Tag: The Matrix

The Matrix Resurrections and Being Trans

crimson

Yesterday, I was a fool…

It takes time to understand a Matrix film. All of them do. To be perfectly honest, I still uncover and discover things about the original films today. It has been 22 years since the first film was released and I am still discovering things. This is what makes a Matrix film a Matrix film. Reflection and revelation.

No, I’m not trans. This is not me coming out. But in some sense, I am trans as well. What I just realized is what it means to be trans. What it means to affirm your own identity. To claim yourself, despite what the world and others wish you to be. It is about making a choice that really isn’t a choice at all.

My journey has been a long one, and it is by no means over. I expect I will still uncover and discover things about all of the Matrix films 20 years from now. More hidden meanings and hidden messages. Though, the irony is that none of these messages or meanings are hidden at all. They never were. That is what makes these films so brilliant and yet so heartbreaking.

In virtually every human culture, once we are born, we are told who and what we are. On some level, this is necessary. Baby humans cannot survive on their own and require assistance. In most cases, it is their parents who provide that assistance, at least over the first five or so years. Others are often involved as well, such as doctors and other family members. At five (or so, at least in my culture) you are thrust into the system in an official way: you go to school. Kindergarten or maybe Grade 1. You are taught all the things you need to know in order to eventually become a “productive member of society.” You are taught how to properly be who and what you are, as indicated and supported by your birth.

The first 20 years of your life are devastating. I believe this is true for everyone. Whatever you may think or feel must be shaped during this time, and so at any time you try to think or feel things that you are not supposed to think or feel, you are disciplined. You are corrected. You are not supposed to think those things, or feel in those ways. The discipline can be hard. The discipline is often violent. But it needs to be. Otherwise, you might start to think that being yourself is acceptable, and this can put you in serious jeopardy.

Discipline comes from everywhere. Not just your parents. Not just the teachers in school. It comes from your peers as well. The other children that are in the same situation you are in. You learn that if you support the system and help correct others, you are usually rewarded. They say that the best way to learn is to teach.

You are lucky though as well. Before you are declared an adult if you make missteps, the discipline, as hard as it is, is still light in comparison to what it will be as an adult. Becoming an adult changes the game entirely. As an adult, the same missteps can get you killed, quite literally. And some missteps are so severe, you don’t even need to be an adult.

This is the path all humans take. We are told we have free will, but we are never given an opportunity to express it. We are told that once you become an adult, you will get to express it, but by that time it is already far too late. You’ve been indoctrinated into the system. Your identity well established. Who and what you are, as decided at birth, are instinctually programmed. You can not make a free choice, even if you wanted to.

This is a pretty lofty claim. Many who read what I have written will likely find fault with it in some way. The easiest attack is the claim “all humans.” After all, there must certainly be exceptions. I have yet to see one. And in the 46 years of my life that I’ve had to ponder this, I have found no way out. Because I have pondered this all my life. At least as far back as the time I asked my mother where “man” came from. (I am told I asked this question before I was 4.)

The trans situation is the same as this; only there is a focus on particulars. The who and what in this case are sex and gender. Are you a boy or a girl? Will you grow up to be a man or a woman? It is this declaration at birth that decides the path of your conditioning. Are you blue or pink? Do you get a truck or a doll? Do you take Industrial Arts or Home Economics? Which washroom do you enter?

The question I asked during my training was why? Why do I have to have a preferred colour? A preferred toy? A preferred vocation? Should these things not be something I can decide for myself? Exercising my free will? I was told that I was allowed to express myself, but if I chose incorrectly, I was corrected.

I’ve mentioned the beer issue in previous posts, but I think this is the right place to raise it again. I don’t like beer. This is my free will expressing itself. But once I came of age, as I was declared a boy at birth, my dislike of beer was challenged over and over again. Men drink beer, after all. It is a manly thing to do. My friends, my peers, who were sympathetic, made attempts to correct me. One even told me that, “no one likes beer, we all just get used to it.” Is this not precisely the point I’m trying to make?

The part of trans culture that I generally disagree with is that I see people dismissing one side for another. I am not a boy, I’m a girl. I don’t exhibit the traits and features of one category, I exhibit the traits and features of the other. It is the established and confirmed categories that I detest. During my upbringing, I was essentially offered a choice between two pots to pick from. No other options lay before me. Do you like blue? Do you like pink? What if I want to say green?

I know about non-binary. I know about both and neither. And if I were trans, that is where I’d stand. But I detest those categories. I see the depth of their artificiality. I see the depth of their insidiousness. I see how their influence taints the very fabric of our reality. It is why I was so moved when reading “In and Out of Harm’s Way” by Marilyn Frye. The idea of the Arrogant Eye. The idea of oppression.

The largest issue I face with all of this, the point I’ve made in previous posts, is that if I don’t like this system of categories, I ought to offer an alternative. I don’t have one. Or, my suggestion is that there be none. No men. No women. Just people. Just humans. But then I’d also have to establish what sort of training all babies are supposed to get. I’d have to pick and choose the correct colour and toy and vocation. At least, that is what I’m led to believe.

Maybe that too is the point. Maybe the establishment of colour and toy and vocation is itself also part of the problem. The system of conditioning. The training. Maybe it all has to go. But then how would those young humans learn to exist in the world?

We circle back and start to eat our tail at this point. What does the world look like presently? What sorts of skills and abilities work best in this world? What sort of training would be best to offer a young human in order to afford them the greatest success in this modern world? Clearly, the training of boys and girls is most suited to this environment. This is a world of men and women, after all. Even if it is not desirable, this is the world as it stands presently.

An appeal to tradition. We are as we are because we were. Change is slow. Slower the more humans get involved. And there are 7.7 billion humans right now (according to Google). That’s a lot of people. Change is going to be so very slow.

The latest Matrix film has been a roller coaster for me. First fighting for room. I had to defend my position that I didn’t dislike the film. It’s strange to me to have to defend such a position. “How can you not hate this film,” people would scream at me. “This film is a steaming dumpster fire!” Simply not agreeing with them seemed to suggest I was in serious need of discipline. Like when I was younger.

