»The Matrix & Physics & The views of the world«

Hi! I haven't seen the explanation of the Matrix trilogy like this, so I'll try to assemble my thoughts and hope you would understand ...


Let’s look at the Matrix trilogy as a metaphor of historical development of physics and subsequential changes in the common view of the world. It would be a quick summary, so please, don’t be angry on me for oversimplification.

Also, when I am speaking about world, or world-view, I mean more or less the European, or christian, point of view.

The plot starts within the Matrix a kind of dreamworld, where people lives more or less happily. From today’s point of view, it could represent the era before the great discoveries of Newton and his colleagues. The world used to be enchanted and full of the presence of the God. The people lived more or less in accordance with the inherited rules given by the God. Most of them do not questioned the existence of the world and that kept them in happiness. But there were some, who inquired about the nature of … nature. Let’s call these guys scientists, because they soon become to be known like that. And the scientific view of the world prevails, or, at least, the consequences of scientific discovery influences the lives of milions of people.

Now it seemed it started with Newton, who presented his Principles of the working of the world. His mechanics described the world as consisting of objects and these objects were made of mass points – atoms. Newton think out the rules of motion, inertia, action and reaction and gravity. These rules were regarded as laws – similar to the laws given by God. Physics became the science and it meant in Newton’s time decyphering the laws of God. What was amazing was the simplicity of the discovered rules, somehow it resembled the biblical decalogue. Soon it was believed that whatever truth would be discovered in physics, it should be simple – it was believed that all the natural phenomenons can be reduced to certain simple rules, similar to Newtonian rules of motion. And at the begining it almost worked like that, explanative power of physics combined with mathematics have grown. It beated down plenty of myths and believes and gave to (some) Euroean men what they deserved: power. Power to conquer and power to rule. Most of the Earth becomes colonized, while in Europe, the science progressed and soon came the era of enlightment. Science became like a new belief and the scientific view of the world gained popularity.

How was the world-view of classical science? Divided into two great parts: 1/material world where the body lived and 2/spiritual world of mind, soul and God. How comes this division? It has much to do with analytical character of science – tear the whole into the parts and then becomes exploration of the parts much easier. Also, once matter was regarded as dead matter that obeys the rules (obeys the laws of physics) it seemed that reality lost something. It was God, who ceased to be omnipresent – he was divided into 2 aspects: the Creator God and the Personal God, while His presence within the nature was lost. So, the material nature was deserted by God – and it could be identified as a „desert of the real“ in the movies. The „real world“ is in Matrix associated with bodies and it is, strictly speaking, material world. The rebels are scientists and believers is science – for them, the world looks quite different, in comparison with the people in (religious) dreamworld (=plugged to matrix). Why dreamworld? Because science disenchants the nature, the religious view is regarded as minor and believe in God is something that preceeds science. Religion is seen as childhood, compared to the adulthood of science. And children usually dream … while adulthood seems to consist of dismissal of the childhood dreams – of waking up into the reality! But what is this reality? It is the material reality of deserted world.

Now, the rebels in Zion are fighting – within the matrix against agents and against sentinels in the „desert of the real“. The rebels are those of scientific belief and their fight witnin the matrix may symbolize the fight of enlighted people for a better world, like in French Revolution. These were mostly scientists but other people that were against established governments in 18th-19th century - libertanians, anarchists, kommunists – joined their forces and fought the regime. What was connecting these diverse groups was belief in future, and this future was projected by science and rational thinking. Because they were mostly materialists, God ceased to be important for them. Therefore they fought for a better world and were trying to get followers – enlighten them. This was the fight of ideas and rebels were more powerful then ordinary people in the enchanted world, because they knew that certain rules and taboos were fake, science helped then overcome the fear of God, Death, Hell, storms … lots of common fears simply disappeared by realizing that you don’t have to obey them. The view of the world have changed.

Another fight of rebels, that fight within the „desert of the real“ against sentinels, may symbolize a scientific discovery – fighting with reality itself. In science, the fight is fought by experimenting, making of theories and the nature retaliates by the results of such experiments. What is being fought for is the picture of the world. At the time we are talking about (18th-19th cent.), predominant scientific view was heavily based on Newtonian mechanic. The material world was seen like a machine – made of parts and set into motion by the Creator God and suprisingly, there was almost no place for people. At least for physics was evolution of matter something incredible and inexplicable. The law of increasing entropy simply did not allowed evolution, in its view the universe were heading toward the „heat death“, where all temperature will be equal and matter would be diminished into the dust. Physics had no explanation for life, therefore evolution life was seen either as an incredibly rare coincidence of very low probabilities on the steps of evolution or some miraculous vital force was searched, that would counter the entropy. The vital force could easily be the Oracle, while Smith would be the inevitable physical law of nature. And from a mechanistic point of view, life is heading toward death, similarly like motion tend to diminish into heat due to the friction and increasing entropy.

All this could be depicted in the Matrix, the first movie. The scientific situation during the 19th century. But then cames Neo. He could represent the new science and its successive evolvement. The roots of revolution in physics that occured at the begining of 20th century can be traced deeper into the past. There were experiments hardly explicable by the classical mechanistic physics – they did not fit into the consenzual world view. For instance electro-magnetic field – for its mechanistic explanaion was invented ether, theoretical substance which relays the waves, like the surface of water relays the waves when the stone is thrown there. So, at the end of 19th cent. scientific experiments became less and less understandable and explicable and scientist were prepared to save the common sense at almost all price.

