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

basically this fallacy states that the Mw/iM is indeed a cop-out.

Mw/iM devolves into an infinite regress that taxes the machine's energy source(s) beyond capacity. ironic considering energy scarcity is the basic premise of the trilogy.

no doubt a programmer or mathematician has already pointed this out but it just bears repeating. imagine an infinitely nested loop like this:

the Mw/iM theory explains nothing and i am a liar.

knock yourselves out.

the only relatively satisfying conclusion left to us, since we must step outside the bounds of logic in order to dissolve this one, is that the Wachowski brothers totally lost control of the plot somewhere in M2 and winged it for M3 thus the atrocious Revolutions denoument. again there is no truly satisfying conclusion short of redoing the whole of M3 and parts of M2 with the Wachowski's original budget as well as WB full backing, unless of course cheap (or better yet, free) reality-quality 3d rendering technology suddenly existed.

so sticklers for well-written, well-shot cyberpunk films such as ourselves must do with masturbating about which plotholes suspension-of-disbelief applies to (*cough* human battery *cough*) and which ones should be debated and pondered upon until the black-screen-of-oblivion-by-the-desert-of-the-real-universe.

cheers.

Who ever said that MwM was an infinite set of nested worlds? It is exactly two virtual worlds. Not more. I've now heard this idea twice and I have no clue where it came from.

And your only alternative explanation is that the WB's just lost control of the plot and didn't know what the hell they were doing? That's not very likely. MwM is a satisfying explanation that fits nicely with the themes and that I have yet to hear a valid counter argument against.

Did you read through the discussion in this thread: matrix-explained.com...?

lazyl wrote:

Who ever said that MwM was an infinite set of nested worlds?

simple.

lingguistically: a matrix can exist within a matrix.

symbolically:
f(0)=1
f(n)=n*f(n-1) for any natural number n>0

or

function Factorial ( integer X )
if X < 0 then return "Invalid argument" end if
if X = 0 then return 1 end if
return Factorial(X-1) * X

it's a fallacious explanation because it resorts to self-referentiality like neo asking morpheus 'what is the matrix?' with morpheus answering 'the matrix is the matrix.' such a letdown. one cannot define oneself by referring to one's self. it explains nothing at all.

self-referencing statements have the property of always recurving to infinity. here is the simplest restatement of the liar paradox again:

This statement is false. how many statements are within that statement?

another example:

Quote:

I have yet to hear a valid counter argument against.

Valid used in the above statement is subjective of course. MWaM is countered all over that particular thread. How "valid" the counters are really depends on you, the reader.

I could likewise claim that I have yet to hear or read a MWaM-related theory that accurately describes what the films are all about. And by "accurate" I mean without major contradiction and/or speculation.

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

lingguistically: a matrix can exist within a matrix.

That is not a 'self-referencing statement'. 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.

MwM says exactly this: There are two virtual worlds, one within the other. Logically that implies, as you said: a matrix can exist within a matrix.

But as I said, that's not a 'self-referencing statement', and no twist of logic can turn it into one.

Quote:

MwM says exactly this: There are two virtual worlds, one within the other.

no contest. exactly. you want to start that way. but since you've been gracious enough to agree that

Quote:

Logically [Mw/iM] implies, as you said: a matrix can exist within a matrix.

then Mw/iM will proceed to regress.

seed: a matrix (let's represent this w/ m) can exist within a matrix (another m).

therefore

1st iteration: m w/in m can exist w/in m w/in m.

2nd iteration: m w/in m w/in m w/in m can exist w/in m w/in m w/in m w/in m.

3rd iteration: m w/in m w/in m w/in m w/in m w/in m w/in m w/in m can exist w/in m w/in m w/in m w/in m w/in m w/in m w/in m w/in m.

see where this is going? exponential regression to infinity.

you are free to insist that in a snapshot of a quantum iota of time 1 m existed within 1 m and no more. but what happens after that snapshot disappears? boom. infinite matrices. infinite neos. infinite stories of the matrix trilogy.

still no contest. infinite matrices bolsters the argument that of all the possible ways the trilogy could have happened why our particular, crappy resolution? infinite matrices assure that in at least one incarnation the story happened the way this particular viewer wanted it to & that this viewer is freed from the shackles of Wachowski canon.

just one objection:

finite hardware space. where will all the neuro-silicon chips needed to run this infinite amount of code come from?

practically speaking, Mw/iM theory at once hits an impossible logistic problem. that is why there is only 1 matrix.