But I did what I always do. I tried to be patient. I talked to people. Especially people who I didn’t agree with. I learned long ago that it is those you don’t agree with that will offer the greatest insights. Even though many of those people seemed to want to crucify me, I knew they could offer me answers that those who agreed with me could not. So I persevered.

I told everyone I would take a break. After about two weeks of going to war each day, I said I’d gotten as much as I could, and I needed time to digest. I think we all did. Time for those who haven’t seen the film an opportunity to see the film. And for those who had, time to think about what they saw. To reflect.

It didn’t take very long. The film was released only 18 days ago. It only took 18 days of discussion and reflection for me to get here. Enough time to realize what this film is. Enough time to now say that this film may be the best of the series. Greater even than the first.

Please do not misunderstand. I fully expect to continue learning and evolving over time. I expect to continue to uncover and discover things related to this film for years to come. But in this moment, I think I understand. I think I understand enough to say, I like this film. Enough to say, this film is amazing.

This film, among all the other things that it is, is a trans story. It is a brief glimpse into the process I described above. It is about how we are told who and what we are, despite anything we may feel inside. The film engages directly with this. So much so that it can be uncomfortable to watch.

But don’t look away because you are uncomfortable. Keep looking. Keep watching. You are supposed to feel uncomfortable. Because it is uncomfortable to be told who and what you are, especially when you feel something else entirely. If the film punches you in the face, it isn’t random and it isn’t with malicious intent. It is with love. It is there to help you. Change hurts. Change is incredibly painful. This film knows this.

Why this film is brilliant is that unlike so many other films (including its predecessors), this film is not afraid. This film isn’t subtle. This film is there getting in your face. Invading your space. Forcing you to deal with everything. Calling you to action. Working you into a frenzy.

This is why there are so many people expressing hatred. This is why those same people cannot help but try to discipline and shame me. The film insults them. The film offends them. The film challenges their very being. There should be absolutely no surprise that some people would have these reactions.

In the last review I watched, just before writing this post, the commentator described this film as beautiful. I agree with him. Like me, he is not trans either. But he did his research, and he watched the film with a Loving Eye. He was patient. He reflected. And I think he is right.

The Matrix Resurrections and A Key

crimson

A part of the issues I am facing with this latest film is trying to justify that I got something out of it that others seem not to. I claim the existence of hidden messages and hidden meanings; I claim this film is somehow “art.” But I haven’t provided satisfactory evidence to back up my claims. I resisted because I had hoped simply telling others that these messages existed would be enough to motivate people to discover them on their own. Unfortunately, I was wrong to think this.

And so, this will be me revealing a key to understanding The Matrix Resurrections. I say “a” key because I’m confident there are other keys out there. This is simply the one I found and used to decode the film with. Huge warning now, that the following includes a shit ton of spoilers!

I will lay out my key as three steps that need to be considered in order to understand the hidden messages. After revealing these keys, I will elaborate in detail.

Step 1: This film is not entertainment. This film serves itself.

Step 2: The dialog spoken by the characters does not originate with those characters. The words and ideas are actually the words and ideas of real people in our very real world.

Step 3: Once you have figured out who actually said what the characters have said, consider what was said in the context of the scene, in the context of the film in its entirety, in the context of the film industry, and in the context of the creators.

If you endure these steps, you will find a ton of messages and ideas that themselves raise their own questions regarding the film and its very existence. Now to elaborate.

In step 1, one needs to start by realizing this film is not for them. That is, many modern films are designed as consumer products. As products, their purpose is to entertain people and provide motivation for people to part with their money. The film industry is, first and foremost, a business. The Matrix Resurrections is challenging this very idea.

As such, in order to actually understand the film, one needs to abandon the idea that the film will entertain the audience. The film might appear to be for their consumption, but it really is not. The film serves its own interests, not the interests of the audience. In other words, do not expect the film to fulfill in the way other films might.

This also raises the next issue: passive versus active. Most modern films, designed for consumption, require very little from the audience (aside from opening their wallets). The audience can enjoy the films very passively. The audience does not need to put forth much effort. This film is not passive; this film is active. This film requires the audience to put in an effort. Any audience who expects the film to serve them will certainly be disappointed.

Properly prepared, we are now ready to enter step 2. In step 2, the audience has to do some work. People have already identified that the dialog issuing forth from the characters is often broken and jilted. There are breaks in continuity. This is because the dialog isn’t necessarily for the scene or the characters. Someone else said these things, or something very similar, outside the scope of the film. The trick is to figure out who said it, and why.

Much of the time, and especially when one is stuck, assume it was Lana herself saying the dialog. If that doesn’t work, try Lilly. Still not working, try others, including Warner Bros. executives, crazy film fanatics, and even film critics. Often, the clues as to whom should be considered are there in the scene itself.

This leads to step 3: analysis. Consider what was said, and by whom, in the context of the scene itself. What does it tell you about the scene? If there are deficiencies in the scene, perhaps this is why; perhaps it is intentional. If the scene doesn’t entirely make sense, this may reveal where the problem exists.

Next, consider what was said in the context of the film as a whole. Perhaps it is telling us why the film was even created in the first place. In the context of film industry, perhaps a commentary is being made regarding the state of affairs of films in general (see my step 1 above). And in the context of the creators, perhaps they are trying to tell us something. Do not assume immediately that it is sarcasm or malicious. Try to be charitable. Try to be empathetic.

At this point, these hidden messages should start to reveal themselves. These hidden messages will tell their own story, not necessarily the same story that appears to have been presented. For me, the story mostly begins by telling me that this is NOT a Matrix film at all.

Now for an example of what I am talking about. The beginning of the film starts very similarly to how the first film in the trilogy started, though with marked differences. As someone else pointed out, after the initial trace sequence, instead of a light being pointed directly at the audience, the light is seen reflected in a pool of water on the ground. This, by itself should alert the audience that this new film, though seeming very similar is being presented from a different perspective than the first.