But then came Einstein and thought out completely new way of looking at physics. He introduced theory of relativity and bring the base to quantum mechanics, which was later developed by a a bunch of other physicists. There two disciplines changed the scientific world view completely and even most of the other scientist have no idea what is this all about, so they happily develop their research at the base of classical sciences and only slowly accept the changes and new thoughts. Just to keep it on track, Neo represents the development of science and this phase, at the beginning of 20th century, is reflected in Reloaded and Revolutions. It symbolize the ongoing revolution in modern sciences and the end of Revolutions attempts to predict the future development, in the similar way Fritjof Capra does in his book The Turning Point.

Quite interesting character in Reloaded is Merovingian. There are certain notion that he used to be the One and I think he really was. If Neo symbolizes the modern science, Merovingian is a great symbol of the mechanistic science. He talks a lot about cause and effect and then makes a practical show of this principle in behaviour of a woman. He shows the aplication of mechanistic approach in social sciences, the believe (shared with Architect) that people are quite predictable. Merovingian appearance has also certain devilish conotations. That can point to Laplace‘s Demon – teoretical creature, that can predict everything, because it knows the location and movement of all particles of the universe, which is one of the theoretical consequences of Newtonian physics. He is also french and even this could be explained in the realm of physics, because a lot of french physicist were defending determinism even against the english discoveries concerning the heat mechanics, principles of conservation of energy and entropy. Neo’s fight with the henchmen of Merovingian and his subsequent entrapment in the labyrint of the castle may symbolize the hardship of the beginnings of modern physics, where only minority of scientist accepted the view of relativistic and quantum physics.

The Keymaker is another significant character. His keys were for Merovingian – and that were the keys to universe, that determinists claims to possess. It is the Russel‘s belief that science can explain everything and what isn’t tranformable into the scientific language is only fake problem. Keymaker symbolize the keys to the secrets of nature and Neo needs him to reach (while symbolizing the progress of science) the next discovery. The secret, to which Keymaker provides the key is nuclear weapon. You see at the end of Reloaded the eplosion of nuclear power plant and also Neo’s escape from Architect’s chamber in flames of another unprecedented explosion – and that points to the creation of nuclear bomb.

Neo’s speech with Architect may symbolize the scienthists‘ moral dilema whether to contribute to the progress of science even at the cost of misuse to the military armament, or if it is better not to open the secret chamber of energy hidden within nuclei. Another parts of the speech are the questions that nuclear physics asks to the Creator of the universe (Architect symbolize the Creator God): „Why am I here?“ – aka „Where does the universe cames from?“. It is like saying that all the great mysteries of physics are leading to the God. And it seems to be so, most of the top scientists do believe in God. It is probably the character of the theoretical physics and questioning the foundations of reality, matter and universe. You can’t avoid thinking about the God here and about the sense of it all. And God tells the scientist: „Do not contribute to the making bomb.“ But he did. And the choice is the problem. It is inpredictable and that troubles the God, here it is probably the Creator God that set the rules and which denotes the world with fate. There is no place for a choice in this world. How could possibly exist fate and choice at the same? That’s where the conventional logic end. And it seems that Neo makes real choices and is doomed to do it at the same time. It resembles the problems with subatomic particles, and the wave-particle duality. Conventional logic tells us that it is impossible that it could be both or that it depends on experiment – that reality seems to be multifaceted and that all the facets can’t be seen at the same time. And in the movie, in the scene with Architect, the conventional logic really ends. What follows can probably only be understood in either mystic way or with the outlook of nuclear physics.

At the end of the Matrix, Trinty saves Neo. This could symbolize that if body is stimulated (i.e by electrical shocks), the soul could be brought back from death, if it has the desire to return – as was suggested by perceived clinical deaths and returns. This somehow links material world to the spiritual world and could be futher connected to the role of the Oracle, who were heading to something like this in her speeches. To suggest the profound connection between body and mind, that the separation is just another faked ilusion. As I said before, she could represent the vital force of life. But she could be the ancient „natural“ wisdom too. She is the wisdom denied by science, because it speaks different language – in myths, legends, sayings … - the way the ancient cultures reflected their profound insight intho the world and translated this knowledge to the commonly understandable world-views. Oracle also resembles the eastern wisdom (buddhism, taoism, hinduism) and that way of teaching is quite different from the western. In Zen buddhism, for instance, students have to find the truth themselves and their master just shows the way, gives the riddles in koans … it is not the explicit way of teaching and comprehensive analysis, that western studying of books and clearly defining the scientific terms. Oracle gaves advices but only to those who can understand them.

