The "Matrix as Metaphysics" by David Chalmers

[Interesting Ian]

Ok, I thought that this article by Chalmers may be of interest. I confess I have only just started to read it so I can't vouch for whether it is profound or interesting, but from the little I've read so far many of you are likely to find it thought provoking. For all you out there who find philosophy extremely complex the good news is it seems to be an extremely easy read.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/%7Echalmers/papers/matrix.html

[Agammamon]

Thanks for the link.

The Matrix is one of those stories that on the surface seem to be fairly standard pulp fiction but actually explores some pretty interesting philosophical premises (possibly without the authors intending to).

[Dancing David]

ChuanTzu once drempt of an ice cream cone and then he wondered, what if he was an ice cream cone dreaming of Chuan Tzu.

The Matrix is cool is open many people to the 'eastern' thought.

Peace
dancing David

[scribble]

Is this idea of the universe possible being all in your head new?

I do believe this very sort of thing was posited by some of the very earliest philosophers. Who was it with the cave and the shadows and the puppet show bit? Er, no puppet show.

Anyhow. If this wrld is an illusion, it's a damn liveable, consistent one.

[Dancing David]

Plato makes reference to the cave using Sockpuppetres.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Plato makes reference to the cave using Sockpuppetres.

Plato. Thanks, yeah, that's the guy I'm talking about.

-Chris

[Loki]

Chalmers has too much time on his hands!

6 Objection: Simulation is not Reality

A common line of objection is that a simulation is not the same as reality. The Matrix Hypothesis implies only that a simulation of physical processes exists. By contrast, the Metaphysical Hypothesis implies that physical processes really exist
...
In response: My argument does not require the general assumption that simulation is the same as reality.
...
A brain in a vat may think it is outside walking in the sun, when in fact it is alone in a dark room. Surely it is deluded!

Response: The brain is alone in a dark room. But this does not imply that the person is alone in a dark room. By analogy, just say Descartes is right that we have disembodied minds outside space-time, made of ectoplasm. When I think "I am outside in the sun", an angel might look at my ectoplasmic mind and note that in fact it is not exposed to any sun at all. Does it follow that my thought is incorrect? Presumably not: I can be outside in the sun, even if my ectoplasmic mind is not. The angel would be wrong to infer that I have an incorrect belief. Likewise, we should not infer that envatted being has an incorrect belief. At least, it is no more deluded than a Cartesian mind.

The moral is that the immediate surroundings of our minds may well be irrelevant to the truth of most of our beliefs. What matters is the processes that our minds are connected to, by perceptual inputs and motor outputs. Once we recognize this, the objection falls away.
Although Chalmers is dismissing the objection that the "reality of the vat" and the "reality of the matrix" are not the same, it seems to me that the weakness in this argument is that the underlying principles of both *are* the same. In other words, when Neo is disconnected from the Matrix he finds a reality bound by the same rules as the one he just left - a reality defined by time and space. This seems to make the Matrix a subset of the larger reality, and played by the same rules. Still feels strange to grant a "simulation" that same philosophical status as "reality".

And I noticed this in passing...
Whether or not the Mind-Body Hypothesis is true, it is certainly coherent. Even if contemporary science tends to suggest that the hypothesis is false, we cannot rule it out conclusively.
Dead Collector : Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!
Science : Here's one.
Mind-Body Hypothesis : I'm not dead!
Dead Collector : What?
Mind-Body Hypothesis : I'm not dead!
Dead Collector : 'Ere. He says he's not dead!
Science : Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
Dead Collector : Oh, I can't take him like that. It's against Regulations.
Science : Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
[B]Chalmers has too much time on his hands!


Although Chalmers is dismissing the objection that the "reality of the vat" and the "reality of the matrix" are not the same, it seems to me that the weakness in this argument is that the underlying principles of both *are* the same. In other words, when Neo is disconnected from the Matrix he finds a reality bound by the same rules as the one he just left - a reality defined by time and space. This seems to make the Matrix a subset of the larger reality, and played by the same rules. Still feels strange to grant a "simulation" that same philosophical status as "reality".



