Author: crimson

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.

The Matrix Resurrections: Trailer, Part 2.5

crimson

I was planning on discussing the “vat in a vat” theory in this post, the theory that outside the Matrix is still inside a simulation (also sometimes called the inception theory), but after some thinking about my last post, I came up with another viable theory about what is going on. I cannot help but explore this new idea: what if Neo is actually dead?

I really need to add another spoiler warning here. I am definitely going to go into great detail regarding plot points and specifics of the previous films here. This idea just cannot be discussed otherwise. So, again, do not continue to read if you don’t want spoilers.

Most people who are familiar with this story may think I am suggesting Neo is dead, as in at the conclusion of the third film. Unfortunately, this is not what I mean. I am suggesting Neo is dead, as in at the climax of the first film. I am suggesting that Agent Smith was successful in killing Thomas Anderson, and the Neo that we have all been witnessing since that moment is in fact someone, or rather something, else entirely.

Consider all the important exposition and evidence we are given throughout the first film regarding the “rules” of consciousness and mind/body dualism. As Morpheus reminds us, the mind and the body cannot continue without each other, and we see a lot of evidence to suggest this is the case. When Cypher kills his shipmates in the first film, those individuals die in the Matrix, confirming for us that the mind cannot exist without the body. We are also shown the reverse, in the form of Mouse being killed by the police shortly after the glitch in the Matrix; the body cannot live without the mind. The audience is given very, very clear guidance in this regard. Mind/body dualism does NOT exist in the universe of the Matrix storyline.

However, there is a seeming exception, as I noted in my last post: Neo. For some reason Neo can exhibit mind/body dualism. We witness this character’s mind and body each continuing exclusively in many situations. In the first film, Neo’s mind is killed by Agent Smith in the climax, and yet, somehow his body does not perish. Some may want to argue that the body can exist for up to four minutes, giving the opportunity for resuscitation. While this may be true, the situation Neo is in is grim as we still have no explanation for the continuance of his mind.

Based on the evidence we are provided throughout the first film, injuries sustained by individuals in the Matrix translate into real world damage. Get punched in the face in the Matrix, and your nose really gets broken. Your body manifests that damage in the real world. Again, this is demonstrated time and time again throughout the first film. The mind and the body are always linked. When Agent Smith is pummeling Neo inside the Matrix, Neo’s body is jerking about and his mouth is spiting blood in the real world. If this is all truly how it works, then Neo’s body would have manifested bullet wounds in the real world as Agent Smith shot him. Agent Smith unloaded a clip into Neo’s body at his death.

Neo’s mind and body should both have been finished at the climax of the first film. And yet, somehow, miraculously, Neo survives. Trinity commands Neo to stand up and fight back. And in this moment, Neo is transformed. Neo’s sight is revealed. Neo stops bullets. Neo leaps into Agent Smith’s virtual body and seemingly destroys Agent Smith from the inside. But let us take a moment and think about all this. What really happened? And what makes this one individual so special as to be able to break the established rules about mind/body dualism?

What if Neo really did die? If he really did die, then the established rules given to the audience are upheld. There is no conflict. No mind without body or body without mind. What awakens is not Neo. What awakens is not human at all. If we consider the scene from the second film where Bane’s body is taken over by Agent Smith’s mind (what I always considered to be the most important scene in all the films), then perhaps what awoke is a program of Neo.

Here is what I think could have taken place: Thomas Anderson died. Agent Smith killed him successfully. The human mind is extinguished and the human body lay in ruin (with that four minute opportunity for resuscitation). Agent Smith, confident he has accomplished his mission walks away as Trinity utters that it cannot be true that her love is dead. This is where the magic happens. Thomas Anderson was important to the Oracle and to the Architect. They’ve known about him for some time. They’ve been watching him. Thomas Anderson’s interactions with the Matrix, his ability to press against the rules and laws within the main program, have allowed for his “human code” to interact with the machines’ code. Bits of Neo exist within the system, and have been manifesting slowly, perhaps collected by important machines. In some sense, there is a doppelganger of Neo in the Matrix. Or perhaps something like a backup.

After Thomas Anderson dies at the hands of Agent Smith, this doppelganger has now the opportunity to manifest itself within the dead body of Thomas Anderson. The doppelganger is not human remember. It never had a body. It is simply a program within the machine world. Perhaps not even a complete program either. Just some free floating code, sort of like a computer virus. What awoke may simply be this doppelganger, who only knows of itself as Neo.

At this point, our new Neo would certainly have all the abilities we see from this point to the end of the third film. When he sees the Matrix, he doesn’t see what the Matrix program feeds him, he sees the code itself. As a sentient program, he can manipulate the Matrix entirely, stopping bullets and leaping into Agent Smith’s body, destroying it from the inside. As a sentient program, there is nothing that permanently ties him to the body of our former Thomas Anderson. Mind/body dualism CAN now exist within this new entity.

I am not suggesting that this new entity is in any way malicious. As far as it is concerned, it is Neo. It may even consider itself to be Thomas Anderson as well. It gains all the memories and experiences of its blueprint or template, sliding easily into the life of the dead human. It would explain how distant Neo becomes throughout the following films. How disconnected from humanity he is. The talk with Councillor Hamann becomes far more significant now. Far more telling.

For all intents and purposes, this doppelganger is Neo, and the audience doesn’t necessarily need to know any different. Certainly none of the other human characters need to know any different. Perhaps the machine characters don’t need to understand either, though I suspect they actually do. At least a few of them. This would also very much explain the character of the Merovingian.

Consider the Merovingian for a moment. Clearly a sentient program. But also possibly a previous iteration of the One, as is hinted at through the story and is suggested by many fans. Let us, for a moment, assume that is correct: that the Merovingian is a previous iteration of the One, perhaps even the first iteration. How could he still exist after so much time? If he were a human, his body would have decayed long ago. If we assume the information we are provided is in some way correct, and Thomas Anderson was in fact the sixth iteration of the One, then we can estimate that this cycle has been going on for at least 120 years. That is, each new iteration has to be born inside the Matrix, live a bit of a life, and grow up to be old enough to manifest the One. Being conservative here, I will suggest that each iteration takes at least 20 years to manifest (and probably longer than that). Therefore, the difference in age between our Neo and the original, first iteration would have to be in excess of 100 actual years.

However, if the Merovingian is “just” a sentient program, he could exist in perpetuity. There is no suggestion made in the story that the machines “grow old and die.” It is suggested (by the Oracle) that programs are frequently deleted, and can either choose to hide in the Matrix “or return to The Source” (“The machine mainframe”). She suggests that programs are not deleted due to age, but instead for other reasons: “Maybe it breaks down. Maybe a better program is created to replace it.”

This all suggests that the Merovingian is such a program, hiding in the Matrix. If the Merovingian was also another iteration of the One, and if the One is “the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the Matrix,” as the Architect suggests, then it suggests that the One is in fact a sentient program, and not actually human.

I hear many of you screaming now: what about the fact that the Architect suggested Neo is “irrevocably human?” There are two possibilities as I see it. One possibility is that the Architect chose his words carefully, as to say “irrevocably” is not to say one is human, but to instead suggest one cannot escape one’s human heritage. If I am correct, and Neo is simply a sentient program, then it cannot escape it’s doppelganger quality of playing a human, even believing that it is, and therefore behaving as or being limited by its human qualities. The other possibility is that the Architect doesn’t know. I’m more inclined to believe the former in this case, as the Architect is both incredibly pompous and intelligent; I think his choice of words is incredibly important, especially in cases where the words he chooses have multiple meanings. For example, the Architect explicitly suggests that Neo’s “5 predecessors were, by design, based on a similar predication.”

“By design.”

I believe that the Architect knew what he was doing. I believe that the Architect clearly understood how “the anomaly is systemic – creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.” The Architect understood that the existence of Thomas Anderson (and those like him) would automatically generate rogue code patterns within the system of the Matrix. What was needed was to create a vessel to manifest the rogue code. An opportunity to purge the code using a human vessel. Thomas Anderson NEEDED to die to make room for the rogue code to occupy his deceased body. Upon doing so, the rogue code allowed for the path of the One to play out: “The function of the One is now to return to the Source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program.” A line that has been debated at length, and yet seems clear as day if my theory is correct.