Before the light, there is a brief conversation between two characters: Bugs and Seq. “Looks like old code,” says Seq. “It feels really familiar,” says Bugs. Already we are being alerted. Perhaps this is a conversation between a Warner Bros. executive and Lana, discussing a draft of the new upcoming film. “A quick peek can’t hurt.” “Bugs, this feels like a trap.” Could this be Lana expressing concern about the draft? Or perhaps even her being dragged into a project she never wanted to be a part of?

We watch the opening sequence unfold, and yet it pales as compared to the first film. The iconic floating kick is strangely absent this time and the choreography is somehow less impressive. Following the scene to its conclusion, we also notice that Trinity does not actually escape this time. Bugs and Seq are there with the audience, watching. “But something is happening here. Something important.” “We know this story. This is how it all began. This is where he began.” The character, Bugs, is talking about Neo. But if these were not Bugs’ words, then “he” would also not be who we think either. “So deja vu and yet it’s obviously all wrong.”

I believe these words are self-referential. Lana and/or Lilly talking about themselves from the beginning. From the time they first created the first film. Before they were “she,” they were “he.” The next line, “Why use old code to mirror something new?” pulls it all together. Perhaps not a complete answer, but the beginning of one. It sounds like someone at Warner Bros. sought out Lana and/or Lilly and presented them with their own take on the Matrix. A draft of a script perhaps. Upon reading it, it awoke something inside them. Reminiscing. Remembering. And then concern. Their story had already been told. It had been concluded, hadn’t it? And this story, the one remembered is somehow inferior to the original as well. Trinity was supposed to have escaped. Trinity was supposed to have got out.

“If that’s supposed to be Trinity, that’s not what happens.”

“Maybe this isn’t the story we think it is.”

“Bugs, you have to get out of here. It’s gotta be a trap.”

I think this opening could be talking about how the initial project that eventually became this film began. How Lana and Lilly were initially drawn back in, someone else wanting to renew the Matrix franchise and tell more story. More likely, in order to try to cash in. The recurring references to it being a “trap” suggest that perhaps whomever actually approached Lana and Lilly may themselves have been naive and didn’t realize what they were doing. Perhaps motivated by a “higher power” (say the Warner Bros. executive team).

But all this is only one possible interpretation as well. Another could be that Lana is talking directly to her audience instead. Perhaps she is telling that audience that the film itself is the trap, and the audience is about to be deceived. A warning perhaps.

The next line is, I believe, the first reference to something: “Shit”. This singular word is strewn throughout the entire film. I don’t think it is ironic. I don’t think it is an accident. I don’t think anyone is trying to be funny. I think “shit” has a very specific meaning in the context of this film. I think “shit” is a representation to the sorts of things that are expected, like in the phrase “the same old shit.” This likely includes such things as the iconic action sequences and “bullet time,” which of course are referenced later in the film.

I will stop here, as my intention is not to decode the entire film. Doing so does the film, the creators, and the audiences all a disservice. I honestly, think I’ve already said too much as it is. However, I cannot assume that most people will be able to see what I see. Some people may need some assistance in the decoding. It is my sincere hope that this little bit is enough to get people started. Perhaps this is enough to convince people to take the time to see what I think this film is all about.

The Matrix Resurrections and Futility

crimson

Out of breath, after screaming into the void for days. Why do I scream? Do I want to be heard? Perhaps not. I already know what they think, what they feel. They’ve made it abundantly clear; they are not like me, I am not like them. I am alien.

The film is instrumentally good. More than that. It is brilliant. Because it was able to invoke such passionate responses in everyone who watched it. Including me. I always felt I was immune, but clearly I am not.

I feel alone. I know there are others out there who saw what I saw. They too scream into the void, and I can hear them. But for some reason we cannot find each other. Perhaps they are just an echo.

Since I was very young, I felt I was different than everyone else. I thought about things no one else seemed to think about. I saw things others said were not there. My own father told me I was not different, and that everyone else thought as I did. I believed him, for a time. But it is difficult to reconcile when the behaviors and words of all these people are so vastly different. If they thought as I thought, and felt as I felt, would then not act as I act?

I suppose they might be. After all, I have remained hidden in the crowd for so long, I look just like everyone else. My mask is so perfect. What if theirs are just as perfect.

I don’t know what to think anymore. I haven’t for a while. This film simply brought it back to the surface. This film reminded me of the hopelessness I see. Perhaps I should not have watched Don’t Look Up right afterward. The futility of screaming.

The Matrix Resurrections and The Arrogant Eye

crimson

There is something I need to say. I believe it is quite important. So important that merely understanding it changes a person. The problem I have is that my aptitude with communication is not as great as I would like it to be. Certainly not sufficient to appropriately convey this thing I need to say. Any attempts I make inevitably lead to misunderstanding and dismissal.

If I try my hardest, there are those who will hear, who will listen. However, those same people already know and understand what I’m trying to convey. In fact, many of those people understand it better than I do. It has been through those people that my own understanding has grown and flourished over the years. So telling them this thing is a bit redundant. Like shouting into a barrel.

Unfortunately, there are many more people who will not listen at all. They may not even be able to hear me, my voice is so small and quiet. But it is those people who need to listen more than anything. It is those people who need to understand the most. I just know that if they grasped this thing for even a moment, they would realize just how important it is.

So it seems my problem is trying to figure out how to make those people listen. Especially when I already understand that I cannot make anyone do anything they don’t already want to do. If they do not want to listen to me, then it will not matter what words I choose or how I try to say what I need to say. My message will fall upon deaf ears.

But it is really important that they know. Important that they understand. At least, that is what I believe. It is in part because I understand that I know it is so important. I truly believe that if they simply understood, they too would recognize its significance.

Perhaps I need to better understand those people. To understand what they do want to listen to. What they want to hear. Perhaps I might be able to speak to them in a way they understand and prefer. Perhaps then I could convey my message. Unfortunately, speaking in their language makes it incredibly difficult to convey this message of mine. Their language isn’t very efficient in expressing this idea. Their language is better suited to expressing different sorts of ideas.