I haven't got that far yet. But it doesn't matter. Imagine "The Matrix" is all there is. In other words it is not a subset of any larger reality. Or in as much as it is a subset of a larger reality, this larger reality is utterly different from the Matrix. Possibly as utterly different as our reality that we presently subsist in, to an afterlife reality. That doesn't make our present reality that we subsist in less real does it?

[Loki]

Ian,

That doesn't make our present reality that we subsist in less real does it?
Chalmers starts off by saying that "yes, it is less real, because the Matrix Hypothesis is a Skeptical, not Metaphysical, Hypothesis". Then he says he changed his mind, and seeks to show that the Matrix Hypothesis is actually a valid Metaphysical Hypothesis. To me, it seems to weaken his case if the present reality" is nothing more than a subset of the larger reality. He addresses this objection, but I still feel that he's ignoring the fact that, in making the transition from Skeptical to Metahysical Hypothesis, the Matrix Hypothesis *must* posit that the two realities are identical in underlying nature - ie, computational, etc. In other wotds, he's expressly denying what you've just said about eh 'larger' reality being totally different.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
Ian,


Chalmers starts off by saying that "yes, it is less real, because the Matrix Hypothesis is a Skeptical, not Metaphysical, Hypothesis". Then he says he changed his mind, and seeks to show that the Matrix Hypothesis is actually a valid Metaphysical Hypothesis. To me, it seems to weaken his case if the present reality" is nothing more than a subset of the larger reality. He addresses this objection, but I still feel that he's ignoring the fact that, in making the transition from Skeptical to Metahysical Hypothesis, the Matrix Hypothesis *must* posit that the two realities are identical in underlying nature - ie, computational, etc. In other wotds, he's expressly denying what you've just said about eh 'larger' reality being totally different.

I really should read the article before commenting further. Yes I disagree with some of what he has said so far. But it seems I disagree in the oppsite direction to you so to speak. But firther comments once I've read it all. I've only read about 10% of it so far!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by scribble
Is this idea of the universe possible being all in your head new?

I do believe this very sort of thing was posited by some of the very earliest philosophers. Who was it with the cave and the shadows and the puppet show bit? Er, no puppet show.

Anyhow. If this wrld is an illusion, it's a damn liveable, consistent one.

What could it conceivably mean to suppose the world is an illusion? The Matrix hypothesis is a metaphysical hypothesis, not a skeptical hypothesis.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Plato makes reference to the cave using Sockpuppetres.

Yes, but the cave was a metaphor for public orthodoxy. That's not quite the same as the Matrix, which is supposed to constitute what we think of as reality.

[Interesting Ian]

Ok I've read it. It gets much more difficult after the bit I read but still extremely interesting stuff. Would have thought it might have generated a bit more debate! :mad: I might do the same as UCE and give these forums a rest.

[c4ts]

The hypothesis reaches the same conclusion as materialism- that the world is, in fact, real. It just takes the long and confusing path. Kind of like using Ptolemy's geometry to understand astronomy instead of Copernicus's or Kepler's. If we take the theories as though they were untestable, like the Matrix hypothesis, the heliocentric model is as valid as the geocentric, it's just a lot more work.

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would have thought it might have generated a bit more debate! :mad:

(gazes into crystal ball) Okay, after reading what Chalmers has to say, here's what I see happening. Once the film version of The Matrix is widely understood, people will say, "Hey, if we just cut the aliens and their machines out of this, what we've got is the equivalent of Wolfram's universe!" In the new theory, The Matrix qua Universe is eternal and the cause of everything else, including minds, so The Matrix is God! It is then only a matter of time before a Church of The Matrix appears in every city in the world. A new meme for a new age. (I'm almost serious about this.)

--- Argo

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Loki
Chalmers has too much time on his hands!


Agreed Loki.



And I noticed this in passing...

Whether or not the Mind-Body Hypothesis is true, it is certainly coherent. Even if contemporary science tends to suggest that the hypothesis is false, we cannot rule it out conclusively.




That's hilarious. What heresy! Chalmers, the darling and hero of the dualists, seemingly conceding the point of materialism.

Shshhh!! Don't tell Win.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Argo Nimbus

A new meme for a new age. (I'm almost serious about this.)