When the MwM Theroy first appered here it was about: Is Zion a matrix, Which would then make the matrix a matrix within a matrix.

alright. ZionReality (z) is actually another simulation. w/in z is the Podmatrix (p). assumingly, since there must be only 2 matrices, the reality outside z is the real one.

who's to say? prove it. once you realize you can't then you'll know why Mw/inM theory is a cop-out.

matrix = control

Zion = some control through the sentianls and the machine world

the MwM theory is based on control, thats the proof.

the nested realities are in a descending hierarchy of despotism therefore the base reality is the most real because it is the least despotic and most free of the machines?

if so, how do you know that the base reality isn't the Podmatrix?

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

you are free to insist that in a snapshot of a quantum iota of time 1 m existed within 1 m and no more. but what happens after that snapshot disappears? boom. infinite matrices. infinite neos. infinite stories of the matrix trilogy.

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.

"Snapshot disappears"? What does that mean? You're not making any sense.

Think of cardboard boxes. I can take one cardboard box and place it inside a larger one. That's it. There's no paradox or infinite recursion. The universe doesn't implode when I do that. It's the exact same thing.

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

alright. ZionReality (z) is actually another simulation. w/in z is the Podmatrix (p). assumingly, since there must be only 2 matrices, the reality outside z is the real one. who's to say? prove it. once you realize you can't then you'll know why Mw/inM theory is a cop-out.

Who's to say it's not? Prove otherwise. Prove that Zion is the real world.

There is no proof either way. That's why it's called a theory. If there was proof then the whole discussion would have been over a long time ago. We support it because we like the explanations it provides for the mysteries and unanswered questions in the movie.

Now, your probably going to try and respond with something like: "You can never prove that any reality isn't virtual, which leads right back to the infinte nested worlds flaw!"

Well, I'll preempt that argument with an answer right now: MwM doesn't use that lack of proof as evidence for anything. The evidence for the existence of the second matrix is based on other things. I only point out the lack of that proof to indicate that the second matrix can exist. Not to try and prove that it does. This goes back to what I said in my last post about the difference between can and does.

I think I might have figured out your confusion. You're probably stuck on the Homunculus thing. In the case of a true Homunculus, I believe that 'can' actually implies 'does'. That would explain why you seem to be ignoring the difference between those words. MwM however is not a true Homunculus. 'Can' does not imply 'does', and so there is no paradox.

The little man inside your head looking at a tv screen is a homunculus because it must recursively explain that little man's brain the same way. MwM does not have that problem. One matrix inside another does not require or imply that there is a third matrix anywhere. It's like the cardboard boxes. A matrix can contain another matrix, but it doesn't require one.

Quote:

One matrix inside another does not require or imply that there is a third matrix anywhere. It's like the cardboard boxes. A matrix can contain another matrix, but it doesn't require one.

I think I may have figured out your confustion as well. While what you say is def. true as to the conclusion the theory arrives at, it is not true as to the means at which that conclusion is reached.

In other words: You say that the possible existence of a second matrix does not open up the possibility of a third. I have no problem with that.

But the problem comes in where you try to support the notion with "evidence" from the films. Not only is such evidence scanty, but the reasoning applied to it can be equally applied to arrive at the possibility for ANY number of matrices within matrices. At least the reasoning YOU have applied to it.

That's why my invitation for you to support the belief in no more than 2 matrixes was NOT an attempt to "side-step" the argument as you claimed/thought. It is appropriate for if you tried it, you would see how much your thinking would be in harmony with those who argue against the belief in more than one.

intell wrote:

You say that the possible existence of a second matrix does not open up the possibility of a third.

Close enough. I won't correct you because you get the point.

Quote:

But the problem comes in where you try to support the notion with "evidence" from the films. Not only is such evidence scanty, but the reasoning applied to it can be equally applied to arrive at the possibility for ANY number of matrices within matrices. At least the reasoning YOU have applied to it.

Incorrect. That sort of statement demands to be backed up with a quote from me and and an explanation of how it implies that conclusion. But I know you can't provide that, because I said nothing of the sort.

Though I'm impressed by how logical your response was. You seem to understand most of my arugments. I expected some sort irrational nonsense that completely evaded the logic.

The unanswered questions in the movie: how Neo could jack in unconnected, how he could stop the sentenels, how he could see when blind, can all be explained within the context of a second matrix. That is the evidence for a second matrix. Once those questions are answered by the second matrix, there is nothing left that implies a third matrix.

The only thing that can be said about a third martix is that it can't be disproven. But, as I said in my last post, that fact wasn't used as part of the evidence of the second matrix, therfore this is not a homunculus.

First off, let me make this my "I-find-it-interesting-to-note.." section.