The end of Reloaded flips again the resurrection. This time is saved Trinity but who is she? She is all the time with Neo and he represents modern science. Is it possible that she symbolize the scientific method? She was there in Zion even before Neo appeared. And she saved him several times when he was in troubles. Science couldn’t exist without experiments – connection of theories with matter and so did Neo. And at the end of Revolutions Trinity die before Neo. It could be that Neo is more like theoretical science, while Trinity practical. And theory reaches further, the theory about the nature of the universe is not practical and cannot be really proven, that’s why Neo gets further then Trinity. Now the difficult question: Why should practical science die after the nuclear explosion? It is not practical at all, or is it? To continue in study of nuclei, nuclear bombs are probaly not the best solution. But there are even the peaceful ways of study of subatomic particles – accelerators and study of the spectrum of the stars in the sky (could it be the only scene above the clouds?). It is also clear from the movie that without Trinity – without the practical and experimental science – Neo –theoretical science – would be stopped on his path by Bane, and that would also mean the end, because without science could be quite hard to get out the critical situation caused by science and especially by the nuclear explosion – there is no way back and the path have to reach the end, otherwise the cumulated problems would eradicate the whole human race and only material world would survive.

Bane, together with Neo’s ability to influence sentinels symbolize the mess at the margin of modern physics. The phenomenons far away from common sense (originating in subatomic world or in extreme speeds) and practically unpredictible may have also unexpected effects (the butterfly effect in complex systems). Bane for example caused the crash of perfect plan of commander Lock, who may symbolize the traditional scientist that is facing the problems of today by traditional methods but is doomed to fail because the old science cannot deal with this kind of problem. Science is not universal and have the limits too and it is essential to know which theory can be applied to what problem. Neo’s advantage is the knowledge of his goal – at least his intuition, something completely new to the science but that could be the next step toward the solution of current problems. Maybe Neo’s focus on his goal could foreshadow the possible way of science – that it is powerless without the goal, that science as such is not possible, that science is just the method of solution of problems (Popper). It is a kind of backcasting the future: imagine the good end first and then search the solution. Not the today’s way of searching solution to a problem, without any idea how does it look. It couldn’t be found like that!

Now, the end of the movie is at hand and Smith is avaiting us. Who is he? He the opposite and negative of Neo – of science. He acted as a inevitable law of nature too but how inevitable are the natural laws in the view of physics today? Smith could be the pandora’s box of science, that is with any good invention always came another ominous one. Along with the nuclear energy comes also the nuclear bomb. And the deeper we dig into the matter, the more powerful energies could be released. Neo could be the hope that good intention is more powerful that the bad, destructive power of its shadow. Smith also shows the power of possitive feedback, one of the machanisms that probably leads to the evolution of life. Cycles. Everything in nature is happening in cycles and the yin and yang are just another symbol for it. Change always is and Oracle, the ancient wisdom should know it for sure … because she is so old, and she is still here. She must have many ups and downs behind and she is still there.

Finally, the message of the movies as I see it is that the world is ONE indivisible and interconnected. The division can be powerful, but balance is necessary. And science? That may be the way to bring about the balance but the ears and eyes must be open to conceive the heart of the world and its wholeness as well. Not an easy job. And belief in its good end seems to be essential. Or is there any other way of doing things, without the firm conviction that it is the right thing to do?


Here it is, there is a lot of thing that should have been said better, I know, but let's wait for some comments.

Quote:

And belief in its good end seems to be essential. Or is there any other way of doing things, without the firm conviction that it is the right thing to do?

Interesting post, but I am not sure that the Brothers had that in mind when they made the movie

As Morpheus said, "there is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path". The Ying and Yang theory says that we can accomplish our destiny as well by action than by inaction. So belief must not always be necessary to achieving your purpose.
But it is necessary to reach your own personal goals though.

it seems to me that the point you made is taking the "clues" and making them support your theory and they do but somthing doesnt add up in my head your point is valid but it seems that the way the "clues" were laid out is different to your point.

however you are obviously a lot more intelligent than i so if you want to flame the hell out of me i understand fully.

I don't think this is what W. brothers had in mind while making these movies .

This is what came to my mind while reading several books about physics, science and its relationships to the rest of the world (like religion, nature and human behaviour). And this post could represent my struggle to understand it. I don't know wheather it is reasonable to seek understanding to scientific theory by the means of mapping it onto the characters of a movie but what I get from those books is that when one solution (or theory) does not work, it does not necessarily mean that something is impossible.

The problem with such difficult theories, movies, or too many clues is that you simply don't know - and that the way through is awaiting to be made. There is a lot of analytical explanations and this attempts to be synthetical - I got some idea and so I sought for its support and explanation. But idea in mind and its representation in words --- that's not the same. And Morpheus'es saying about the path could also be said here

Apocryphe wrote:

The Ying and Yang theory says that we can accomplish our destiny as well by action than by inaction.

As I understand, inaction in this context is still active. It means that it is not going against the "natural flow of things" or that you do not affect the karma - that you are not bound by the consequences of your actions, you are freed instead.

Also, belief is a tricky word and I am using it in sense that means something like an optimism that the outcome of my actions would be good; I don't mean it in a religious sense.

I agree that the Bros probably didn't plan this.

But the trilogy does help bring about an integral, all-encompassing, world-view which is currently being explored by science in the fields of systems theory, complexity theory, fractal geometry, chaos and even string theory (ugg). Either way, I think you're dead on about abandoning the old, linear models of everything and embracing the new, integral, networked models.

Fritjof Capra is awesome! His newer books (after The Tao Of Physics) seem very interesting. Particularly The Turning Point and The Web Of Life.