I could not help but write this post. Even though it only manifested in my own mind over the past couple days, it seems to make a tremendous amount of sense to me. The Neo we all know from the second and third films is not the Thomas Anderson from the first film at all, but a doppelganger that thinks it is human. A possession of a human body by a segment of anomalous code, just like Bane was. Bane was the hint to all of this. As Agent Smith is Neo’s equal and opposite, does it not stand to reason that both had to possess a human body at some point in the story?

The Matrix Resurrections: Trailer, Part 2

crimson

Continuing the topic of the upcoming film, I will now discuss what I consider to be the second most important aspect of the trailer (and the most important aspect of the story as a whole): colour. While I expect most people will focus on the red versus blue conflict, a conflict that is made abundantly apparent in the trailer, there is a less obvious significance of colour that seems to be missing from the trailer. I am speaking of the camera filters.

It is again at this point that I need to provide the spoiler warnings for what I am about to discuss. To make my points, again I will be making deeper dives into the story and especially things that reveal surprises regarding what is going on for people who have not experienced this story yet. So, if you have not yet watched any of these films, you have been spoiler warned!

I think it should have been obvious to most that the cameras in the first three films all had extensive use of camera filters throughout. However, just because something is obvious to me does not mean it will be obvious to others, so I will explain what I mean in detail. This will help frame the issue I find exists in the trailer for the upcoming film.

There are numerous colour theories that exist. Each purports slightly (and sometimes significantly) different relationships between particular colours and their meanings. For example, many people believe red relates to passion and anger, while blue relates to sadness and tranquility. In business environments, there is sometimes a workshop conducted where employees’ “true colours” are determined; I was identified as being strongly blue and gold in such workshops, meaning I was highly emotional and very organized, and very weakly orange, meaning I was an introvert.

The Matrix films, at least the first three films, use colours extensively in order to situate the audience. In particular, there are three important colours audiences should be intimately aware of: green, blue, and gold. Green is the colour of the mind, blue of the body, and gold of the spirit or soul. I will discuss each in detail.

The first colour, green, is fairly obvious to most audiences. Whenever the story is taking place inside the Matrix, there is ALWAYS a green filter on the cameras. It comes out strongly in the first three films, overshadowing everything in a bit of a nauseating undertone. I do not believe it is an accident that the famous falling gliphs are also green, now used as many people’s screen savers on their computers. Green is the colour of the mind.

The green filter is a que to the audience that whatever is happening is taking place IN the mind. The Matrix, a “neural-interactive simulation” as Morpheus refers to it, does not exist in the “real world” as such. Everything that happens inside the Matrix is like a dream. Fights, discussions, driving a car, all exist within the mind of those who participate in the simulation. In this way, there really is no gravity, nor any real air to breath in the Matrix. Due to these illusory limitations, those who are truly aware of the Matrix can break the rules of the Matrix, and perform amazing feats. This the the crux of the first film, where Neo escapes his limitations, and grows beyond the rules of the Matrix. This is made intimately clear at the conclusion of the first film as Neo literally flies into the air.

None of these things actually happen, at least not in the real world. Neo cannot actually fly in the real world. In fact, Neo cannot do exciting martial arts or other exotic things in the real world, at least not until later in the third film, but I will get to that in a bit. Everything that happens in the Matrix happens in the mind, and thus has a green filter on it. The main question people ought to consider is whether the green filter is coming from the Matrix itself, or whether the green filter is being imposed by the occupants of the Matrix by themselves. That is, is the green filter simply what happens when we peek into someone’s mind?

The second colour, blue, is much less obvious. Once I point this out, if you didn’t realize it was there, you might consider rewatching some of those previous films for it. Anytime the scene does not take place in the Matrix (with a couple exceptions in the third film), there is a blue filter placed on the camera. The crumbling remains of the great metropolises, the dank caverns of Zion, even the hovercraft engines are all blue. Blue is the colour of the body.

The blue filter is the que to the audience that whatever is happening is taking place IN the body. The body exists in the “real world.” The real world is the world we all inhabit, at least as far as we can tell. There is a very real theory that what we think is the real world is in fact simply another level in a possibly multilevel simulation: the simulation hypothesis. Interest and belief in this theory has certainly grown in the past 20 years since the Matrix movie was first released. However, if we assume that this world we inhabit is, in fact, the top level of such an idea, we can continue to discuss the idea of the real.

In the real world, in the films, all rules are rigidly enforced and all consequences are permanent. Gravity exists and we require air to breath. We require food to sustain ourselves, and our limited squishy bodies succumb to injury. As far as we know, leaving our body is a permanent and terminal activity. With the exception of what takes place at the end of the second film, all these rules seem to be enforced. Or so it seems. It is a fan theory that the supposed “real world” is simply another layer in the many layer simulation. I will discuss this idea in a future post, as it relates to the new trailer. For now, let us simply suggest the real world really is the real world (even saying it like that seems incredibly confusing and problematic, but let’s just run with it).

This leaves us with gold. As far as I can tell, there is no gold filter used in the first three films. This is not to say there are not cases where one might have been appropriate; instead those scenes where one might have been used, the scene is entirely computer generated and so it might not have made much sense. I am, of course, referring to Neo’s Sight in the third film. However, I will argue that this sight was present much earlier, and has been slowly developing/evolving throughout the second and third films.

Gold is the colour of the spirit or the soul. Gold is not used in the first film (as far as I can tell). At the first possibly appropriate point that it might have been used is when Neo first “sees” the agents at the end of the film, after he had died. The agents, to Neo, look like globs of green code, similar to the famous screen saver. Simply silhouettes of green code. This could mean one of two things: either the agents do not have souls, or Neo’s ability to see souls has not yet developed. I believe it is the latter; evidence to suggest Neo’s Sight is developing is seen through the second film.

After the defeat of Agent Smith, Neo flies away, and the second film begins. Early into the second film, Neo meets Seraph, and he sees something he has not seen before. The silhouette of Seraph is gold, not green. He does not know what this means. Shortly after their interlude, he begins a discussion with the Oracle, and establishes that both the Oracle and Seraph are “not human,” that they are both “program[s] from the machine world.” He made no reference to this after seeing the Oracle in the first film, because he did not yet have his sight. It took his death to begin that process and evolution in his character.

From this point onward, whenever the audience is allowed to see what Neo sees, all the sentient programs he encounters are silhouettes of gold. To my knowledge, they do not show him looking at humans, so it is unclear whether the same sort of event would occur with them. However, Neo clearly indicates the sentient programs are “not human,” and so we can conclude that the souls of machines look different to him. This raises other possible questions regarding his sight, such as a possible limitation on only seeing machine souls and not human souls. On some level this makes sense, as we definitely do not have the technology to see human souls at present. It is suggested that human souls are unmeasurable, which would seem to suggest an inability to see them (even with the use of technological aids).

Even if we conclude that Neo’s Sight only privileges him to see the souls of sentient programs, it is still a rather significant upgrade. His sight works for him within the Matrix, but not in the real world until the end of the second film, when he says, “Something’s different. I can feel them.” His ability has developed sufficiently that he can now use the ability outside the Matrix, and can sense the machines.

Into the third film, Neo and Trinity separate from the others in order to journey to the machine city. Bane stows away in order to confront Neo. But Bane, as is seen in the second film, is no longer really Bane; he is Agent Smith, now manifest in the real world. During his fight with Neo, he burns Neo’s eyes, effectively making him blind. But Neo’s blindness is only of the real world; Neo’s ability to see machines’ souls still operates, and he literally reveals to Agent Smith and the audience that he can see Agent Smith. Take note, however, that Agent Smith’s silhouette is quite different than all the other machine souls; Agent Smith’s soul is red and flaming, as if it were corrupted somehow. Perhaps Agent Smith’s soul is in conflict with Bane’s soul, fighting for control of the flesh and blood body that Agent Smith detests so much. No other machine’s soul looks like this, only Bane/Agent Smith.