You post:

Quote:

Incorrect. That sort of statement demands to be backed up with a quote from me and and an explanation of how it implies that conclusion. But I know you can't provide that, because I said nothing of the sort.

Let's say for the sake of argument it is true you didn't say anything of the sort. You turn right around and say:

Quote:

The unanswered questions in the movie: how Neo could jack in unconnected, how he could stop the sentenels, how he could see when blind, can all be explained within the context of a second matrix. That is the evidence for a second matrix.

wtf? Am I missing something here? I guess I should thank you for saving me the time to go back and post the examples of where you try to support the theory with film-based evidence (which I was prepared to do, for you said it many times) by repeating it again after claiming you didn't say it. I truly hope I am grossly misunderstanding you.

Quote:

Though I'm impressed by how logical your response was. You seem to understand most of my arugments. I expected some sort irrational nonsense that completely evaded the logic.

That means you're finally starting to understand my posts, for if you had understood what I was saying before, you wouldn't have expected any logic evasion on my part.

Now if you're ready, we can take these "unanswered questions" on and see if:

1. MwM is the only possible answer for them and/or
2. MwM adequately answers these without creating other unanswered questions.

lazyl wrote:

Think of cardboard boxes. I can take one cardboard box and place it inside a larger one. That's it. There's no paradox or infinite recursion. The universe doesn't implode when I do that. It's the exact same thing.

the crippling problem w/ that example is you are already inside the 3rd reality, the base if you will, in order to know that there are in fact only 2 boxes. you have to be outside both boxes in order for your hands to open the big box , place the small box in and close the big box again.

in the films, the viewer is never treated to a view not p or z. for your box analogy to be correct, the farthest you can experience in boxterms is the space inside the big box outside the small. this, of course, is begging the question.

lazyl wrote:

"Snapshot disappears"? What does that mean?

here is the full phrase: snapshot of a quantum iota of time. i don't know how you experience time but to me, it never stays still. hence the snapshot disappearing. take a bird in flight. at a given point in time T the bird's coordinates are X,Y,Z. at T+1 coordinates are X,Y,Q. it's the same thing for Mw/iM, at this snapshot or freezeframe T there are 2 matrices, at T+1 there are so-and-so ad infinitum. it's a human expression to comprehend what is otherwise a continuous, unsegmented process.

lastly, you are severely discounting the scope of definition of theory. did you know that the law of gravity is technically a theory? gravity can not be proven. instances of gravity can. we go on with our lives accepting that gravity is real because of intellectual convenience, that is, to paraphrase intell: the theory of gravity greatly provides answers more than it raises problems that is why it has the status of law or fact.

if you define theory as unprovable 'explanations...for...mysteries and unanswered questions' then that isn't a theory at all nor even a hypothesis but simply a story. in science, math and logic there is no difference between what a theory states that it can and does do. because if you must insist that there is then, as you have said, a matrix can exist within a matrix but it in fact doesn't, w/c is wordplay that doesn't even amuse not to mention wrecking your whole case on your own. maybe you're confusing probability and theory.

i repeat. if the Mw/iM story states that it is possible (can) but not true (does not), well, that speaks for itself does it not?

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.

Lol! I never heard it put that way before. Welcome to the forum and discussion.

it's a stimulating pleasure to discuss, debate & lurk amongst you people. thank you, intell.

ROTFL LMAO I concur.

intell wrote:

Quote: The unanswered questions in the movie: how Neo could jack in unconnected, how he could stop the sentenels, how he could see when blind, can all be explained within the context of a second matrix. That is the evidence for a second matrix. wtf? Am I missing something here? I guess I should thank you for saving me the time to go back and post the examples of where you try to support the theory with film-based evidence (which I was prepared to do, for you said it many times) by repeating it again after claiming you didn't say it. I truly hope I am grossly misunderstanding you.

Your quote left off the last sentence of my paragraph. Once those questions are answered by the second matrix, there is nothing left that implies a third matrix. That was the most important sentence, and it is the answer to your question. If you didn't understand what that sentence meant then you should ask about it instead of ignoring it.

Let me rephrase in a way I think you'll understand. I'll break it down into multiple steps that I was doing together before:

The evidence suggests that Zion may be a virtual world. That evidence doesn't put a limit on how many nested virtual worlds there may be. Common sense does that. The machines would only create as many virtual worlds as they need, not more. Two is the minimum according to the information we have so that's why the theory says two.

Quote:

1. MwM is the only possible answer for them and/or

No, ofcourse it's not. It's just one theory. There are other theories.

Quote:

2. MwM adequately answers these without creating other unanswered questions.

That is what we are currently debating.