The Turning Point-

Quote:

The author's main argument seems to be that since Newtonian physics has been superseded by the more complex quantum and relativity theories, we should discard our 'Newtonian' ideas about medicine, the development of science, social organization and so on, and replace them.

The Web of Life-

Quote:

In The Web of Life, Capra takes yet another giant step, setting forth a new scientific language to describe interrelationships and interdependence of psychological, biological, physical, social, and cultural phenomena—the "web of life.".... Capra offers a brilliant synthesis of such recent scientific breakthroughs as the theory of complexity, Gaia theory, chaos theory, and other explanations of the properties of organisms, social systems, and ecosystems.

Which ones have you read?

I have read Order Out of Chaos written by Prigogine & Stengers and now I am reading Tao of Physics and the Turning Point by Capra .
I also read some pieces by Gregory Bateson, that could be found here: oikos.org...
Here is a nice quote from Mind and Nature:

Quote:

There seems to be something like a Gresham’s law of cultural evolution according to which the oversimplified ideas will always displace the sophisticated and the vulgar and hateful will always displace the beautiful. And yet the beautiful persists.

A propos, I just watched yesterday a tv show where 2 scientists (the twins Bogdanov) made a theory : the source of our universe is in fact a purely mathematical concept. The informations contained in that original point would be like a dvd, and the universe is the player.
Everything is written in the source, but the happening is created by our reality.

An interesting theory for us Matrix fans, but several scientists stated that this theory was bullshit, even if in fact, none can tell what happened before the big bang.

That theory sounds pretty good. I'm sure it has some bits of truth in it. It sounds pretty integral (my new favorite word, in case folks haven't noticed).

Titek- Hmm, haven't heard of Order Out Of Chaos, but if its what I think it is, it sounds pretty interesting. I read a bit about that in `Out Of Control'.

Need to read about this Bateson guy. Heard too much, dont know enough. What is Ecology of Mind? Is it a organization similar to the Integral Institute?

Quote:

There seems to be something like a Gresham’s law of cultural evolution according to which the oversimplified ideas will always displace the sophisticated and the vulgar and hateful will always displace the beautiful. And yet the beautiful persists.

Well, I dont know about that. In my integral model, complex ideas persist- they have to because science evolves that way. However, the bigger of a picture that starts to form, you realize that this model is still pretty simplistic. Simple yet complex- the integral way. (I'm not sure about the official Ken Wilber- integral position on this). As far as vulgar and beautiful goes, you might have to explain more.

Yeah ,tell us more about what Order out of chaos is in the big lines ?

From the name, I guess that the theory states that in a complex chaotic system, order will necessarely arise, if not purposely, at least by chance.
But since chaos is still the basic rule of the system, order will always end at some point.... until the next order arise.

Did I guess right or am I completly out of it ?

Yea I think that pretty much sums it up. Thats what I read in `Out Of Control'. Its the anti-chaos theory lol.

We'll have to wait for the official approval from Titek however.

Hmmm, so many questions ... let's go throught it.

apocryphe wrote:

the source of our universe is in fact a purely mathematical concept

I haven't heard about this theory but it sounds pretty matrix-like. It also reminds me of the idea of Descartes and of reductionistic view of classical physics - that there is a simple and comprehensible source of the universe, something like physical laws "written" somewhere (the analogy of the source in Matrix?). The problem with this is similar to the problem of understanding the Matrix: the code have to be written outside the reality but what does it mean "outside the reality"? That's a logical paradox. It takes you just one step higher, into the realm of some supreme reality (deserted real world in Matrix).

Solution of this paradox could be found in placing the code into the reality itself - that the reality plays itself, so to speak - but then it would lead to the idea of everything is contained in everything, I mean that every "piece" of reality contains complete rules of its functioning (the code).

Saying that:

apocryphe wrote:

the source of our universe is in fact a purely mathematical concept.

explores the problems inherent in the description of reality by the modern physics - that the processes in the depth of matter or "pieces of reality" could be described only be mathematical means (instead of the smallest building blocs, there are some statistical probabilities and functions). This is something unimaginable and therefore the understanding to the world in this perspective is quite tricky. It reminds the words of mythological stories and of Oracles of all kinds ... not the "hard" science.

I don't know which theory of the universe is the best, but at least concerning the scientific theories, very good is the approach of Karl Popper. It says that we can't prove (verify) any theory, the theories could be only disproved (falsified). The criterion of truthfulness of scientific theory is its explanatory power and its usefulness. The important point is our ignorance about the nature of such truth, which stems from the scepticism inherent in the scientific method: If there is any scientific truth, there is no chance of fully recognizing it, because of the scepticism about the method of induction. Usefulness of the theory can be increased by properly set limits. But expanding any theory to the whole universe, that is a daring attempt, which is not quite scientific.

Akshat Gupta wrote:

Need to read about this Bateson guy. Heard too much, dont know enough. What is Ecology of Mind? Is it a organization similar to the Integral Institute?

I meant a book called "Steps to an Ecology of Mind", a collection of essays, written by Gregory Bateson, but I forgot the whole name of the book. I also don't know much about the organization of such name - but it is interesting page with a plenty of texts and pieces of books ...