From this point onward, Neo literally sees all the sentient machine’s they encounter. The audience is in a privileged position to share in Neo’s Sight, as they make their way to the machine city. He tries to share this with Trinity upon her death by describing the machine city as having “Lights everywhere. Like the whole thing was built with light.” Neo’s Sight suggests to the audience that the manner in which the machines manifest themselves is quite different than humans. That is, as is presented by the machine Deus Ex Machina, the machines are not as individualistic as human’s believe they are. Smaller sentient machines collectively make up larger sentient machines, as if the smaller ones could be considered the cells of the larger organism. In some sense, the machine city is a single conscious entity, much as it might be argued Zion could be as well. This leads into discussions of sociology, mob mentality, and group think, which I will not discuss here. I will simply argue that the machines’ societal structures are a bit different than the ones we are likely familiar with in our human world.

This leads me, “inexorably,” to the trailer for the upcoming film. The previous three films utilize these three colours, green, blue, and gold, extensively to situate the audience during the telling of the story. At all times, the audience should have a clear idea where the action is taking place, in the Matrix, in the real world, and in Neo’s Sight respectively. But the trailer seems to break all this. The opening, with Thomas Anderson having a discussion with what appears to be a psychiatrist, does NOT appear to have any filter. It is possible that the filter was removed specifically for the trailer, as a way to mislead the audience regarding what is happening, and especially where. Or, there is another possibility that I will suggest: there is an orange or gold filter in place.

I’ve been watching the trailer over and over, trying to see if it exists. The truth is, I am unable to tell with certainty. But it is interesting that the backgrounds and sun’s lens flares are so dominantly orange/gold in colour. Even the flesh on the actors does feel a bit more orangy than it should otherwise be. I think it is entirely possible that a gold or orange filter may be in use.

So, let us say for the moment that I am correct; what does this all suggest? I believe it might suggest that Neo is in none of the places I have described above. Not in the Matrix, not in the real world, and not using his special sight. He is somewhere else. It is even possible he IS someone else also. As for where he might be, I have one suggestion: he could be in “heaven.”

By “heaven,” I do not mean the Christian heaven from the Bible. I mean something like a special simulation created by the machines exclusively for Neo. After the events of the third film, Neo is dead. His mind is lost, but his body is still possibly recoverable. Perhaps, due to another as yet unknown to the audience conflict, the machines needed to resurrect Neo. Or perhaps the machines simply don’t think as humans think, and thought it was a good idea to resurrect him anyway. In any case, the machines might have created a special simulation to either contain or develop a new mind for Neo. A place to bring Neo back from.

It would be consistent with many of the things seen in the trailer. Younger versions of familiar characters, pushing Neo through something like the path he took previously in the first film. Redeveloping his cognitive abilities. Perhaps resurrecting the powers he had before. Of course Trinity would appear, even as a ghost created by Neo’s subconscious. In fact, as Neo’s abilities grew and manifested, Trinity’s appearance should be inevitable. Not that she really existed, because she should be dead in the real world. A ghost in the machine, created by Neo’s obsession with his lost love. It might explain those green gliphs falling down her cheeks at about half way through the trailer. She may not be real.

One last thing to think about, before I leave this discussion on the colour filters. During the trailer, at each moment that there is the text on the screen, look to the background. There you will find the usual green gliphs falling down, the trademark of the Matrix films. But also look below. What is that rising from the bottom of the screen? Golden gliphs rising from the bottom, as if fighting with the green one’s that are falling. Perhaps this is the real hint as to what is to come in the new film.

The Matrix Resurrections: Trailer, Part 1

crimson

I’m always so serious in my posts. Today, I will try to be a little less serious. I will talk about the upcoming film The Matrix Resurrections.

As many of my friends know, I am a bit of a Matrix fanatic. Not that I think the story is real or even entirely realistic. However, I do think it is an amazingly rich story that can be enjoyed on countless levels, and poses numerous deep and philosophical questions. Put simply, the story makes one think. For me, this frequently makes a story (whether it is a film or a book) very enjoyable.

I will not rehash what has taken place in the story up to the point in time of this latest film, in part because it would take too long. Also, because I would not want to spoil it for those of you who may not be familiar with the story. Seriously, if you are reading this and you either have not seen the previous films, or if you simply have no idea about this story, I urge you to stop reading right now and go watch them. The first film for sure, but I encourage you to make your way through all three films, and The Animatrix as well. The entire story is quite interesting, and there is much to talk about throughout.

This is your spoiler warning. Do not continue reading if you do not want me to spoil the story for you. I will try to be somewhat vague regarding some things, but ultimately I suspect I will have to go rather deep simply to make my points. So, once again, this is your spoiler warning.

This past week, the trailer for the upcoming film was released. For many of us fans, we have been eagerly awaiting this trailer, as well as the film. Speaking for myself, I was not disappointed.

The first thing to establish is that this is a trailer. As a trailer, its purpose is to get audiences excited and eager to watch the upcoming film. It is an advertising vehicle intended to get “butts into seats” at the theaters. As such, I immediately expect the trailer to be misleading and deceptive. In fact, knowing the trouble Marvel studies has gone to with their own film trailers, misrepresenting information and outright manipulating scenes in order to mislead audiences, I expect this trailer may have done similar things. On the other hand, considering the complexity of the story, the producers may not have had to do very much anyway.

I’m not going through the trailer frame by frame or anything like that. Just proposing some things regarding what may be going on and what sorts of things I noticed and looked for in the trailer. Significant things that I believe will be important in the upcoming film. At the front of this line of important things is the fact that Neo appears to be our star and protagonist.

For anyone who knows the story, this one detail should already raise questions. After all, at the conclusion of the third film, Neo died. It is true that it may be possible to suggest Neo wasn’t entirely dead. In his mutual annihilation with Agent Smith, like all the other residents of the Matrix, Thomas Anderson may simply have been purged of the virus and re-awoken with the rest. This is certainly not made clear in the third film, but it remains a possibility.

I suspect there are a number of possible interpretations for what happened at the end of the third film. Firstly, it has been established numerous times that the “body cannot live without the mind,” as Morpheus makes explicitly clear in the first film. At the conclusion of the fight between Neo and Agent Smith, Neo’s mind should be gone, leaving his body without a mind. His body, now a lifeless husk, being gracefully taken away by the machines, possibly in reverence. But we also know that the machines are particularly adept with the simple flesh and blood bodies of humans as well, as is establish in the The Second Renaissance Part II. It would not be very difficult for the machines to take Neo’s body and repair or maintain it for future uses, if they were so motivated.

With his body’s survival established, this leaves us with his mind once again. Neo’s mind should have been destroyed, along with Agent Smith’s mind. For me, this is a critically important plot point, and the reason I believe the story works so well. Neo cannot survive the elimination of Agent Smith. They are “equal and opposite,” as the Oracle suggests, and as such neither can exist without the other. Or, to put this another way, one cannot be destroyed without destroying the other. Neo must die at the end of the story. So his existence in the fourth film becomes a very interesting puzzle.

One simple way they might explain Neo’s mind would be to copy it from backup. This, of course, suggests that the Matrix is being regularly backed up. This could also explain how the Matrix is restored as well, suggesting perhaps the Matrix was restored from a previous backup. However, as I say all this, it seems less and less reasonable. If backups were being done, then human minds would be regularly backed up, and at times, restored, suggesting human minds were being restored from time to time. This would be highly problematic, especially considering the sorts of information that would regularly be overwritten.

Very generally, backups are typically performed at instantaneous intervals, however, Agent Smith’s infection of the people inside the Matrix takes place slowly over time. To restore a backup of the Matrix, one would need to be done from before Agent Smith becomes virulent, which takes place at the end of the first film.

As case example of overwriting minds, let us briefly discuss the character Bane. In the second film, Bane’s mind is overwritten with Agent Smith’s mind. Upon leaving the Matrix, Agent Smith is effectively possessing Bane’s body. This is a significant plot point in the second and third films. Is Bane’s mind literally and completely overwritten with Agent Smith’s mind? This is not made entirely clear, and involves suppositions regarding mind/body dualism. In fact, this entire discussion assumes that minds and bodies can exist independent of one another, something that Morpheus will remind us cannot happen.

