»Introducing the homunculi fallacy of the Mw/iM theory«

homunculus wrote:

you've admitted that Mw/iM does not account for all given facts therefore its status as hypothesis

But lazyl wrote:

I said no such thing.

That's because I said it.

Quote:

It's now obvious that you didn't read that page I linked because you don't know what a hypotheses is. If you continue to so grossly misunderstand what I say then I'm going to start ignoring your responses.

Now that would be too bad because homunculus is correct about alot of things. I try not to let what I see posted in a public forum upset me in the slightest.

A hypothesis is something that can be tested (and is stated in order to be tested) for a certain result. If there can be no conclusive proof of MwM, how do you test it as a hypothesis? Email the W's? LOL!

MwM can't therefore be a theory either if we apply the literal scientific definitions. It is an alternate explanation, nothing more. We use the word, "theory" very loosely in these forums to apply to any idea someone might propose. But theories are usually formed from the results of hypotheses that have been tested that when viewed as a group, interpreted as an idea that can be put forth as a statement.

This is especially true (MwM as not a theory in the usual sense of the word) when we consider the way the concept of MwM is formed by lazyl. You take a bunch of events in a story that are hard (for you) to understand and then put them in the form of a question such as "how did x happen?" Then you form an answer that COULD seem best suited to answer all the questions. Then you call it a theory and start believing it. One obvious danger in doing this to stories is that there are people who did or do understand what you didn't in the story and when they hear your explanation might split their sides laughing.

One could only imagine how chaotic mathematics would be if theorums were formed the same way. Wait a minute, some scientific theories seem to form just that way!

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

in Mw/iM hypothesis, does or does not the Podmatrix exist within the Zionmatrix? yes for does, no for does not. doesn't get any simpler than that. lazyl wrote: Can you not see the difference between: "a matrix can exist withing another matrix" and "a matrix does exist within another matrix? They're not the same. The former is what MwM says, and the latter is the paradox you're trying to describe.

I'm close to giving up on you. You're trying force me to admit a contradiction, but you didn't understand my last post which explained why the contradiction doesn't actually exist. You probably didn't even have a clue what I was talking about.

I'll say it plain and simple. The statement "The pod matrix does exist within the zion matrix" does not imply the statement "a matrix does exist within another matrix". It implies the statement "a matrix can exist withing another matrix". If don't understand why then re-read my last post or go take a fundamental logic course.

intell wrote:

That's because I said it.

Ok, but he attributed it to me, so I don't see why you're suprised at my response.

I also try not to get upset in online forums, but I can't help but get frustrated when someone consistently misunderstands what I say. It really does make it impossible to have an intelligent discussion.

Quote:

Now that would be too bad because homunculus is correct about alot of things.

That's interesting. If you think so, then I'm interested in discussing them with you. Personally, I don't think anything he's said is correct. What points specifically are you referring to?

Quote:

A hypothesis is something that can be tested (and is stated in order to be tested) for a certain result. If there can be no conclusive proof of MwM, how do you test it as a hypothesis? Email the W's? LOL!

Looks like you didn't read my link either. Instead of linking it again I'll quote the relevant part:

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

In this case, 'continued observation' of everything the WB's produce is a valid way to support or refute the hypothesis. Also note, that it says: Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted. In the scientific world a hypotheses that can't be supported is usually not useful in anyway, but it would still be a hypotheses. In this case utility is not an issue though.

Now perhaps you have a slightly different definition of hypotheses from another source. That's fine. I don't want to get into debating the meaning of these words. I just want to explain where I was comming from when I said MwM was technically a hypotheses.

Quote:

MwM can't therefore be a theory either if we apply the literal scientific definitions. It is an alternate explanation, nothing more. We use the word, "theory" very loosely in these forums to apply to any idea someone might propose. But theories are usually formed from the results of hypotheses that have been tested that when viewed as a group, interpreted as an idea that can be put forth as a statement.

I completely agree. I would prefer to stop wasting time talking about all this scientific jargon nonsense and just go back to calling it a theory.

Quote:

Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. In this case, 'continued observation' of everything the WB's produce is a valid way to support or refute the hypothesis.

Gotcha. I'll go with that.

Quote:

I would prefer to stop wasting time talking about all this scientific jargon nonsense and...

Yeah, I think its about time to move on, too. But idk. Maybe this is the purpose of this particular thread. hehe.

Quote:

I also try not to get upset in online forums, but I can't help but get frustrated when someone consistently misunderstands what I say. It really does make it impossible to have an intelligent discussion.