I also have to be very careful when I speak to them. There are words I feel compelled to use that will immediately close them from me. Simple words with so much meaning, but at the same time words that they don’t want to hear. I cannot use those words.

A famous person wrote an amazing essay entitled “In and Out of Harm’s Way.” In this essay, the famous person discusses the idea of “The Arrogant Eye.” A person with this perspective sees the world as they want to see it. Their observations are tainted or coloured by their own desires and feelings. When they interact with the world, they end up trying to dominate that world. After all, the world is a reflection of their making; in some sense they own the world. The problem with this perspective is that it leaves very little room for others to exist in their world. Or, what inevitably must happen, others are subjugated and oppressed in order to make room.

The alternative perspective is referred to as “The Loving Eye.” A person with this perspective sees the world as it is, or perhaps more accurately, they try very hard to see the world as it is, trying very hard not to allow their own desires and feelings to overshadow the world. When they interact with the world, they often try to leave the world undisturbed. They want to allow the world to express itself, in some way. Others that may exist in the world are also encouraged to express themselves. The world is not intended to be a reflection of their making; it is not their world to possess.

These perspectives are not the thing I need to say. They are vehicles to help understand. With art, one can view it with an Arrogant Eye or with a Loving Eye. Inevitably, one will colour the art with their own experience, no matter how hard they try not to. But with the Loving Eye, the person really tries not to. With the Loving Eye, one tries to understand what the creator of the art intended, instead of assuming for themselves the meaning of the piece.

Art is art. And creators are creators. The second the art leaves the creator, it will have of life of its own. The good creators understand this. The good creators will do their best to separate themselves from their art once it has left the nest. But it can still hurt a great deal to watch your art be constantly misunderstood and misinterpreted. The worst, I think, is when your art is labeled as inferior or bad. How can art be bad? If art is an expression made by the creator, then it could only be bad if it was somehow not an expression of the creator.

Unfortunately, none of us can control others. We cannot make them listen. We cannot make them understand. We cannot tell them how to view a piece of art. And we certainly cannot tell them whether a particular piece is good, bad, or otherwise. Everyone will decide for themselves what they think about the piece of art. In fact, they will decide for themselves whether the piece is even art at all. This is yet another problem with language.

I was going to go through The Matrix Resurrections scene by scene and explain what I thought was going on. At this moment, I’ve changed my mind. I watched the film several times, trying to look with a Loving Eye. The things I saw both inspired me and disappointed me. I was inspired because the creator seems to have accomplished the very same thing that they did with the first film: The Matrix Resurrections is rich with symbolism, layers, and hidden messages that will keep people busy for a very long time. However, I was also disappointed because it seemed like many of those messages suggested that the film should not have been created in the first place.

I believe the creator was incredibly reluctant to create this film. When forced against their wishes, they decided to take the opportunity to say something they felt was important. Important to them. And really, I think that too is what is most important.

Imperfection in the Matrix

crimson

I like the Matrix story. I have written many posts regarding aspects of the story that I think are quite well done and thought provoking. However, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that there are also issues with the story. Some can be overlooked. Others are quite substantial.

To be clear, I still like the story. It is still one of my favorites. I consider the nature of the story to be such that one can overlook much and still gain from its viewing. A fundamental feature of the story is that it plays with the idea that we have a tendency to feel like something is amiss, almost all the time. In the case of the Matrix, this thing that is amiss is often the fact that the characters are trapped in a simulated world, unable to escape; unable to really detect on a conscious level that they are even trapped. This feeling drives many of the conversations and debates about aspects of the story. This is a good thing. The stories many imperfections can be overlooked as a result.

That said, there are some huge problems as well. In this post, I will raise two major problems with the story. One significant and straight forward problem relates to the scorched sky. The other, much more subtle problem, relates to the obviousness of the orchestrated “path of the one.” One of these problems, I believe, will be quite easy to see by most. The other may not.

At various points in the films and supplementary material, it is explained that the sky was scorched by the humans in an attempt to defeat the machines in a great war. The machines were, at the time, quite dependent on solar energy to sustain themselves. It was believed, by the humans, that blocking this source of energy would bring a quick end to the war. This assumption clearly failed, and the events that precipitated the creation of the Matrix simulation follow. The machines decided to use human beings as a source of energy to sustain themselves, considering this to be a viable alternative to the previously abundant solar energy.

Unfortunately, on this planet, there is no source of energy as abundant as solar energy. In fact, most other forms of energy we utilize are indirectly generated by solar energy. For example, the currents of winds in our atmosphere are, by and large, generated by the solar energy being absorbed by large land masses, which in turn heat up the atmosphere near the surface. The air rises, as a result of being heated, and this causes the air above to be pushed around. This isn’t the only manner in which the atmosphere moves, but it is probably the most significant. This is also why the melting of the polar ice caps is such a big deal related to climate change. The ice caps, by and large, reflect this solar energy, meaning the energy is sent back off into space. Less ice caps mean less solar energy bounced away, and more absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere, which in turn causes more green house effect.

In the world of the Matrix, if the sky has been scorched in such a way as to take away this abundant power source from the machines, it has the (likely) unintentional side effect of removing this same energy source from the humans as well. Without solar energy making it past the black clouds, none of that energy will reach the Earth to raise temperatures or offer other processes the energy required to continue. The movement of atmosphere is likely to stagnate. Furthermore, there is now no energy to allow plants to synthesize sugars or oxygen. After several hundred years, what sort of oxygen levels will remain for the humans to continue respiring?

It is often suggested that geothermal energy is utilized (at least by the humans) in order to power their last city. I will have to assume it is utilizing this energy source to produce the oxygen and other necessary life continuing elements for the humans. Growing crops deep beneath the surface of the Earth, using artificial light sources. Or perhaps there are no crops, and technology is such that the required food sources are manufactured, though from what I cannot guess. Visions of Soylent Green come to mind.

It is a fact of our “real world” that no conversion process is ever 100% efficient. That is, when converting mechanical energy into electrical energy, there will always be some energy lost in the conversion. This is often due to such things as friction (mechanical) or resistance (electrical), both of which end up producing a byproduct of heat. Are we to believe that either the machines or the humans in our near future will somehow resolve these efficiency problems? The swinging pendulum will eventually stop if not maintained by small pushes during its swings.