It is here that we enter some very murky waters. There are many, many examples of science fiction that exist today where the assumption of mind/body dualism is assumed. That minds can exist independently from bodies. In the Matrix story itself, at the end of the second film and the beginning of the third, it is suggested that Neo’s mind and body do, in fact, separate completely. It requires the character Link and others to utilize “some pretty ancient hacks” in order to successfully reintegrate Neo’s mind with his body. In fact, Link doesn’t even recognize Neo inside the Matrix, telling Morpheus that he “couldn’t tell what it was” that was with Morpheus. Of note here is the use of the pronoun “it” as opposed to “who,” suggesting Neo’s mind didn’t even look like a human mind at all.

There are a lot of ways one might interpret this entire situation. Morpheus suggests that minds and bodies cannot exist independent of each other, and yet Neo’s mind clearly was separated from his body for a significant amount of time. Furthermore, Neo’s mind (while separated from its body) clearly is unlike a typical human mind as well. All of this suggests that minds and bodies can actually be separated, however, there may be consequences of such a separation. This likely relates to the special nature of Neo, and why he is able to do the things he does, as noted by Councillor Hamann.

It is unlikely I will be able to resolve this puzzle, but it does strongly suggest the possibility that the machines could do something similar in this latest film. The machines could continue maintaining Neo’s body after the fight with Agent Smith (similar to how the human’s maintained Neo’s body at the end of the second film). The machines could, conceivably find a source for Neo’s mind and then join the two back together. All that remains to explain is where Neo’s mind might be found.

It is also here that we might conceivably have our tension or conflict within the fourth film. Neo and Agent Smith are inextricably tied to one another, at least after the events of the first film. There cannot be one without the other. If the machines found and/or preserved Neo’s mind in some fashion, then Agent Smith’s mind should not be far behind. To be fair, if Neo’s mind is in a condition from before he and Agent Smith merged, then perhaps Neo can exist without Agent Smith. However, in such a circumstance, Neo’s mind would not contain the extra code from Agent Smith: the code from the source. Would Neo continue to have the extraordinary abilities he had without the source code?

It will be interesting to see how the producers of this latest installment explain the mere existence of Neo. It seems very strange to me that he exists at all. And I haven’t even discussed the existence of Trinity…

Weaknesses in the Freedom Argument

crimson

Recently, I witnessed an Anti-Vaccine Protest. I have often observed at these protests recurring themes and recurring arguments that are meant to support their cause. It is often claimed that they are “Critical Thinkers” and that their logic and reason lead them to conclude that taking a vaccine is a bad idea. Further to this, they will often argue that it restricts their right to freedom if they are coerced or forced to get vaccinated. With the pandemic still going strong, there seem to be many such protests going on.

In this post, I will discuss what I will refer to as the “Freedom Argument,” the argument that suggests getting vaccinated (or being coerced or forced to get vaccinated) goes against their right to freedom. To begin, I will need to clarify what those presenting this argument mean by freedom.

On this website, I have spoken about freedom and free will at length. My understanding of freedom typically relates to an idea of unpredictability; something that is not a part of causal chains of events, like and uncaused cause perhaps. The Freedom Argument’s version of freedom is very different than my understanding.

Having listened to many discussions from protesters, it is my belief that what they mean by freedom is more akin to their perceived right to be able to act as they desire without being restricted in those acts. That is, if one wishes to eat ice cream, they ought to be able to eat ice cream, and that if anyone interferes with that desire, they are restricting the person’s freedom to eat ice cream. With this understanding, freedom would seem to be intimately related to egoism and hedonism, as it seems intimately tied with one’s desires.

In the first case of egoism, I am suggesting that an individual is acting in a self-interested manner. In the case of the Freedom Argument, one is intended to be free to act in self-interested ways. To prevent an individual from pursuing self-interested actions, one is restricting that individual’s freedom. The Freedom Argument will suggest that this is a bad thing.

In the second case of hedonism, I am suggesting that an individual is pursuing fulfillment of their desires, especially pleasure. In the case of the Freedom Argument, one is intended to be free to pursue their own desires and pleasures. To prevent an individual from pursuing their pleasures, one is restricting that individual’s freedom. Again, the Freedom Argument will suggest this is a bad thing.

There is often one additional caveat that is added to the Freedom Argument, though it may be unspoken in many cases. The idea that to pursue one’s desires and self-interest is considered acceptable (and even desirable) in all circumstances, so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of others. That is, if my action affects only me and no one else (in any significant way), then I ought to be free to pursue that action without restriction. To put this another way, if my action will not cause any negative effects on those around me, there is no reason for others to restrict my action.

It is this last point that muddles up most of the argument, I think. To be self-interested and to pursue one’s desires within and of themselves seems unproblematic. It may even be argued that all people are already self-interested and pursuing their desires presently. There are complicated arguments that suggest helping others is simply a pathway to self-interestedness and that such actions may, in fact, lead to individual pleasure. However, in the pursuit of desire and pleasure, especially in our modern world, it is frequently incumbent to make others suffer.

I imagine the last statement I made will be met with a great deal of resistance. One might suggest that the act of eating ice cream, for example, causes no suffering to any one. However, I would raise the question of how one might gain the opportunity to eat ice cream. The ice cream must be generated by some means. Someone will have to milk a cow, or similar mammal, accumulate the dairy product, process it, reduce its temperature, mix in other ingredients, (these other ingredients will have their own story to tell regarding how they come about as well), stored, presented, sold, prepared, and numerous other activities. My point is that the process behind the generation of ice cream is quite long and complicated. There are many things one might consider along the path of that process, including the well-being of the cow (or other mammal), the people who partake of each step of the process, and the eventual process of acquisition. Are we so certain that no one in that entire process suffered so that one might enjoy ice cream?

In our modern consumerist world (at least the part of the world where I reside), it may be suggested that working toward the production of a product does not count as suffering. After all, the people partaking of the process of manufacture are provided compensation for their labours. While I might agree that some people may truly enjoy their work and receive arguably appropriate compensation for that work, I have often observed that this is not the case. That many people are not very happy with their employment situations, and that the conditions in which they work under are less than ideal. Furthermore, compensation is frequently much less than what those people deserve. This last point, I admit, is my opinion; there is no objective measure of valuation that one can rely upon to ensure that compensation for labour is fair.

My ice cream example does, I admit, seem a little taxed. If the cow is sustainably and ethically farmed, if the farmer and his family are happy, if everyone in every step of the process is not unduly taxed during the process, it seems unproblematic for one to eat ice cream in a manner that does not cause suffering. Can the same be said regarding all other aspects of our lives? Are our clothes all so easily manufactured? Or our homes? Or our smartphones?

It might seem I have gone off on a tangent here, but I assure you I have not. Those individuals who participate in the process that eventually results in the shoes you place on your feet are frequently unable to exercise their freedom in the manner I have outlined above. Their suffering is a result of poor working conditions as well and a severe lack of appropriate compensation. In some cases, they may even be forced to work, not having any other live options. Similar situations occur in most aspects of Western Society. There is a great disconnect between those who utilize products and services, and the sources of those same products and services. The greater the disconnect, the less likely one may feel the associations that exist between their actions and the consequences of their actions.

This all may seem quite preachy and contrived, so I will provide a much, much simpler example that I observed during the protest that I referred to at the outset of this article. During the protest, one of the protesters had a megaphone and decided to exercise his freedom by walking down the middle of a busy street. Through the megaphone, he indicated that he was exercising his freedom to walk upon the street, and that if anyone were to prevent him from doing so, they would be restricting his freedom. It was his way of presenting his evidence of his Freedom Argument.

Unfortunately, there resulted a long line up of cars behind him as he walked. Numerous vehicles, occupied by numerous individuals, who were simply trying to exercise their freedom to drive on the street. The protester’s actions, while possibly a manifestation of his own freedom, incurred the suffering of others. Was his freedom somehow more valuable or important than the freedom of the drivers on the street?

In our world, we often live within societies with laws and rules. Those laws and rules are, I think, intended to provide a vehicle for cooperation between people, as well as an opportunity to allow each participant in the rules to manifest a limited freedom. That is to say, it required quite a cooperative effort by many, many individuals to produce the street that the protester and drivers all were trying to use. No one person owns that street; it belongs to all those who helped build it, which included all the tax payers. With the street being essentially a shared resource, coming up with a set of rules to govern its use seems a fair way to ensure that all those who partook of its creation can all enjoy its use. (I will admit that the precise nature of the laws and rules may require some adjustment to ensure fairness across all individuals, but the idea of having laws and rules I do not think is in dispute).