You don't have to tell me, lazyl. I feel ya.

the only reason to quibble about the definition of theory is because the scientific usage is completely opposite of the now popular usage. just so nobody underestimatingly dismisses something labelled 'theory' as mere guesswork.

let's just call Mw/iM a guess. it's monosyllabic, has the same number of letters as theory and all 3 of us agree on it. that way, people who object to Mw/iM such as myself do not think its truthfulness is being overprivileged.

or let's not label it at all. Mw/iM, MwM, MwaM. simply the initials.

that said...

this...

lazyl wrote:

In the sentence "a matrix does exist within another matrix", the first instance of the word 'matrix' is used in the universal sense, meaing it represents the set of all matrices that can possibily exist. The word 'does', when used in conjunction with a universal subject takes on the same meaing as the word 'must'. In other words, it says: "every possible matrix that exists does exist within another matrix". That would be a homunculus.

is based on this:

lazyl wrote:

The self-referencing version would be something like: Every matrix is within another matrix, or Every matrix contains another matrix. But MwM doesn't say either of those things.

thus the confusion. why did you automatically assume that the statements 'a matrix can/does exist within a matrix' are making claims about a Platonic, absolute set of matrices, especially when it was deduced from Mw/iM - exactly 2 - specific matrices p & z?

propositions:
p is a matrix.
z is a matrix.
p exists within z = Mw/iM

conclusions:
1. p can exist within z
1a. a matrix can exist within a matrix
2. p does exist within z
2a. a matrix does exist within a matrix

is there ever a time when 1a is false when 1 is true? if so, then 1 can not be true thereby invalidating Mw/iM.
is there ever a time when 2a is false when 2 is true? if so, then 2 can not be true thereby invalidating Mw/iM.

in any event, as long as 1 is true, the recursion occurs.

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

why did you automatically assume that the statements 'a matrix can/does exist within a matrix' are making claims about a Platonic, absolute set of matrices,

Because that's the only way you could have concluded that there is a recursion. Let me explain more preceisely by pointing out the flaw in your analysis. I'll keep it brief because I don't really want to get into a big logic lesson:

Quote:

propositions: p is a matrix. z is a matrix. p exists within z = Mw/iM conclusions: 1. p can exist within z 1a. a matrix can exist within a matrix 2. p does exist within z 2a. a matrix does exist within a matrix is there ever a time when 1a is false when 1 is true? if so, then 1 can not be true thereby invalidating Mw/iM. is there ever a time when 2a is false when 2 is true? if so, then 2 can not be true thereby invalidating Mw/iM. in any event, as long as 1 is true, the recursion occurs.

Your argument is that MwM implies 2 which implies 2a which implies a homunculus. Correct? If not then stop me here and correct me.

Here's the flaw: 2 implies 2a, but only using the Particular form of the predicate in 2a. And only the Universal form of the predicate in 2a implies a homonculus.

The difference between a Particular predicate and a Universal predicate is a fundamental concept in the study of logic and you obviously don't have a firm grasp of it. This link might help: phac-aspc.gc.ca... . Specifically section 4.3 is the relevent one for the explanation of these words.

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

propositions: p is a matrix. z is a matrix. p exists within z = Mw/iM.

agreed

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

conclusions: 1. p can exist within z. 2. p does exist within z

yes

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

1a. a matrix can exist within a matrix 2a. a matrix does exist within a matrix

A matrix existing within a matrix does not mean all matrices (correct plural?) must exist with another matrix. Please correct me if this is not the basis of your argument.

To argue as such is like saying:

propositions:
p is a box.
z is a box.
p exists within z = small carboard box in a larger cardboard box theory, lets say ive got this herre for the purposes of the does argument below.

conclusions:
1. p can exist within z
1a. a box can exist within a box
2. p does exist within z
2a. a box does exist within a box

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

is there ever a time when 1a is false when 1 is true? if so, then 1 can not be true thereby invalidating Mw/iM. is there ever a time when 2a is false when 2 is true? if so, then 2 can not be true thereby invalidating Mw/iM. in any event, as long as 1 is true, the recursion occurs.

Correct me where my logic is wrong here but according to your argument if 1 is true (ie a box can exist within a box and indeed does for 2) then it is also true a recursion occurs ad infitum.

Interesting thread.

Just a sidenote, in order for the MwAM theory to hold true, it is not necessary for machines to create nested "hardwares" of M1 within an M2. One hardware can run, simply, when Neo gets "unplugged" from the M1, he is _still_ in the same hardware, only the machines are now feeding him the towers, Zion, Nebuchadnezzar, the _parallel_ world of M2. Neo, Morpheous, Trinity - are still plugged in in the same towers as the other ones, only they see a _different world_, "M2" instead of "M1". So machines would have enough energy to run the simulation, and the infinite regression vs. limited energy counter-argument would not work in this case.

Another side note. "Energy" "Power" are all concepts that we know from our "reality". If M1 "simulates" the physical laws of the "reality" we live in, how are we to be certain that "machines" are running on "energy"? Perhaps it is a pure control, and "machines" (metaconsciousness) control our consciousness directly, without any energy or power. Then the infinite regression M1 within M2 within M3 within... Minfinite is possible and limited energy counter-argument does not apply.

Similar to the concept of "brain". "Brain" "Electrodes" etc are concepts of our "reality" which again the "machines" could have implanted in our counsiousness via Control. Same goes to "machines". How do we know that controllers are some sort of material "machines"? Same goes to "matter". "Matter" again is a concept which was implanted into our counsciousness via Control. And so forth. One could continue and apply it to any words used in this post What do we know about ourselves, really? Only that we are aware, that we perceive. It is simply being.

So to recap, we dont really know that "machines" are really "machines" and that they are "material" and that they are run on "energy", making infinite regression possible and MwAM theory possible.