The biggest problem with scorching the sky is that it does not only present a significant problem for the machines, it presents an extinction level event for the humans as well. Without the abundant solar energy that our “real world” depends on, life cannot be sustained. Perhaps there might continue some small, strange creatures in the depths of the oceans where their respiratory processes are virtually alien to our own, but human life is pretty much impossible without the sun. To be quite blunt, without the sun, both the machine civilization as well as the human one will simply die out over a period of time, as their collective energy reserves are depleted. I would have given them perhaps one generation, but considering the energy requirements to maintain a war, perhaps I am being too generous.

The scorched sky problem seems to place a firm nail in the coffin for this story, but it is certainly not the only major issue. Another large theme in this story is the idea of free will. It is suggested that choice is a problem the machines are unable to resolve within their human farms. The earlier iterations of the Matrix did not properly account for the free will of the occupants, and disaster followed. And so, it was decided that humans had to have a say (however small) in the playing out of the grand simulation. Choices were programmed in, at a near unconscious level. Just enough to allow the humans to accept the program, though with a growing probability of disaster from systemic anomalous code brought about from the free will problem.

Essentially, the story is suggesting an incompatibility between the hard determinism of the machines and the free will of the humans. I will continue with this perceived false dilemma, but take a moment to point out that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. It may be true that we, as a species, have not found an entirely satisfactory explanation of how free will might possibly fit inside our seemingly deterministic universe, but this does not suggest that these alternative viewpoints are incommensurable. The story is making a bit of a leap here to suggest that one or the other must prevail. (And also that one of the two is somehow superior in the process.)

In the story, the solution to this problem is the creation of a prophesy: the path of the one. The anomalous code within the simulation culminates in the emergence of the One. That is, after a time, the progressive collection of all the doubts of all the occupants within the Matrix over time swells and manifests through an individual who we call Neo. Neo, in this case, is the key representative of freedom, unburdened by the rules of determinism. He is special. He is an exception. The rules of the Matrix do not apply to him. He doesn’t believe in all this “fate crap.”

And so he and his friends follow the path of the one in order to save humanity from the prison that is the Matrix… Wait, what? His key defining feature is that he believes determinism is fundamentally wrong, and he is going to follow a predetermined path in order to make his point? This is what prophecy is. It is fate. I would say it is fate repackaged, but it isn’t even that. Prophecy is fate. Okay, prophecy is the foretelling of fated events, whereas fate is the manifestation of those events. However, they are not separate things. They are clearly linked quite tightly.

In other words, the protagonists in the story of the Matrix are following a predetermined, causally established sequence of events in order to demonstrate how free will exists and will save them all. Neo will simply choose the path, over not following the path. His choices amount to making the correct choices, lest all fails and the world ends. It isn’t nearly as clear as a scorched sky, but am I to accept this really?

The characters insist that this free will exists and is why there is a problem. The system works as hard as it can to accommodate all these choices people are making, including the choices of the one himself. The path is a method to do this. After all, he has to be given these choices, even at a near unconscious level. Every conflict and event he encounters is a test, where he must make choices in order to progress the storyline and plot. He could always choose not to progress the plot, but lucky for us he does.

The Oracle does suggest why this is the case. For her, it isn’t about what choices he will make, as she suggests “you’ve already made it [the choice]. You’re here to try to understand why you made it.” For her, the choices are already predetermined. The issue is not making a choice, it is understanding why a choice was made the way it was. This is not an argument in support of freedom, this is an argument against. This is an argument suggesting that free will may look like it exists, but in fact it does not. It is all an illusion.

Neo may not want to believe in fate, but his actions persistently present an opposing belief. Morpheus is even worse in this regard. When the protagonists encounter each strange being with incredibly and ridiculously contrived instructions that are meant to allow them to prove that free will exists and free humanity from their enslavement in simulation, they quickly get in line and progress the plot as expected. The Merovingian himself makes a joke about this; about how understanding is power, and so understanding choices makes one powerful. He even offers the protagonists another wild goose chase in order to progress the plot.

Then note how Morpheus later suggests in the elevator that “what happened happened and couldn’t have happened any other way.” This is the furthest thing from an argument in favor of free will. The characters entrench themselves in incredibly convoluted plans, like crazy Rube Goldberg machines, because it is this level of complexity that seems to suggest something greater. It seems like complexity is the key to freedom. The more complex a system is, the more it is believed to be representative of freedom.

As a very poignant example, when the Keymaker is telling the protagonists the precise plan that is required in order to allow Neo to open the door and enter the Source, and there just so happens to be all the things in place that are needed to accomplish this insane mission, Morpheus doesn’t pause and suggest a problem, he suggests it is providence. Instead of recognizing that this latest heist plan is simply too ridiculous and coincidental, he suggests the prophecy is coming to conclusion.

There are many such examples throughout the story. The characters are oblivious. They simply cannot see that these complicated procedures are orchestrated by a higher power. They take it as being fate. The audience similarly follows by the nose and doesn’t question it either. No one asks the natural question that ought to be asked: “who comes up with this stuff?”

My point, if it isn’t clear, is that making something hard to follow and complicated does not equate to breaking out of the chains of determinism. Just because I cannot see all the causal connections between two events does not mean those connections do not exist. To argue in favor of free will simply because I cannot understand, myself, how something could possibly come about. To do so seems to demonstrate a significant level of ignorance. It is like suggesting that “features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection.” Complexity is poor evidence in support of an argument toward Intelligent Design, or any other conclusion.

I am a limited being, with limited capacities. While I can know much, I will never know everything. In fact, the amount I am able to grasp at any given moment in time seems incredibly small when compared to all there is to know about everything. It is a fact of my existence that I will not have the complete picture of things all the time. I will be forced to make choices with insufficient information quite frequently. I do the best I can, given my particular circumstances at any given moment. This does not mean my choices are themselves unpredictable. This does not mean that there was no causal chain connecting my situation to my choices. It simply means I do not know how it is connected. This is very different from saying that it is not possible to know, or to say that it is entirely unpredictable.