The protester walking down the middle of the street infringes on the rules of the street’s use, namely the protester is “jaywalking.” By choosing to break the agreed upon rule governing the use of the street, the protester is suggesting that his freedom to walk down the street, in spite of the rules, is more important or more valuable than the freedom of those driving their vehicles on the street.

Ultimately the point I am trying to make is that the exercising of a freedom by one, often restricts the freedom of others, unless the freedom being exercised somehow does not affect others. In the case of a pandemic and vaccination, the purpose of vaccination is to collectively provide defensive measures to mitigate the spread of the virus. When individuals decide not to get vaccinated, they are not only affecting themselves, they are affecting everyone around them with their choice. Their decision to exercise their freedom and not get vaccinated actually restricts the freedom of others, including those who chose to get vaccinated.

The largest weakness of the Freedom Argument, in my opinion, is the lack of consideration of others. For me to be free, others must have their freedom restricted. A better argument might suggest that we are all not entirely free, but free in a limited capacity. I allow my freedom to be restricted in a small way, and you do as well, such that we both can share a similar level of freedom. A compromise of a sort. It seems to me to be better that we all share a limited freedom, than for some to hold onto an unrestricted freedom while many receive no freedom at all.

Conflicting Belief Systems

crimson

I thought I would change it up a little bit today. My topic concerns something I am rather passionate about, and I believe most people are similarly passionate with regard to theirs. But recently, I came to a disturbing realization regarding this topic, which I will elaborate on now.

We all have belief systems. In general, it is dangerous to suggest that everyone possesses something or thinks a certain way, but in this case, I feel confident in my claim. While all our respective belief systems might be incredibly varied and different from one another, we all still have something we believe in. We all have something that guides our actions and our choices, whether it is our culture, our religion, or perhaps even simply the rules and laws of our particular society. We all believe something.

Ironically, I am not going to discuss any particular belief systems or whether any particular system is correct or incorrect, save for one aspect that this article will be concerning itself with. I am going to discuss the idea of converting others to my belief system.

In the Christian faiths, there are the Missionaries who travel to far away lands and try to convert the indigenous populations of those places to Christianity. The Crusades from under a thousand years ago were focused on this idea: to change the belief systems of others to their own belief system.

When the Europeans (the English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese in particular) crossed the Atlantic Ocean to colonize the “New World,” they too were on a mission to convert. However, for them, it was not so much about changing the belief system of the indigenous peoples to the European ways, so much as installing a belief system where there was none in the first place. This couldn’t have been further from the truth of the situation, and we continue to see the repercussions of this ongoing project to this day. Here in Canada, the Residential School fiasco has continued in one form or another to this day, with no signs of slowing. The only real progress that could be said to be made under the circumstances is that more people are aware of the situation than before.

One more poignant example of this is the American “War on Terrorism,” which lead to the war in Afghanistan. At this moment, America (and its allies) are in the process of evacuating the devastated country in an attempt to undo one of the biggest mistakes they’ve made in a while. Ultimately, what this war was about is precisely the topic I am discussing: the Taliban have a belief system, which the Americans disprove of, and hence the Americans used the excuse of the 9/11 Attacks to try and impose their own belief system on various peoples on the other side of the globe. Certainly there are many, many more reasons for the choice to go to war, including economics and establishing a presence near Russia, however, it is the desire to change the belief systems of the local Afghani population that is at the heart of the occupation.

For myself personally, I have been appalled by each and every one of these situations. It took most of my life to realize the gravity of my own privilege and situation, to see how many people have to suffer so that I can live the life of luxury that I live to this day. I understand, now, the path that many people have taken to produce me and get me to my present circumstances I find myself in. The truth is, I really shouldn’t exist at all.

That all said, I do exist. I am here, and I am trying to make a difference in the world. I am trying to fight to make this world a better place. But what I recently realized was that I am no better than any of these other people who have done these horrific things. I to am focused squarely on imposing my belief system on others.

There are many aspects to my beliefs that I honestly wish I could share with others. Other aspects that I feel would ultimately result in a significant improvement of the world were others to share those beliefs with me. However, as I suggested at the outset, there is really just one aspect I will focus on for this article: the belief in imposing my beliefs on others.

This is a bit of a meta topic, but I want to be clear about what my concern is here. I hold a belief that others need not share my beliefs. That is, while I expect others to allow me my beliefs, I don’t necessarily expect them to share in my beliefs. I expect them to allow me to retain my belief system, in spite of their own. I believe that we all should be permitted to hold onto our own respective belief systems. This is an aspect of my belief system, and it is important for me to recognize this. However, there is an insidious truth to my belief: while on the surface it purports to not require others to share my beliefs, it actually does.

If you were to allow me my beliefs, it would only be because you share in this aspect of my belief system. Your belief system would need to be such that it supports allowing me to retain my beliefs. This is critically important, and suggests that I am, on some level, expecting you to share in my belief system, at least in part. Furthermore, if you do not share in this particular aspect of my belief system, I will be inclined to fight you and try to alter your belief system to make concessions in this regard.

To put this all another way, let us say that you do not share this aspect of my belief system. Like those groups above I mentioned, let us say you hold the belief that your belief system is in some way better than mine, and that you will make an effort to convert me; that you will fight and work towards making me change my belief system to match your own. Naturally, as should be expected, I will resist. I will fight back to retain my own belief system. But this amounts to me fighting to change your belief system to accommodate mine. That is, in order to defend my position, I have to alter yours. Even if it were the only aspect of your belief system I needed to change (which is highly unlikely as I’d likely have to reform many other parts of your belief system as well), this still amounts to me working toward changing your belief system.

What this all amounts to is that in any environment where there are individuals or groups who have differing belief systems, there will still need to be some commonality between those belief systems in order for them to peacefully coexist. In a heterogeneous environment of belief systems, they will all need to be tolerant of the other opposing belief systems. Because if there is even one belief system in the mix that contains an aspect that includes converting other belief systems to its own, there will be fighting and conflict as those holding that belief system will be constantly trying to impose their beliefs on the others. This is, in a nutshell, a description of Canada.

To be more specific, the overarching belief system that exists in Canada is an English, Christian belief system, originally inherited by the British during colonization of the Americas. Clearly, there also exists a French, Christian belief system and many others. However, many of the others are not recognized in their own right, such as the belief systems of many of the indigenous cultures throughout the country. And the primary issue that exists within this environment is that both the English and French systems DO include a belief that other beliefs need to be converted. This is the purpose of the Residential Schools, and of the various manifestations of those schools that continue to exist to this day. Their sole purpose is to take the local, indigenous cultures and convert their belief systems to one that is compatible with the English and French systems. And these projects are not exclusive to indigenous peoples. My partner’s mother underwent similar reeducation in her youth as her family’s belief system (which was predominantly Ukrainian) was in conflict with the belief systems at the time as well.

This is all a very large and hairy mess. So what might we do to resolve this situation? Unfortunately, what it seems to suggest is that all peoples and their belief systems need to bear a common thread. This thread needs to be an aspect that allows for tolerance of alternative belief systems. Any belief system that does not include this common thread would need to be extinguished or changed to include this thread. We do observe some of this sort of thing happening in our world today, where some belief systems do have to adapt to the times, lest they perish.

But what about those belief systems that refuse to change, and whose followers are so vast and powerful to prevent the actual extinction of their belief system? Unfortunately, their continued existence would seem to suggest a different sort of resolution: all out war. That is, those belief systems that will not tolerate competition will continue to fight until either they win, or they are exterminated. Unfortunately, this also seems to be the state of affairs in the world today.

This is what happened in Afghanistan: a belief system was attempted to be imposed upon a people, with the intent to exterminate the existing belief system. After 20 years, a significant portion of the population was actually converted to the American belief system (even in part). But the previously existing belief system still very much exists in the region, with a significant portion of the population still embracing that belief system. With the evacuation of American (and allied) troops, it should be no surprise to us that the previous belief system will likely overwhelm the region, as it did before the outside influence.