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

the crippling problem w/ that example is you are already inside the 3rd reality, the base if you will, in order to know that there are in fact only 2 boxes.

Whether or not you know how many boxes there are is completely irrelevant. It's still not a homunculus.

Quote:

here is the full phrase: snapshot of a quantum iota of time. i don't know how you experience time but to me, it never stays still. hence the snapshot disappearing. ... it's the same thing for Mw/iM, at this snapshot or freezeframe T there are 2 matrices, at T+1 there are so-and-so ad infinitum.

Where do you get the idea that the number of matrices changes with time?

Quote:

lastly, you are severely discounting the scope of definition of theory. did you know that the law of gravity is technically a theory? gravity can not be proven. instances of gravity can.

No, gravity is not a technically theory. Gravity is a technically a scientific law. And if you want to get technical and start using the scientific definitons of these words then MwM is technically a hypotheses. Here's a page that explains these terms for the layman: wilstar.com...

My point was that simply stating that there is no proof is not sufficient to invalidate it. It is, using the technical term, a hypothesis.

Quote:

as you have said, a matrix can exist within a matrix but it in fact doesn't

Sigh. I did not say that. If you are unable to understand what I write then we have to end this discussion because I don't have the patience for that sort of thing.

lazyl wrote:

Whether or not you know how many boxes there are is completely irrelevant. It's still not a homunculus.

let's replace the word 'boxes' with 'matrices' and read that sentence again: Whether or not you know how many matrices there are is completely irrelevant(!). it's crucial to know how many matrices are there. isn't the whole point of Mw/iM that you've repeatedly written is there must be 'exactly 2' matrices, one within the other? now that above quote is calling Mw/iM 'irrelevant'.

lazyl wrote:

No, gravity is not a technically theory. Gravity is a technically a scientific law.

please, let's not mince words for the sole sake of mincing. tell the particle physicists in CalSci and CERN that gravity is law. understand this, gravity is both theory and law. when we see things fall and based on that observation expect things to fall again then we're treating gravity as law. when we attempt to explain why & how things fall such as because mass attracts mass then we're treating gravity as theory. those same particle physicists would tell you mass doesn't always attract mass at the quantum level.

how is this relevant? you've admitted that Mw/iM does not account for all given facts therefore its status as hypothesis and i'll agree. know that it will remain there unless you stand by your contradictions or admit the untenability of your position. getting waylaid by an elegant but false story happens to the best of us. common occurence among today's top mathematicians & theoretical physicists.

in Mw/iM hypothesis, does or does not the Podmatrix exist within the Zionmatrix?

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.

homunculus-w/in-homunculu wrote:

lazyl wrote: Whether or not you know how many boxes there are is completely irrelevant. It's still not a homunculus. let's replace the word 'boxes' with 'matrices' and read that sentence again: Whether or not you know how many matrices there are is completely irrelevant(!). it's crucial to know how many matrices are there. isn't the whole point of Mw/iM that you've repeatedly written is there must be 'exactly 2' matrices, one within the other? now that above quote is calling Mw/iM 'irrelevant'.

Whether or not you know how many matrices there are is completely irrelevant in establishing the fact that one matrix existing inside another is not a homunculus.

Let me summerize this line of discussion from the beginning because you're obviously off track:

1) MwM hypothesizes that there are two virtual worlds, one within the other. This is because there are mysteries in the movie that could be explained if Zion were virtual.

2) You then tried to argue that the matrix within a matrix concept constituted a homunculus.

3) I used the cardboard box analogy (along with other arugments) to explain why a matrix within a matrix is not a homunculus.

The state of any individual observer in the system does not change the fact that it is not a homunculus.

Let me save you some brain power. What does affect the homunculus argument is the reasoning that MwM uses to hypothesize the existance of the second matrix. If that reasoning is recursive such that it can be applied to the second matrix to hypothesize that a third exists, then it is a homunculus.

intell understood this concept immediately and cut right to the heart of the issue. You seem to be spinning on some wierd tangent. I recommend re-reading intell's last couple posts and my responses.

Quote:

please, let's not mince words for the sole sake of mincing.

I wasn't mincing. I was correcting your mistake. The scientific definition of those things is not arbitrary. Did you bother to read the page I linked?

Quote:

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

I said no such thing. 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.

Quote:

in Mw/iM hypothesis, does or does not the Podmatrix exist within the Zionmatrix? 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.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between 'can' and 'does' in those sentences. I'll explain with a short lesson on the language of logic:

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. I hope I don't have to explain how that is different then saying "a matrix can exist withing another matrix".

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.