It raises the question regarding what precisely free will or freedom might actually be. Human brains are incredibly complicated. Does this suggest that freedom exists in brains, as a result of the fact that I do not understand how brains operate? That because I cannot predict something, that something simply cannot be predicted by anyone or anything? It would be like suggesting that because I dislike a certain flavour of ice cream, that flavour must be disliked by all. If that were true, one might ask the question “why make that flavour of ice cream at all?”

The Matrix story isn’t without flaws. Even simply taking a moment to discuss a couple of its weaknesses can generate very interesting discussion. This is what makes the Matrix so interesting. This is what makes the Matrix story so enjoyable. It isn’t about how perfectly or imperfectly the The Wachowskis wrote their story, because they definitely seemed to overlook some significant things. What I think makes more sense to focus on is the questions and discussions raised by their story. This is what makes the Matrix interesting.

The Rarity of Free Will

crimson

What could possess me to make another post so quickly? An epiphany. A revelation. Many years in the making. The adjusted belief that perhaps freedom does exist, but it is simply so very rare.

In the beginning, about when I was in high school, I started to doubt the ideas of free will. More specifically, the idea of an effect without a cause. I would play Dungeons & Dragons with my friends, and I considered the randomness of rolling a die. When one throws the cube, it bounces around before settling down with one of its six faces showing up toward the person. The epitome of random. But is it really?

In high school, I took physics classes, and perhaps it was due to my novel education that I considered the situation carefully. Were I to know the precise velocity that the die was released, the effects of the atmosphere on the cube as it flew through the air, the imperfections in the surface as it struck down, the coefficients of friction, and all of the various minutia of the events, using a bit of math I could probably predict which face would end up showing. Sure, to know all of these details may not be feasible; I am merely human with limited capacities. But if I could have somehow acquired all of this knowledge, I feel quite confident I could do it. I could predict this random event.

But that becomes a contradiction, does it not? Part of what is baked into the definition of random is that it is unpredictable. To be truly random, no amount of knowledge should ever be sufficient to perform such a calculation. Certainly there is a conflict here. Either my idea is incorrect, or there are not as many random events in our universe as I believed. In fact, what if there are no random events at all?

I’ve been working on computers for most of my life. Computers can generate random numbers, can’t they? Well, as it turns out, no they cannot. The algorithms used by computers to provide seemingly random information can be exceedingly creative, running up against the feasibility concern I’ve raised above. But the results are still not truly or purely random. The use of seemingly unpredictable events from the outside environment (the passage of time, the manner in which I move my mouse, the choice and patterns I employ when utilizing my keyboard, etc) are called entropy and are used to seed the random number generators in our favorite electronic devices. It’s random, but really, it’s not.

There is a marked difference between something that is entirely unpredictable because no amount of knowledge could ever be acquired to predict a result, and something that could be predicted given enough time and effort. The question I posed to a philosophy group this past summer was to suggest that were I God, with an omniscient and omnipotent nature, the feasibility issue might be overlooked. God, I said, could predict these unpredictable events. Unfortunately for me, the suggestion of being God simply overshadowed any attempt at a reasonable discussion after that point.

However, this is the point I am making. For something to be truly random, even God would not be able to predict the outcome. If God could predict the outcome, then it isn’t truly random. Does true randomness exist in our universe? Or does everything bow down to the law of causality, with every single effect being caused by some other event? It seems impossible for us to ever determine such a thing.

If I exist in a hard deterministic universe, where all things follow causality, then there seems to be another very serious problem. There are other things I cherish and value that seem impossible. True creativity seems impossible as well; anything I may want to call creative is simply the reorganization and reassembly of other past things. Perhaps I might want to include the idea of accidents promoting creativity, but as with the previous discussion of randomness, accidents are simply expected events that may not feasibly be predicted either.

Freedom is another such thing. I am speaking of the sort of freedom that includes unpredictability as part of its description. The sort of freedom that I assume God would have, and that I hope I too have. The free will that allows me to break out of a purely deterministic universe by injecting something like an uncaused cause into the mix. If true randomness and true creativity cannot be, then neither can true freedom it seems.

I told my own mother my discovery one day, telling her that I could not believe in free will. Fate, I said, must be how things operate (using the term as I wasn’t aware of the term deterministic at the time). Her response was both passionate and quite surprising to me. “Go step in front of a moving bus,” she said, “if what you say is true, then you will not be harmed.” I was shocked. Of course I would be harmed I told her, but the discussion simply became ridiculous. I could not, for the longest time, understand why she had suggested such a thing.

Later, I realized that what she was suggesting wasn’t quite the same thing as I am discussing here. For her, I think I sounded pompous and arrogant. Like perhaps I felt I had divine protection and influence, or some other equally unlikely blessing. I think I understood the reactions Joe Bauers in Idiocracy was receiving from people after having been frozen for 500 years. Like Joe, I was not trying to impress or sound special. I was simply stating things as I understood them. Communications can be quite challenging at times.

As a result of that interaction with my own mother, I decided it would be best to broach the subject differently going forward. I would say that I don’t believe in free will, but I am open to the possibility. If ever someone was able to convince me of the possibility, I would take the argument seriously.

Fast forward now to the years of the pandemic. Marvel releases the television show Loki. In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, there is a multiverse. That is, there is not one universe but many. There is not one me, but many, each just a little bit different than the others. In each case, the differences are typically caused by my exercising of my free will. When an event occurs whereby I can choose between more than one option, in truth I actually choose ALL options. Each option I choose forks the universe into another parallel universe. In one of these universes I chose the vanilla ice cream, but in another I chose chocolate.

One issue I found with the show was that there seemed not to be as many Nexus events (these free will events that fork the timeline) as I would have expected. After all, I am faced with numerous free will choices every day. Possibly each hour, minute, or even second. The administration of the timeline, trying to address the multitude of Nexus events caused by me alone would be untenable, let along that there are literally billions upon billions of other individuals with free will causing as many other Nexus events across time and space. So, in the show, why are there only a few at a time? The Time Variance Authority (TVA) seems pretty calm, simply sending out their teams occasionally to address these problem events.