I haven't heard about Integral Institute before but it seems to be somehow similar the the Ecology of Mind but on much larger scale (that's an impression from the web pages of those organizations).

About that quote from Mind and Nature:
That's somehow thoughs provoking, isn't it? It talks about culture and about the spreading of ideas. How I understand it is that the simpler ideas spread much easier then the complex ones but the interesting fact is that both of them still exist. There is the analogy of species and ideas: various species of organisms live in various niches; while some species live almost everywhere (ants, people ...), others live only in certain ecosystems (endemic species). And ideas too: some of them are widely spread, others are known just within few organizations, nations or groups of individuals.

Important is that both kinds are necessary for the survival of ecosystems (or life in general) or for the survival of civilization in the case of ideas. So, not only the survival of the fittest (species, individuals), but the survival of the whole (life/civilization, society) is important concept. Because of the changing environment, every last specie or idea may be important for the survival of the others - thats the background for the protection of the variation of species.

Order Out of Chaos, p.35,36 wrote:

In his study of the significance and implications of the Newtonian synthesis, Koyré wrote: „Yet there is something for which Newton—or better to say not Newton alone, but modern science in general—can still be made responsible: it is splitting of our world in two. I have been saying that modern science broke down the barriers that separated the heavens and the earth, and that it united and unified the universe. And that is true. But, as I have said, too, it did this by substituting for our world of quality and sense perception, the world in which we live, and love, and die, another world—the world of quantity, or reified geometry, a world in which, through there is place for everything , there is no place for man. Thus the world of science—the real world—became estranged and utterly divorced from the world of life, which science has been unable to explain—not even to explain away by calling it „subjective“. True, these worlds are everyday—and even more and more—connected by praxix. Yet for theory they are divided by an abyss. Two world: this means two truths. Or no truth at all. This is the tragedy of the modern mind which „solved the riddle of the universe,“ but only to replace it by another riddle: the riddle of itself.

Basically, Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stenges attempts in their book to explain the observed variety of life, which seems to be something improbable (if not impossible) - at least in the view of (classical) physics. They are establishing the connections between various branches of science: nuclear physics, physics of gases, molecular physics, chemistry, biology and also the human sciences. They are asking: how comes that the various complex systems (like cells, organisms, culture) arise?

Order Out of Chaos, p.83,84 wrote:

According to Stahl, universlal laws apply to the living only in the sense that these laws condemn them to death and corruption; the matter of which living beings are composed is so frail, so easily decomposed, that if it were governed solely by the common laws of matter, it would not withstand decay or dissolution for a moment. If a living creature is to survive in spite of the general laws of physics, however short its life when it is compared to that of stone or another inanimate object, it has to possess in itself a „principle of conservation“ that maintains the harmonious equilibrium of the texture and structure of its body. The astonishing longevity of a living body in view of the extreme corruptibility of its constitutive matter is thus indicative of the action of a „natural, permanent, immanent principle,“ of a particular cause that is alien to the laws of inanimate matter and that constantly struggles against the constantly active corruption whose inevitability these laws imply. To us this analysis of life sounds both near and remote. It is close to us in its acute awareness of the singularity and the precariousness of life. It is remote because, like Aristotle, Stahl defined life in static terms, in terms of conservation, not of becoming or evolution. … Instead, Stahl’s vitalism is relevant as long as the laws of physics are identified with evolution toward decay and disorganization. Today the „vitalist principle“ has been superseeded by the succession of improbable mutations preserved in the genetic message „governing“ the living structure. Nonetheless, some extrapolations starting from molecular biology relegate life to the confines of nature—that is, conclude life is compatible with the basic laws of physics but purely contingent. This was explicitly stated by Monod: life does not „follow from the laws of physics, it is compatible with them. Life is an event whose singularity we have to recognize.“ But the transition from matter to life can also be viewed in a different way. As we shall see, far from equilibrium, new selforganizational processes arise. (…) In this way biological organization begins to appear as a natural process.

They say that the irreversibility of natural processes could be the key to the complexity. They couter the view that the occurence of life on Earth is just the great observed improbability (that itsa possible, but very, very unlikely). Their view is that complexity arises naturally, due to the existence of irreversible processes. So, everything is based on its past, but the path of causes and effects could not be all the time traced backward due to the erasure of traces (it is unlikely to deduce from the ash, that it used to be a man) and also the prediction is all the time limited because no one knows what happens in the future (the example are the various visions the civilization in the year 2000: if they are from 19th century there are lots of steam sophisticated engines, if they are from 60ties of 20th cent. there is the cosmic age - but none of it happened due to the occurence of new inventions and problems).

Another example is the mixture of two liquids, let say that one is red and other blue. It is easy to mix them and get a violet colour - it is the great statistical probability of happening this. I mean that the more probable option is going to happen. Sure, it is statistically possible to have a red colour on the right side of a glass, blue on the lift side and violet in the middle, but is is quite unlikely, especially when the number of particles involved in the system is immense. When you see the violet liquid, you can't say how was the colour before the mixture, or how exactly the mixing proceeded. The history of a system was erased.

Prigogine and Stengers also cited the formulation of the law of increasing entropy in the terms of information: the amount of information within a system is always decreasing (information about the state of the system - from which the history of the system could be obtained).