I admit, I do not agree with their belief system. As a large proponent of feminism, I too fear for the well being of the female population in Afghanistan. Aside from the suffering itself, I also worry about the serious waste of skilled labour and artistic contribution that will be lost to the reassertion of the previous belief system. To hold such a belief system would seem (to me) to be in direct contradiction to a progressive and successful society (after all, about half of your people’s potential is being dismissed and outright lost). However, as I have also been suggesting since the beginning, all of this is a part of my belief system. For the Taliban, I imagine they will not see it this way.

Free Will, part 6

crimson

My last post may have not been as clear as I wanted it to be. This post, hopefully, will be better.

I have spoken much about love in previous posts. My view on what love is and how it operates is definitely not shared by many. In fact, my own partner doesn’t agree with my viewpoint. As she has stated to me recently, I tend to be rather serious and listening to me often gives her existential dread. For this, I sincerely apologize. Honestly, I wish I didn’t think as I did or know what I know.

I have also been watching the series Rick and Morty lately, and recently finished the season 2 finale. During the episode, brief snippets of Hurt, as performed by Nine Inch Nails play. Most people seem more familiar with Johnny Cash‘s cover of the song, but I have always preferred the original.

So much for being more clear. With this background, I will attempt to tie everything together now.

Faith, I believe, is a manifestation of free will. And, as I have stated before, love is a a choice, which is another way of saying it is an expression of free will. That is, I exercise my free will (assuming it exists) when I purport to love someone. I chose to be in love, in some sense. When I express this, I am also manifesting faith, specifically my faith in the fact that my feelings for my partner are genuine and true and sincere. I have no way of proving myself; there is no evidence that can be provided to prove whether I love or do not love someone. When I express my love, it will be up to me to convince those around me that my love is true and genuine. If I fail in this task, then others will suggest my love is not love at all, regardless of my own feelings on the matter. This can be particularly challenging with respect to my partner; if she does not believe that my love is true, then our relationship is likely to fail.

On the reality show Love Island, there are many characters who purport to love other characters. Is their love genuine? There is no way to be sure, because there is no evidence that can be provided to clarify such a claim. The best we (as the audience) can do is witness the character’s actions and choices to see if they are consistent with how we believe a person in love would behave. The immediate challenge you should be thinking about presently is that it entirely depends on the definition of love of the viewer, and you would be correct to express this concern.

In the episode of Rick and Morty I have described above, Rick repeatedly suggests to everyone that he does not love Morty, nor the rest of his family. However, his actions and behavior is inconsistent with what most viewers would consider to be evidence of love. As the song Hurt plays, Rick is performing self sacrificing acts, allowing himself to be apprehended by the Galactic Federation. Furthermore, he suggests that it is his son-in-law who is to be rewarded in his capture, suggesting that his family is to be protected and returned to Earth safely. It is interesting to me that the lines “and you could have it all, my empire of dirt” play in this situation, considering the fact that Earth is often referred to as a ball of dirt floating about the cosmos, and considering the fact that Rick is purported to be the most intelligent (and possibly most powerful) entity in all the multiverse. The lyrics seem to be suggesting that Rick is willing to sacrifice absolutely everything to save his family. The lyrics also seem to suggest his reasons for doing so are with his realization that he has been causing great harm and pain upon those he loves (“I will let you down, I will make you hurt”).

Back on Love Island, most of the characters suggest their entire reason for being at the resort is to find true love. Yet they spend their time holding back from throwing themselves into their respective relationships. It is true that throwing one’s self into a relationship where their partner does not reciprocate their feelings can end in a great deal of pain, however, holding back can (and seems to often) result in just as much pain. Stringing someone along, in hopes that it will somehow work out, generally created even more drama and pain than if those same people simply made a commitment to each other and were honest with their feelings, both with their partners but also with themselves.

The characters of Love Island do NOT have faith in themselves, nor in their relationships. They choose not to exercise their free will nor choose their partners. It seems to me that they prefer to place their hopes and dreams in some “higher power” to magically create that perfect relationship that they wish they could have. They have the power to make themselves (and their partners) happy, but instead choose not to exercise their power.

I am reminded of discussions in my Philosophy of Science class from over a year ago. How some philosophers and scientists believe that the world exists and most things must be discovered in it. That the purpose of science is discovery. However, there are those, like myself, who believe that these things are not out there to be discovered. We create them. We create everything. The world is a reflection of our collective will and our collective actions. And I am not restricting this to just human will or human action; I am suggesting all will and all action, including the will and action of my pet rabbit Jasper, or even of the mosquitoes that annoy us during the summer.

Simone de Beauvoir and the other Existentialists suggested that there was no inherent meaning or purpose in the world. Any meaning or purpose had to be given by a will. A will demonstrates meaning or purpose through action. By making choices, and acting in accordance to those choices, we all generate the meaning and purpose in all the world. And this is why I say that the world is simply a reflection of us all.

Rick’s greatest power in his world may simply be his willingness to act and make choices at all times. He decides for himself, at all times, and his actions tell a story far and beyond the words he may speak. The characters in Love Island, it seems to me, follow a similar pattern, though those characters seem to do the opposite of Rick, rendering them impotent and unsatisfied. Rick has faith. The characters of Love Island do not.

Free Will, part 5 – Love Island

crimson

My partner refers to the television reality show “Love Island” as a guilty pleasure. She recognizes that the show is likely fabricated and entirely ridiculous. However, she finds it entertaining and enjoys watching it none the less. She pointed out to me recently that her desire to watch this show is similar to my desire to watch Marvel movies, which are equally ridiculous and pointless. I think she is right about this.

Having said all of that, I think Love Island can demonstrate some interesting ideas, just as Marvel movies do as well. I made reference to the Loki television series and how it related to my topic of free will, and now I will do the same with Love Island.

Love Island is purported to be a show where its participants stay in a resort with other participants with the ultimate goal of developing deep, meaningful relationships with each other. It is classified as a reality show because the participants are supposed to be real people, who are simply recorded in their unscripted interactions with the other people in the resort. It is meant to be a true and honest reflection of reality. However, it has been my experience that very, very few reality shows are remotely related to reality. I believe Love Island, for example, is quite scripted and that the participants are simply performers fulfilling the desires of the show’s producers. As such, everything I am about to describe is from the perspective of recognizing that the participants are simply characters in a story that is loosely scripted (significantly improvised), and that the story is intended to take place in a reality that is virtually identical to our own. So much so, in fact, that one could search out these characters by the names they are given in the story, and will be able to find them in our reality. Of course, upon find those people in our reality, one may be surprised to find that they are not exactly as presented in the Love Island story.

The participants are brought to “The Villa,” a resort where all their needs are met. They have food provided to them, and likely often prepared for them. They have accommodations, including washrooms, beds, and even shelter from the rain. They bring their own clothing and personal items, though it would not surprise me if some of those items happen to be provided by the show as well, similar to a spa providing a robe and slippers for a client’s stay. The resort is a seeming paradise, where the characters have no actual responsibilities beyond propelling the storyline.

Propelling the storyline is done by developing relationships with the other characters. The intended goal, as establish earlier, is to develop deep, meaningful relationships. As the title suggests, the characters are there to “find love.” To go about this, the characters have to “couple up” with each other in heterogeneous partnerships, and about once a week, they are given the opportunity to alter their partnerships in order to better satisfy the goal of developing those deep, meaningful relationships. If a character is unable to “couple up” during these opportunities, they are removed from the resort. There are also other “twists” to the story that can sometime add more characters to the story, or remove them.

One of the first things I would like to comment on with regard to this setup is that it is not outright established that the couples need to be heterogeneous. It is assumed. I have said on a number of occasions that it would be a very interesting twist in the story if a girl were to choose to couple up with another girl, or a boy with another boy. However, a friend pointed out to me that in a previous season of this show, a character was quietly removed from the show when it came to light that he might be bisexual. This might suggest that the producers of the show are against relationships that are not heterogeneous. This, by itself, is a disturbing feature of the show. It would be far more realistic if the possibility existed for couplings that were other than heterogeneous. This comment is a bit of a tangent, but I feel significant enough to point out. It also is suggestive of a deterministic structure in the story. That is, this is one example of where the characters are restricted in their choices, removing an element of free will from them during the story.