The show never addresses my concern, but I have a theory: perhaps the reason Nexus events are so rare is that free will is not so prevalent as I would like to think. What if I am not expressing a free will when selecting between ice cream flavours, as my selection perhaps follows a more predictable structure due to my preferences and past experiences. If this is true, it may even be possible that not all individuals are even capable of expressing a free will. Perhaps free will is an extremely rare occurrence.

The Loki television show may have sparked this thought process, but it has been the immanent release of The Matrix Resurrections that has truly pushed my mind to think about this outside the box. Specifically, not the upcoming film itself, but rethinking about the previous films.

In particular, a person on Reddit posted a question regarding what would happen if two people inside the Matrix were to mate and have offspring. They wondered whether the offspring would be a computer program or somehow connected to a physical human outside the Matrix. Initially I laughed, but then I thought about it, and the question is absolutely brilliant. The answer is both surprising and depressing at the same time.

The Matrix is a simulation. Any individual who connects to the simulation will experience their own personal perspective of the simulation. While the simulation can offer the opportunity for individuals to interact with other individuals within the simulation, ultimately the bulk of any one person’s experience is being provided by the simulation itself. The simulation is what controls the environment and all things that the individual can interact with. If a bird flies by, the simulation will control that bird (unless the bird is an occupant jacked into the simulation, which is likely not occurring very often, especially in the storyline of The Matrix).

The answer to the above question is that any offspring would be a product of the simulation. The offspring would be a program, or part of the simulation’s program. Simply code. Similarly, if a physical baby human is born and immediately connected to the simulation, the simulation itself will have to provide virtual parents and all the other necessary elements to attend to the new life. Even if one thinks for a moment that those running the simulation might decide to take a moment to try and find appropriately similar parents or children to connect to the strange virtual relationship, aside from the most ridiculously complicated procedure that would render the simulation untenable, they would be mistaken. If the point of the Matrix is to sedate the occupants of the simulation in order to facilitate leaching energy off those occupants, a process attempting to maintain the connections between the occupants in this manner would use up all the available energy acquired in the process. It wouldn’t make any sense, because it is unreasonable. It isn’t feasible.

In other words, most of the “players” in the simulation must necessarily be controlled by the simulation and not be occupants. What is often refereed to in games as Non Player Characters or NPCs. There would be far more NPCs in any simulation than individuals connected to it. In fact, it would even make sense for there to be only one individual to be in simulation, with ALL other individuals being NPCs. To be in simulation is to enter into a sort of solipsism.

To further expand on this situation, consider the possibility that I am in simulation presently. It has been suggested that if a civilization develops the capacity to perform ultra realistic simulations, they are likely to run many, many such simulations. And if there are so many simulations in existence, the likelihood is quite high that I am within one of these simulations. To have so many simulations seems quite similar to the description of a multiverse.

If the probability is high that I am in simulation, then it is similarly high that any individual I encounter is an NPC. In fact, yes, it is also possible I am such an NPC as well. In any case, even if I am not an NPC, there are still going to be an incredibly high number of NPCs in this universe I find myself in. I could possibly be the only non NPC as well.

Finally, if I make the assumption that an NPC will NOT have free will, then I can now explain why free will would be so incredibly rare. With so few non NPCs in existence, even across so many simulated universes, the number of Nexus events in the Loki television show would be quite small and very manageable. And in my “real world” that I occupy right this moment, I can provide a reasonable explanation as to why free will itself would be so incredibly rare, to the point that it may not even exist.

In Simulation

crimson

The new Matrix film is nearly upon us, and so my partner and I are watching all the previous films and supplementary material. An important part of this process is discussing the films after viewing, sharing the various revelations we have that we may have missed on previous viewings. It speaks to the quality of the original story that we continue having revelations and epiphanies even 20 years later.

My latest revelation is one that is raising some rather disturbing questions regarding the story and regarding how consciousness operates in our real world. I might even suggest it is a weakness in my previous arguments regarding consciousness thus far. The issue of what it means to be “in simulation.”

Of course, before I can even talk about being “in simulation,” I will have to discuss what a simulation is. As it turns out, trying to elucidate the idea of a simulation caused a rather heated debate between my partner and I. We cannot agree what a simulation is. And so, in this post, I will be primarily focused on my interpretation. I will try to share her interpretation, but the honest truth is that I don’t really understand her interpretation.

I have spoken before about identity and of the world. My identity is what I (and others) consider to be what constitutes me. The “I” when I say I. In some sense, my identity is what separates what is me from the rest of the world, and from others. Which brings us to the idea of the world. The world is that which is not me, and very generally what is not others. You are not the world, but you are a part of the world, just as I am a part of the world as well.

However, the world also includes that which is not a part of you or me. The world, in some sense, can exist without either of us. The world (we generally believe) can and will persist even when I cease to exist. Furthermore, the world contains objects that both you and I can observe and generally agree upon. We can both see the same objects, albeit from slightly different perspectives. And so, very generally, the world is the same for me as it is for you. At least, this is a significant assumption I make about the world. And I believe most people make a very similar assumption, even if they are not aware they are making this assumption.

A simulation is also a world, though not the “real” world. The world we presently inhabit, I believe, most will agree is considered to be the “real” world. This blog, this website, is a part of the “real” world. This blog is not necessarily a part of a simulation. Having said all this, I will acknowledge that as I continue this discussion, questions may be raised regarding the integrity of this.

A simulation is loosely based on the “real” world, and will be a lesser version of it. That is, a simulation will bear some resemblance to the “real” world in some way, and may even share some elements of it. However, a simulation will always be absent some of the elements of the “real” world as well. This is a large reason we will call it a simulation. A simulation, in some sense, is a straw man argument of the “real” world.

