger reality. And in the Matrix storyline, this is always possibly the case as well. However, what reason might the author of the story have to suggest this is the case? Why suggest to the audience that doubt should exist in the established “real world?”

Stories about characters who have spent the entire time in a dream, only to awaken at the conclusion of the story often feel unsatisfying. There have been precious few cases where such literary structures have proven to be successful (the most obvious to me is the Usual Suspects). I do not believe the latest chapter in the Matrix story will suggest that we should question the established real world. If it does, it damned well better have a really good reason for doing so.