The heart of my discussion regarding Love Island is the nature of how the characters are observed to attempt establishment of deep, meaningful relationships. Clearly, despite being coupled up, the characters are often freely encouraged to interact with other characters outside their coupling in order to see if those other characters might make more suitable partnerships. Some of the characters take this opportunity further than others. In fact, most of the characters suffer from a perspective regarding love that I refer to as the Bigger Better Deal (BBD). That is, the characters are trying to find other characters that will afford them the opportunity to develop the best possible relationship, and if it turns out that a newer character might possibly seem to provide that better opportunity, they may decide to terminate their existing coupling to create a new one with the perceivably better character.

It is this viewpoint that I believe is the greatest weakness in the storyline, and in the characters. It is also this viewpoint that I think most closely reflects the idea of faith. It is a very complicated and confusing example of faith, but I will argue it is faith, none the less.

The characters use various information regarding other characters to help them decide who potentially will make the best possible partnership. They clearly use physical appearance as the most important feature to help them in their decision making, supplementing other information they gain through their varied interactions in the resort. Some of the characters seem to be happy to pursue other characters, but once having establish their coupling, they quickly lose interest and begin pursuing other characters immediately. Some characters restrain themselves from developing their relationships with those they are coupled with, on the possibility that another character might produce a better connection. In many cases, the characters will restrain themselves indefinitely, on the chance that a new character that has yet to be added to the story might possibly be a better match. This is the heart of the BBD.

By following the BBD, the characters are always on the look out for a better possible partnership. Never satisfied with any existing partnerships they may find themselves in, their eyes and senses are constantly searching out other relationships with other characters, including characters they have not yet met because they have not yet been added to the story. In following this perspective, the characters are doomed to never find their ideal match, as they are never spending sufficient time and attention on their current partnership. Their eyes wander, and in wandering, their potentially best possible relationship will never be achieved.

The simple solution to this dilemma would be for the characters to adopt a different perspective. Instead of believing in a situation that will happen to them where another character will simply and spontaneously present themselves as the best possible candidate for an ideal partnership (sometimes referred to as “love at first sight,” or “true love”), it would likely be of benefit for the characters to adopt a perspective where they recognized that relationships with other people are developed through spending time together and focusing on their existing partners. If the characters had faith in their existing partners, and focused on them at the exclusion of other possible BBDs, they might be able to turn their existing relationships into the best possible relationships they could become, developing those deep connections the story suggests is what the characters are aiming for.

In this way, faith becomes a significant part of the story, as does free will. The characters are (allegedly) not being unduly influenced by the producers of the show in their attempts to find deep, meaningful relationships; that is, the characters are permitted to exercise their free will to make choices in order to develop their best possible relationships with other characters. By the characters following a perspective of the BBD, they are presenting a significant lack of faith in the characters they are interacting with; that is, they do not believe that any of the characters presented to them will produce the best possible partnership because there is always the looming possibility that another character could be introduced into the storyline that might possible produce a superior partnership opportunity.

It is also at this point that I would like to acknowledge that there may possibly be a few characters who have recognized the alternative viewpoint. Characters who have decided that their existing partnership is the best possible partnership they are going to be able to produce. These characters are seen periodically talking to themselves, reiterating this claim repeatedly, likely trying to convince themselves that this is the case. While I would like to believe that they are being authentic when they do this, evidence demonstrated by these characters throughout the storyline seems to suggest otherwise. It is always possible I am mistaken regarding this.

Ultimately, as I identified at the beginning of this post, I believe that the entire show is scripted and unduly influenced by the producers. As with the example regarding a seemingly heterogeneous coupling requirement, I believe that the producers of the show have various designs that they utilize throughout the storyline. They imagine how best to present their story, and they provide influence and even basic scripting to the performers to fulfill their designs. I could even discuss the fact that the show is assembled in such a fashion, including with the use of musical scores, to present the performers in certain very specific ways to tell the producers’ story in a very particular way. However, that simple idea could become its own post entirely.

Thus, I believe Love Island is simply a scripted story based on a group of real life people. The scripting is light, but still there, and the real people are the basis of the characters, but the characters clearly deviate from their real sources pretty much immediately. I would very much like to meet one of these reality stars in person someday, simply to establish whether or not the performers believed they were the same as the characters they had portrayed. It would disturb me greatly if they did.

In my next post, I will try to be more focused on the topic of free will and faith. For now, I wanted to take a brief tangent to discuss another aspect of faith that seems to me to exist in a simple television show.

Free Will, part 4 – Faith

crimson

As a child, I had the opportunity to participate in many different activities which in turn allowed me many opportunities to explore my world. For a time, I was part of a Christian youth group. My parents were not what one might call religious, and so there was no formal spirituality discussed in my home growing up. As such, my time with the youth group was quite significant to me. I had never formally encountered a main stream religion up to this point.

What I did not understand for a long time, up to and beyond the time I was with the youth group, is that most people are quite spiritual in nature, and arguably most follow some sort of main stream religion to a greater or lesser degree. In other words, I had been deeply embedded in spiritual and religious beliefs my entire life; I simply did not recognize this fact until much, much later. This all said, the youth group was, for me, my first real interaction with spirituality in a manner I recognized as being spiritual.

The group suggested that one need not be a Christian to participate in the group, however, they did encourage exposure. For me, I was quite enthusiastic to learn more about this as I was unfamiliar with it. The people in the group seemed so happy and excited to be alive, and I wanted to be a part of that. I wanted to be happy and excited to be alive.

I join various reading groups and bible study groups. I read scripture and discussed the passages at length. I was quite interested in Genesis and Revelations in particular, likely because they represented the beginning and the end of things. But I also found the New Testament interesting as well, discussing this strange individual Jesus who claimed to be the son of God. It was all so surreal to me. Unfortunately, I had something it seems like most of the others did not have going into these discussions: critical thinking. This is not to say that the other people didn’t reason or follow logical arguments and such. This was something else.

I said my parents were not religious. They were not. However, as I figured out much later, they were very spiritual. Even more important was the fact that they had a lot of beliefs. However, especially my father, did not consider their beliefs as beliefs. For him, his beliefs were simply facts. Truths about the world we inhabited. For him, these truths were not simply his truths, they were everyone’s truths. When I figured this out, I started referring to his beliefs as “absolute truths.”

The people in my youth group had different beliefs than my father in many areas. However, what they had which was very much like my father was this almost stubborn passion with their beliefs. Like my father, for them their beliefs were more than just beliefs for them, but they called their beliefs “faith” instead of “truth.”

It has been a long time since those days. When I think about my father’s “absolute truth” and the youth group’s “faith,” I realize that they are virtually identical things. In both cases, there is something that they all hold as a belief (a typically passionate and stubborn belief), and at the same time, this something is suggested to apply to everyone. Furthermore, in many cases, these beliefs could not be confirmed nor denied.

In the case of the youth group, their belief in God and their belief that the bible was without error are both ideas that cannot be confirmed nor denied. The existence of God is suggested in the bible, and the bible is without error because it was written by God (in a fashion, it is the word of God that generates the bible, and the word as manifested through people is how it is written down physically). But this is certainly a circular argument. If God is required to prove that the bible is without error, then the bible cannot be used to prove the existence of God. Similarly, if the bible is required to prove the existence of God, then God cannot be used to prove that the bible is without error. To achieve a belief of these two things, something beyond reason or evidence is required. Hence faith.

I am unable to provide a similar example of my father’s beliefs. For my father, he simply knew when something was true, and there was no talking him out of it. When my sisters and I were loudly conversing in the basement one day, my father yelled down at us to stop fighting. My sisters and I all shouted back up at my father simultaneously that we were not fighting, to which he responded in an even louder voice that we should cease fighting. For my father, in this particular circumstance, he was convinced we were fighting which would have explained our loud discussion, but my sisters and I were simply discussing something and we all have very loud voices. There were no conflicts nor problems at the time. We were all very amenable in this particular circumstance. Of course, this sort of situation was a rarity for us, as conflicts were frequent, so it is understandable that my father might believe we were fighting. But in this very specific instance, we were not, and nothing was going to change my father’s mind on the matter. For him, it did not matter what we said, he simply knew the truth, and acted accordingly.

I suspect that example is less than convincing. It is hard for me to explain my father. Growing up, I thought he was simply correct at all times. Whenever I needed some piece of accurate information, I would always ask my father, and I trusted he would never make an error. Inevitably, once I was older, I discovered many errors. And, unfortunately for me, once my eyes were open, I was able to reflect on past events and realize just how often these errors took place.