Like the “real” world, a simulation is governed by rules and laws. Or, as my partner has pointed out, perhaps not so much governed by as perhaps explained by. For example, in the “real” world there appears to be some sort of attractive force that acts upon all bodies. We often refer to this force as gravity. We even have various mathematical formulas we use to predict how gravity will affect various bodies, and we use science in order to validate these formulas as best we can. Gravity is a sort of governing rule of the “real” world.

A simulation can include gravity, though it does not necessarily have to. The rules of the simulation may be similar to the rules of the “real” world, or they may be vastly different. What both the simulation and the “real” world share is the fact that there are these rules or laws. Navigating a simulation can be done in a similar fashion to navigating in the “real” world; an understanding of these rules is what is required. If I understand how gravity operates (at least on some rudimentary level), then I can navigate through a world governed by gravity.

The point of all this pedantic examination is that a simulation will bear some resemblance to the “real” world. In the case of the Matrix from the films, the Matrix is a simulation that bears a lot of similarities to the “real” world. However, as the character Mouse points out in the first film, it is possible the machines (who created the simulation of the Matrix) could have either accidentally or intentionally made errors:

“How did the machines really know what Tasty Wheat tasted like. huh?. Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken for example, maybe they couldn’t figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything.”

While the machines may have correctly or incorrectly represented Tasty Wheat or chicken, the point is that these humans who are now discussing what their “single cell protein combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins, and minerals” actually tastes like are basing their assessment on information they have received from a simulated reality that they acknowledge may have provided them misinformation. In the end, in truth, they have no idea what their meal tastes like, only that it has a taste.

This is one of the critical issues with the idea of simulation and of simulacra. The information we receive from our interactions with any particular world are what we use to recognize and understand the elements of that world. This is the heart of the arguments made by the Empiricists of the 18th century; that all knowledge is based on experience. What they may not have concerned themselves with as much is the reliability of the world that provided them that experience.

Which brings us to the heart of my own discussion here. What does it mean to be “in simulation?” More specifically, what is happening when we are in simulation? In the story, when someone is in the Matrix, does their mind or consciousness or soul leave their body and exist within the Matrix? Or does their mind remain within their body, and the simulation is simply altering the interface one has with their world, hijacking their senses and replacing those experiences with alternate ones?

As I write these words, it seems obvious what the answer ought to be. In the case of the film, as seems to be presented, human minds exist in human bodies, and connecting to the Matrix does not somehow separate the two. A physical cable is connected to the brain stem, and all the sensory input normally fed to the brain by the rest of the body is replaced by alternative sensory information provided by the simulation. Morpheus rightly inquires: “What is real? How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.” It does not matter the source of those signals, the brain will interpret whatever signals it receives.

The problem raised by the story is that if all of your senses have been hijacked, then you might not be aware that the world you think you are in is in fact a fabrication. You might be in simulation, and not know it. The issue my partner and I debated was whether one could be in simulation and still know they were in simulation.

The manner in which our debate manifested raised an even more insidious issue: where does one’s mind or consciousness reside while in simulation? For me, it seemed obvious: the mind continues to reside where it always seems to reside, in the body in the “real” world. However my partner did not agree. For her, while in simulation, the mind or consciousness left the body and resided in the simulation itself, inside the simulated body. Which case is true can have significant ramifications on events that follow.

As Morpheus suggests, the body cannot live without the mind. Therefore, the mind must necessarily remain within the body at all times, lest the body die. If this is true, then the mind remains in the body in the “real” world. But if this is how it works, then why would unplugging the cable that connects the physical body to the Matrix cause anything bad to happen? How did Apoc and Switch die? If the mind is always in the body, then disconnecting a cable should cause no issues for the individual, as their mind and body remain intact. Only the connection to the simulation is severed, which would seem to merely end the simulation for the individual. They should have simply woken like from a dream.

The alternative is equally problematic. If the mind in fact does leave the body and enter the Matrix, then the body is without a mind and ought to expire. Clearly, within the story, this does not happen. So if minds can successfully be separated from bodies, then Morpheus must be mistaken. Bodies can exist and continue without minds, perhaps on some sort of life support. However, if this is now the case, then how does anything that happens with the mind while it is disconnected from the body affect the body. How can the mind make real such things as injuries?

My partner and I did come up with another alternative that could explain what is going on. What if the mind does not entirely leave the body? What if the mind is sort of tethered to the body, so that a part of the mind remains with the body but a part of the mind enters the Matrix? This would resolve a number of issues, including how the mind makes things real for the body. This tether is what is maintained through the physical cabling that is connected to the brain stem. Severing the tether would be akin to lobotomy, which could then be severe enough to end a person’s life.

In some fashion, the mind is in both places at the same time. Both in the “real” world and at the same time in simulation. If we think of the mind in the “real” world and the mind in simulation as being two parts, then they could be considered connected like in quantum entanglement. I admit, this sort of view of the mind seems incredibly unsatisfying for me. It reminds me of René Descartes’s pineal gland.

In our “real” world, we really have very little understanding of minds or consciousnesses. What we can suggest is that minds and consciousnesses are very unlike bodies or other physical objects. One cannot crack open someone’s head and look at their thoughts. In fact, if you consider how a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system operates, there is nothing that guarantees that the mind exists within a body at all. The mind and consciousness could exist elsewhere entirely. Only the apparent localization created by the position of the various sensory inputs suggests that the mind ought to exist within the physical body.

Without the ability to experience what others experience, I cannot say much about experiences other than my own. What I can say is that when I have dreamed, I have had dreams where I was convinced that the reality of the dream was the “real” world. Only after I awoke from those dreams did I realize my error, and then acknowledged that the dream was in fact a dream and not real. I have also been so immersed in various experiences, such a watching a very engrossing film or a very intense video game, that I momentarily forgot that the world of the immersion was not the same as the “real” world.

In every case (so far) I can say that once I finished or left the simulation, I realized that it was a simulation. Once I had escaped, I felt that I knew with confidence what was “real.” But that only really suggests one thing: that in order to know that something is not real, I have to leave it into something that is more real. In other words, the only reason I have to suggest this is the real world presently is that I have not yet experiences a more real world.

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.