The emergence of a new order is based on irreversibility - that something could not be taken back. Imagine that in the example above, one of those liquids was an acid and the other was alkalia. Once you mix them coagulation occures, and the system is suddenly radically different: instead of liguid, there is a mixture of liquid and solid and its colour may not depend on the colour of the two liguids but on their chemical structure. Once the coagulation happens, there is no (even no statistical) probability that the system could revert to its initial state without the opening to the environment.

There are 3 stages of systems described in the book:
1/ stable systems
2/ systems that are close to the stable systems - they naturally tent to establish the previous balance
3/ unstable systems - a new kind of balance may occur; if there are more possible types of such balance (bifurcation), sometimes it depends even on the smallest impulses, which of these types (paths) would be "chosen"

Unstable systems are considered to be chaotic because they are somehow unpredictable. This unpredictability does not mean that the path of linear causes and effects is broken but that even the smallest cause (considered as external or minor) may finally lead to the change of the whole system. This is precisly so due to the unstability of the system - the same small impulse will have no effect on the whole system, if that would be in a stable state or in a state that is close to it.

Which systems are unstable? There was a great attention focused on living systems, because these are based on the management of catalytic chemical reactions (reactions that uses its products again and again to amplify or inhibit the process - those are all of cyclic nature) Take a nonbiological example - the process of burning: you need heat to reach the ignition point in fuel and burning of the fuel produces heat, therefore another fuel reaches the ignition point and so on, until all the fuel is burned or the tempreture decreases under the ignition point. Burning of the fuel creates instability of the system (let's say the system is a forest) and it depend on many factors, whether the forest would be burned or not (on the direction and force of the wind, moisture of the forest, presence of human observer to call the firemen, then on the ability of firemen to reach the fire and extinguish it, also a decision whether extinguish the fire or not is crucial and may have various causes ...). Important to our cause is that the fire means unstability in a system and there are more possible outcomes: the forest continue growing or it is partly or completely burned down. If it is burden down, a new kinds of systems may arise on its place - meadows, bushes or even the agricultural land or a highway. As we see, even such disaster as forest fire may be desirable for someone, but then it has to be managed succesfully - not to burn the nearby village.

----------------------------
I think I am not explaning the theory in a good way .... it's better to read the book, its quite complex
But I hope you get something out of my explanation too

Some excerpts from the book and additional links could be found here: mountainman.com.au...

Here are some quotes, that you may find interesting in the context of Matrix:

Order OUt of Chaos, p.32 wrote:

The echoes of another leitmotiv—domination—mingle with that of disenchantment. A disenchanted world is, at the same time, a world liable to control and manipulation. Any science that conceives of the world as being governed according to a universal theoretical plan that reduces its various riches to the drab applications of general laws thereby becomes an instrument of domination. And, man, a stranger to the world, sets himself up as its master.

Order OUt of Chaos, p.85 wrote:

Mechanical change, activity as described by the laws of motion, had now become synonymous with the artificial and with death. Opposed to it, united in a complex with which we are now quite familiar, were the concepts of life, spontaneity, freedom, and spirit. This opposition was paralleled by the opposition between calculation and manipulation on the one hand, and the free speculative activity of the mind on the other. Through speculation the philosopher would reach the spiritual activity at the core of nature. As for the scientist, his concern with nature would be reduced to taking it as a set of manipulable and measurable objects; he would thus be able to take possession of nature, to dominate and control it but to understand it. Thus the intelligibility of nature would lie beyond the grasp of science.

Order OUt of Chaos, p.304,305 wrote:

In Lucretian physics we thus again find the link we have discovered in modern knowledge between the choices underlying a physical description and a philosophic, ethical, or religious conception relating to man’s situation in nature. The physics of universal connection is set against another science that in the name of law and domination no longer struggles with disturbance of randomness. Classical science from Archimedes to Clausius was opposed to the science of turbulence and of bifurcating changes. It is here that Greek wisdom reaches one of its pinnacles. Where man is in the world, of the world, in matter, of matter, he is not a stranger, but a friend, a member of the family, and an equal. He has made a pact with things. Conversely, many other systems and many other sciences are based on breaking this pact. Man is a stranger to the world, to the dawn, to the sky, to things. He hates them, and fought them. His environment is a dangerous enemy to be fought, to be kept enslaved. … Epicurus and Lucretius live in a reconciled universe. Where the science of things and the science of man coincide. I am a disturbance, a whirlwind in turbulent nature.

Order OUt of Chaos, p.305 wrote:

The world of classical science was a world in which the only events that could occur were those deducible from the instantaneous state of the system. Curiously, this conception, which we have traced back to Galieleo and Newton, was not new at that time. Indeed, it can be identified with Aristotle’s conception of a divine and immutable heaven. In Aristotle’s opinion, it was only the heavenly world to which we could hope to apply an exact mathematical description. In the Introduction, we echoed the complaint that science has „disenchanted“ the world. But this disenchanment is paradoxically due to the glorification of the earthly world, henceforth worthy of the kind of intellectual pursuit Aristotle reserved for heaven. Classical science denied becoming, natural diversity, both considered by Aristotle as attributes of sublunar, inferior world. In this sense, classical science brought heaven to earth. However, this apparently was not the intention of the fathers of modern science. In challenging Aristotle’s claim that mathematics ends where nature begins, they did not seek to discover the immutable concealed behind the changing, but rather to extend changing, corruptible nature to the boundaries of the universe.