This isn’t the worst of it, however. I think most people discover something like this about their parents at some point. Or about someone in their lives that they trusted for a very long time. Not that it needs to be malicious. Often, it culminates in what my parents described to me as being “white lies,” such as the perpetuated belief in Santa Claus. When I was much older, and an uncle to a niece, I was instructed by my parents to continue the false belief in Santa Claus to my niece, which I refused to do. In arguing with my parents regarding this, they suggested that perhaps I might be mistaken, and that Santa Claus might still exist. Or perhaps that Santa Claus exists because he isn’t a physical person like you or I, but instead he is an idea or hope for young children. For me, to this day, I simply consider Santa Claus as a fabrication used by adults to assist in their control over small children. I believe this in part because I KNOW that most of the small children I encounter are far more intelligent and insightful than most adults give them credit. Even my niece knew Santa did not exist before I had to say anything. She came to me and asked, and then suggested she already knew and simply wanted confirmation. And then she proceeded to ask me not to tell her grandparents, so as not to dismantle the magic for them. It is a very strange situation when the child is asking for you to perpetuate the “white lie” to the adults, for fear that the adults dreams might be diminished.

I admit, I’m on a bit of a tangent now. This post is starting to get pretty long. Ultimately the point I wish to make is that there have been some extremely rigid beliefs that my father held that he considered to be “absolutely true,” and that no amount of arguing and discussion on my part would change his mind. It seemed to me that evidence or reason did not play a role in the generation of, nor the continuance of, these beliefs my father held. Like the youth group, it seemed as though he simply had “faith” that he was correct. And also like the youth group, my father made decisions and pursued his projects as though those beliefs were in fact true.

Using both cases, I think I can made something of a definition for faith. Faith is a form of belief; it is something someone considers to be true, and that person will act as though the thing is true under all circumstances. Faith is unprovable; it is something that cannot be confirmed, nor denied, regardless how much evidence, reason, or logic is used. To put this second point another way, no amount of information will completely satisfy conditions in order to elucidate the truth value of faith. If evidence comes to light that is able to confirm or deny a faith claim, then the claim can no longer count as faith; if the evidence confirms the faith, then it becomes a reasonable belief; if the evidence denies the faith, then it becomes a sort of delusion or self-denial. (This is, of course, assuming that the individual continues to hold onto the belief, regardless of what the evidence does to the belief).

In my previous post, I suggested that perhaps faith was something like True Belief, but I would like to correct myself. Part of the nature of faith is that we cannot know whether it is true or not, thus, faith is left as being simply Belief, with some other caveats, as I have laid out above. A faith claim cannot be proven true, nor false; that is part of why it requires the individual to simply believe it. This all also requires that one believes it is possible for individuals to hold beliefs without reasons. In my next post, I will continue exploring this idea of faith, and start tying it to free will.

Free Will, part 3

crimson

When I have conversations with people about free will, and I tend to have a lot of these conversations, those I talk to seem to have a very specific idea in mind: unpredictability. This is to suggest that free will is in some way unpredictable. No matter how much I know about a person, their personal history, their genetics, their environment, or anything else, I will NEVER be able to predict or determine (with perfect accuracy) what decisions or choices they will make. This, people tell me, is because free will prevents such a possibility. This third alternative understanding of free will is what I will discuss today.

In order for free will to be unpredictable under all circumstances, it has to fall outside the causal chains of determinism. That is to say that no amount of information regarding a being will be sufficient to accurately predict their choices. While it is true that I, being human, have my limits, this description goes beyond those limits I have. Of course I cannot predict a being’s choices, as my own limitations would definitely prevent me from acquiring enough information to be able to calculate a choice perfectly. I cannot even hold a small fraction of all the information that comes to me in my own life. I cannot even truly predict my own behavior, let alone the behavior of others.

This is my limitation, and a limitation that I believe virtually all humans have. In fact, I might argue that it is just this limitation that allows people to believe in the possibility of a free will of the sort I am describing in this post. As Alastair Reynolds suggests in his short story “Zima Blue,” the fallibility of memory is a significant part of what allows for beings to, in some sense, go beyond their normal limitations. (It should be noted here that the short story covers these ideas much better than the Netflix’s version that was released in “Love, Death & Robots.”) In this post, the sort of free will I am describing would still remain unpredictable, even if somehow a being were able to overcome these limitations.

It is true that delving into this realm of idea is entirely impractical. If no being could truly overcome such limitations, then no being ever could truly predict with perfect accuracy the decisions of other beings, no matter what flavour of free will we might be describing. However, I argue that it is still important to consider, because there is a world of difference between a deterministic process, confined to the realm of causality, and a process that exists beyond causality entirely. Perhaps not entirely though.

Even our best science could never detect or uncover such a process. Science itself starts with the assumption of determinism. To determine if a peer’s theory may be correct, one must repeat their procedure and see if the results remain the same. If every time I drop a stone from 3 feet off the ground, it always accelerates downward, toward the center of the Earth, and if all of my peers observe the exact same behaviour when they follow my same procedure, then we can all suggest, with a reasonable amount of confidence, that something like gravity exists. But it is the fact that we all perform this same procedure repeatedly, and observe the same observations repeatedly, that allows us this confidence. Whenever we create the conditions of the cause, we seem to always observe the same effect. If in some instance, for one of us, the stone instead remains stationary or accelerates in some other direction, we generally wouldn’t suggest that some other process is taking place that breaks from the deterministic structure we have assumed exists. Instead, we would suggest that some part of the experiment was conducted incorrectly, or perhaps we might suggest that gravity itself is not what we think it is.

The point I am making here is that science cannot help us in our endeavor with free will, especially the sort I am describing in this post. This sort of free will is outside the deterministic structures we seem to observe in our world. This description of free will is unmeasurable. This free will, at least in part, falls outside determinism. I say in part because there is clearly a part that does touch determinism. Free will may itself not be caused, in the sense we understand cause and effect, but it certainly causes effects to take place. After all, if it did not do this, then free will would be performing no observable work whatsoever.

I often refer to this sort of free will as an “uncaused cause,” a term that is often understood as Aristotle’s “unmoved mover.” Whereas for Aristotle (and others), the uncaused cause would be the initial thing that began ALL causal chains in existence (essentially the thing that began the universe as we know it), a version of free will as I am describing it would be constantly occurring to perpetually introduce some amount of seeming randomness into an otherwise causally connected world. Free will, of this sort, would introduce significant error into our calculations rooted in determinism over time. The more free will is expressed, the greater the error would be. I am starting to sound like the Architect from The Matrix Reloaded.

It is for all these reasons that I have significant doubts as to the existence of this version of free will. If free will of this sort exists, and if we assume that all humans possess it, then I would expect there to be significant problems with all of our scientific claims and formulas. That is, any formula that we have created and have significant confidence with, would always be found to be in error a portion of the time, as a result of the influence of free will altering the deterministic outcomes of the events being measured. As we seem to find many of our formulas and theories seem to work most of the time without too many problems, it seems unlikely that free will exists.

Of course the strongest support for there being some thing beyond our deterministic universe is the same argument Aristotle (and others) proposed above. If everything is deterministic in nature, and all actions are caused by previous actions, how does one resolve there being a first action, a first uncaused cause, an unmoved mover? One might argue that there is no first, and it simply leads infinitely backward, but that is similarly difficult to explain.

Having given all of this much thought, I have a suggestion as to one possible manifestation of free will of this sort: faith. The sort of faith that religious zealots express as support for their particular flavour of deity. Faith, it seems to me, is an example of an uncaused cause. Or perhaps more accurately, a belief held by an individual that cannot have any sort of evidence or reason supporting it. If it does have evidence or reason supporting it, then it is no longer faith, it is a supported belief. To be faith, it must be unsupportable.

Putting this another way, in philosophy, knowledge is sometimes referred to as being Justified, True Belief (JTL). That is, for something to count as knowledge, it must be true of the world, it must be supported by evidence, and the individual must actually believe it. Suppose faith is similar to knowledge, but without the justified element. Just that it is somehow true of the world and that the individual believes it. How would we differentiate it from random lucky guesses? This, it seems to me, should be the topic for my next post.