--- Argo

If I see or hear the word "meme" again in my lifetime, it will be far too soon.

Argggh.

AS

[Argo Nimbus]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

If I see or hear the word "meme" again in my lifetime, it will be far too soon.

Argggh.



Sorry :D. My science-fantasy just wouldn't have been the same without "meme".

--- Argo

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist




And I noticed this in passing...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not the Mind-Body Hypothesis is true, it is certainly coherent. Even if contemporary science tends to suggest that the hypothesis is false, we cannot rule it out conclusively.



That's hilarious. What heresy! Chalmers, the darling and hero of the dualists, seemingly conceding the point of materialism.

Shshhh!! Don't tell Win.

AS [/B]

Huh?? :confused: Conceding the point of materialism? How do you come to that conclusion?

It looks like he has in mind 2 way interactionist dualism rather than property dualism. Also when he says "we cannot rule it out conclusively", this need not imply that he thinks it unlikely.

[metacristi]

Ok, I thought that this article by Chalmers may be of interest. I confess I have only just started to read it so I can't vouch for whether it is profound or interesting, but from the little I've read so far many of you are likely to find it thought provoking. For all you out there who find philosophy extremely complex the good news is it seems to be an extremely easy read.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/%7Echalmers/papers/matrix.html



Thanks for the great link Ian.I've tried myself in the past to make a 'clasification' of different possibilities but only now after reading this article things are getting clearer.

I see the following possibilities:

1.We (as consciousnesses) exist at the ultimate reality.

Is our observed reality the ultimate reality?

1.1 No

Idealism were true.But that's all.There is no way to find the 'next up reality' and even if this were possibile it is unlikely that we could demonstrate that the next up reality is the ultimate level.

1.2 Yes

1.2.1 Materialism (metaphysical materialism-no God) is true.

or

1.2.2 In the general case at the ultimate level there exist at least two substances that do not interact,one of them being our usual matter (at the ultimate level of the fundamental reality might exist more than one 'building block' of what we name 'matter',which can interact however-e.g electrons and quarks).

As a subcase here a personal creator (or a personal but collective one) still exist,but he could only 'format' some,existing from eternity,'matter'.
There is no necessity that we were created (our minds could exist as 'building blocks' at the ultimate level of this fundamental reality) but it is also possible that some aliens could have created our race.
As an extreme case we are created (and our universe formatted the way we see it today) by a,forever existing, personal God from his own 'matter' or from matter existing also from eternity toghether with him.
In all these cases we could (as a possibility only) still experimentate God using our science since he is a part of the ultimate reality too (as are we).

2.We do not exist at the ultimate level of reality being only some 'information' in a 'higher up reality' not necessarilly the ultimate reality.
We exist 'in the mind of God' where 'God' is defined merely as the Creator of our reality (personal God,metamind,matrix in a higher up reality).Of course even this 'God' could be at his turn simple information (this remembers me a good science fiction novel of Arthur C Clarke) or could exist directly at the ultimate level.Since we have here an 'infinite ultimate barrier' (we are 'information' at a certain level) we could 'experiment' (but there is no guarantee that we will ever be able to do that) only till our 'fundamental' level.No chance to find the 'ultimate reality' which might be impersonal or personal.


The question is whether the 'realities' that are simulated are real or not.I'd argue that yes since we can see them as being some possibilities among a great number (possible infinite) at the ultimate reality.As much as they realized they exist also inside the ultimate reality.The simulations are real,in the absolute sense then and given that 'envatted' 'brains' can (at least at a certain 'time') be aware only of the simulated reality they are not wrong to believe only what their 'hard' evidence show...though of course they don't have an 'absolute' truth.
I wonder however whether some beings at an ultimate level of reality would be able to realize that their level is indeed the ultimate level...of course finite beings for an omnipotent God should know...
Or whether there is indeed an 'ultimate reality' (I don't mean here the ultimate building block of a certain reality)...why shouldn't a regression 'ad infinitum' be possible (in spite of the fact that usual logic avoid such situations-statements implying an infinite regression are considered false)...indeed there is no necessity that 'objective' reality should follow logic...