Order OUt of Chaos, p.312,313 wrote:

The Renewal of the Nature It is quite remarkable that we are at a moment both of profound change in the scientific concept of nature and of the structure of human society as a result of the demographic explosion. As a result, there is a need for new relations between man and nature and between man and man. We can no longer accept the old a priori distinction between scientific and ethical values. This was possible at a time when the external world and our internal world appeared to conflict, to be nearly orthogonal. Today we know that time is a construction and therefore carries an ethical responsibility. The ideas to which we have devoted much space in this book—the ideas of instability, of fluctuation—diffuse into the social sciences. We know now that societies are immensely complex systems involving a potentially enormous number of bifurcations exemplified by the variety of cultures that have evolved in relatively short span of human history. We know that such systems are highly sensitive to fluctuations. This leads both to hope and a threat: hope, since even small fluctuations may grow and change the overall structue. As a result, individual activity is not doomed to insignificance. On the other hand, this is also a threat, since in our universe the security of stable, permanent rules gone forever. We are living in a dangerous and uncertain world that inspires no blind confidence, but perhaps only the same feeling of quantifies hope that some Talmudic texts appear to have attributed to the God of Genesis: Twenty-six attempts preceded the present genesis, all of which were destined to fail. The world of man has arisen out of chaotic heart of the preceeding debris; he too is exposed to the risk of failure, and the return to nothing. „Let’s hope it works“ (Halway Sheyaamod) exclaimed God as he created the World, and this hope, which has accompanied all the subsequent history of the world and mankind, has emphasized right from the outset that this history is branded with the mark of radical uncertainty.

Titek-

As far as what you wrote in the beginning concerning the Source of reality- whether it is `outside' reality or contained within reality- dont forget about incompleteness. I'm sure you remember Godel's incompleteness theorom and how it is shown in the Matrix.

So in the end, I find myself picturing a model of reality in which the `Source' is the map itself and the map cannot be fully comprehended since it is inherently incomplete. However, therein lies its beauty and its completeness- in the fact that it is incomplete. You used the word comprehensive to describe your model of laws of reality. However for me, comprehensive and incomplete go together. Am I coming across?

Quote:

I haven't heard about Integral Institute before but it seems to be somehow similar the the Ecology of Mind but on much larger scale

Integral Theory (or modern integral theory, I should say) is a world-view which is balanced, embracing, inclusive and seeks to integrate different beliefs on the theory of everything. It is very Matrix-esque and very Fritjof Capra-esque as well. This world view can be applied to everything and it is- integral theorists stress the universal applications of an integral model. Seems like you like natural sciences and Integral Theory is about that but not just about that. Did you read/hear the conversation between Larry W and Ken Wilber? Ken Wilber is the leading Integral theorist of today. The integral institute is a think-tank of sorts. Members of this forum who are interested in Integral theory are myself and Tozy. Also, Fatpie has shown interest in Integral Spirituality and Annaruelo and I were talking about Monism and Dualism the other day.

Aren't I gonna look like an idiot if you already knew half the stuff I said?

I'm not gonna lie to you. I understood very little of what you speak of from that book. However, irreversibility stuck out. Irreversibility being a major factor in the spectrum of consciousness is pretty obvious. Just look at the Big Bang (or whatever the `origin' of consciousness was)....once that omega point of consciousness has expanded, it just keeps going. Thats proof enough. Of course people will now say that the process WILL reverse and consciousness (or the universe) will collapse back on itself. But then of course it will expand again in an oscillating, cyclical fashion. THAT, I think is the nature of the universe. Irreversibility would work until....well reversibility takes over.

Back to Chaos and Order for a second. I think we can all agree that Chaos will lead towards Order; that Emptiness will lead towards Form. Well this is evidenced pretty well in the movies themselves and the way we percieve them. Think about how little we knew about the Matrix (or the world, for that matter) about a full year ago (atleast me). We knew that there was SOMETHING out there; something important; like a splinter in our mind; but we didn't know how beautiful and integral it was. Little by little we learned about the symbolism in the movies. About the little references to philosophers and concepts in our world. All didn't make sense by themselves at the time; they didn't form an integral framework. It seemed very chaotic and unrelated to us; much like the world probably seems to most of the `bluepills' out there. Then we started naming the topics and disciplines the Matrix can be applied to- computers, mathematics, technology, philosophy, religion, metaphysics, social sciences. Then slowly we started seeing the similarities between all these disciplines and the nature of consciousness itself. And here we are today- a full year later- and look at all we have learned. Not only have we learned so much, but we have managed to piece it all together to make sense. We no longer see random references to `something' in the movies; we see Order. Everything makes sense; it all fits. Order out of Choas. I feel very proud of all I have learned in this one year; about the Matrix and about life and the nature of consciousness itself. Thank you Wachowski Brothers!

Quote:

"[you have that] moment of Big Bang and that's the origin of everything, the origin of thought, the origin of consciousness, whatever it is, in that moment it's like from that nothing to everything is everything..."

- Larry Wachowski

Akshat Gupta wrote:

So in the end, I find myself picturing a model of reality in which the `Source' is the map itself and the map cannot be fully comprehended since it is inherently incomplete. However, therein lies its beauty and its completeness- in the fact that it is incomplete.

Nicely put ... like some paradoxical koan

Akshat Gupta wrote:

Just look at the Big Bang (or whatever the `origin' of consciousness was)....once that omega point of consciousness has expanded, it just keeps going. Thats proof enough. Of course people will now say that the process WILL reverse and consciousness (or the universe) will collapse back on itself. But then of course it will expand again in an oscillating, cyclical fashion. THAT, I think is the nature of the universe. Irreversibility would work until....well reversibility takes over.

I guess you have misunderstood me a bit - something irreversible cannot be taken back ... because its irreversible! From a physical point of view, matter changes, trasnsforms itself and these changes are basically irreversible - they could be reversed only by some energy imput from outside. That's the second law of thermodynamics. The problem is that complex systems are aging - I understand it in a way that even the necessary imput of energy couldn't take the system back into innitial stage because such intervention would disturb or destroy the system as a whole. Simply said, people (an example of VERY complex system) are getting old and it is much easier to give birth to new ones than try to keep alive the old ones.

I thing it could be possible to extend this analogy to the whole universe - the pattern of birth, growing, giving birth to a new life and finaly death of old ones - could be found everywhere in the nature. I think this is what makes life "living" - the repeatance of this pattern in the whole living nature could be something like a source. It's a fractal too.

Irreversibility (which gives a sence to the flow of a time) is a necessity of life because without irreversibility there would be no death ... and without death, there would be no life. At least from a physical point of view ... and even the psychological point of view is valid - can you imagine a life without death? Or a life where you can easily get back - return to the past? It doesn't make any sense.

Applying to the matrix, the crahes of the system seems to be inevitable, simply because even the Matrix is a part of the nature and therefore it is a part of the cycle of birth, life and death. But birth and death of matrix are somehow different from the birth and death of humans .... matrix is more like being reborn from inside.

Another analogy ... imagine the code that is carried by Neo as a genetic code. Genetic code of humans is mixed with the machine code - an analogy to the insemination of ovum by a sperm. Also the word dissemination of a code reminds me of insemination ... Did anyone coined this idea here before? I have no idea.

Once again back to the Order and Chaos: I think that the circle goes round and round - order out of chaos, chaos out of order ... or is there both at the same time and it is just the perspective that is changing? What seems to be chaotic at first glance could be just another type of order and vice versa. The order could have levels ... and chaos too ... and the interplay between them, that intrinsic relation - the changes of yin and yang - is what makes it all so amazing and worthy of such experience.

My favourite part in the movie is the one bellow, so I am going to cite it here too, there is so much in it: A whole world is in a word and at the same time the word alone is empty. What matters is the relation ....

Quote:

Neo: I just have never... Rama-Kandra: ...heard a program speak of love? Neo: It's a... human emotion. Rama-Kandra: No, it is a word. What matters is the connection the word implies. I see that you are in love. Can you tell me what you would give to hold on to that connection? Neo: Anything. Rama-Kandra: Then perhaps the reason you're here is not so different from the reason I'm here.

Titek,
About your oiganal post, that was simply beautifull.

I don't think the matrix was intended to be exactly about that, but that's an awesome interpretation.

I give you props.

Yeah, that's the nice thing about the Matrix ... that it is something like a catalyzer of thought and interpretation ... that it helps to visualize at least some abstract ideas.

I don't know how it was intended to be but that seems to be in the light of modern interpretation theories irrelevant and Wachowski brothers certainly know something about it (I mean for example the Baudlillard's book about simulations that the actors were supposed to read).

that struck a chord with me:

The idea that "the source of our universe is in fact a purely mathematical concept."

titek's whole initial post (which I regret to say, I did not read in its entirety, but I think I got the gist)

And titek's last post, which says:

titek wrote:

Yeah, that's the nice thing about the Matrix ... that it is something like a catalyzer of thought and interpretation ... that it helps to visualize at least some abstract ideas.

The sort of integral model I've been working on in my mind has much to do with these three ideas. The fact is, we don't know what happened, or what was, before 'the beginning.' Most folks today call it 'God,' (or some permutation thereof) and it has been called even more simply, 'The Mystery.' It's generally considered to be incomprehensible, so any interpretation of it may have varying degrees of truth to it. (Some) Mathematical concepts are some of the very few fundamentally infallible things in this universe. So I could see the connection.

I've been looking at syzygies for some time, and the progression of them, according to the teachings of the Mystery schools, seems to indicate that 1) they form the basis for everything that exists (as well as for things that may or may not exist) and 2) they are cyclical, periodically returning to a 'zero' state. Some say that form follows function and some that function follows form. What if both are true? In short, what if creation is recursive? The Creator creates the Created; the Created creates, becoming Creator.

And finally, these are indeed extremely abstract concepts. What the ancient Mystery schools did to 'de-mystify' them (an ironic choice of words, really) was embed them in stories, which could be studied and interpreted by initiates -- myths, in other words, tell more truths than historical accounts.

...And recursively, historical accounts eventually start becoming more mythic in nature....