When I first saw The Matrix (1999, Wachowski & Wachowski) a few years ago, I was mesmerized. As an avid cinephile, I try to watch all the movies I can of cultural and cinematic significance. So, this critically acclaimed and constantly referenced film was definitely on the list. As I laid in my bed with my laptop on my lap, I noticed that the action scenes were flawless and the cinematography was stylishly sleek. However, what stuck out the most to me was how uncomfortable the movie made me. I found myself squirming in my bed at the idea that my whole life was a computer simulation and essentially a lie. Many other people shared my sentiment as this element helped separate The Matrix from other science fiction films and propel it to cult status. The uncomfortableness that The Matrix caused by bringing the theory that our lives are just lies in a computer simulation to the general public prompted Philosopher David J. Chalmers to investigate what the effects of living in a matrix would have on knowledge. His argument, though not without its flaws, pretty convincingly shows that if the Matrix Hypothesis, the theory that we live in a matrix (albeit one different from the one depicted in the movie), is true then it would have a miniscule effect on what we know.
Chalmers’s version of a matrix differs from The Matrix’s version in that his version just has brains in a vat instead of full humans hooked up to the simulation and a scientist instead of machines is controlling it. Each brain controls one body in Chalmers’s matrix and cannot escape the matrix. Chalmers’s version of a matrix is widely-thought to support a skeptical hypothesis, that is, “a hypothesis that I can not rule out and one that would falsify most of my beliefs if it were true.”(406) However, over the course of his paper, Chalmers shows that it would not falsify most beliefs. Thus the Matrix Hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis.
To prove that the Matrix Hypothesis is not skeptical hypothesis, Chalmers needs to argue that (i) it is a combination of three different hypotheses, none of which are skeptical, and (ii) those three hypotheses, in conjunction, do not amount to a skeptical hypothesis. The first of these hypotheses is the Creation Hypothesis. It states that “physical space-time and its contents were created by beings outside physical space-time.”(408) For the sake of brevity, we can refer to beings that can exist outside of space-time as gods. So, applying the Creation Hypothesis to the Matrix Hypothesis, the scientist who created the matrix is our god. The second hypothesis is the Computational Hypothesis. It says that “microphysical processes throughout space-time are constituted by underlying computational processes.”(408) This hypothesis means that underneath the smallest microphysical processes we know, the subatomic particles, there are bits. These bits follow an algorithm like a computer. This hypothesis fits nicely into the Matrix Hypothesis because it is self-explanatory that a world that is inside a computer simulation would be made up of bits. Lastly, there is the Mind-Body hypothesis which says that minds are “constituted by processes outside physical space-time.”(409) This theory was believed by Descartes, and it is integrated into the Matrix Hypothesis by the fact that, according to the hypothesis, our minds would be outside the simulated physical world of the matrix. None of these three hypotheses individually, if found to be true, would falsify most of my beliefs about the world.
Having delineated these three elements, Chalmers says that the Matrix hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis but instead a metaphysical hypothesis. The Matrix scenario advances a speculative hypothesis about the fundamental nature of our world. If the Matrix Hypothesis turns out to be true, it is not therefore false that I am currently typing on my computer. When I say I am typing on my computer, I’m asserting that my matrix-self is typing on my matrix-computer. And so I am. My computer is ‘real’; the fundamental nature of my computer is just different than I previously thought. It is “constituted by” bits as explained by the Matrix Hypothesis.
Although I agree with Chalmers’s assertion that the Matrix Hypothesis is a metaphysical hypothesis and not a skeptical one, I do think he falls into one trap while making his argument. This trap is the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition occurs when you assume that because individual parts of a whole are true, then the whole is also true. In reality, the interplay between the individual parts could make the whole false. For the Matrix Hypothesis, Chalmers proves that it is true that the Creation, Computational, and Mind-Body Hypotheses are not skeptical hypotheses. However, that does not necessarily make it so that it is true that a combination of these hypotheses, which Chalmers argues makes up the Matrix Hypothesis, is not a skeptical hypothesis. To be clear, Chalmers is aware that he needs this further claim for his argument to succeed, but he fails to argue persuasively for it. There could be some sort of incongruence between the hypotheses that would make it impossible for them not to seriously falsify my beliefs if they were true. I can not personally think of any inconsistency between these arguments. However, by not examining the interplay between the three hypotheses Chalmers uses to construct his argument, his argument is not nearly as strong as it could have been.
Chalmers does not do a good enough job explicitly showing that there would be no inconsistencies between the three hypotheses that would falsify my beliefs. However, there is a component of the paper that convinces me that they could function together consistently. That component is the analogy of the matrix hypothesis to Christianity and other creation myths. This analogy (pg. 411) seems completely valid to me. Chalmers shows that the Matrix Hypothesis is just modern creationism: the story of God fit for a world in which we are constantly surrounded with sophisticated technology that twenty years ago people would have never dreamed of. I have never once thought that if the existence of the Christian God were proven, everything in my life would be a lie. So, why would the matrix be any different?
Looking back on that night I watched The Matrix with the information I have now, my reaction seems silly. The application of Chalmers’s arguments cannot be understated. Eventually, we might discover the nature of the universe. It could be created by a god or a scientist, but no matter what we find out, we should apply Chalmers’s argument objectively to the discovery to see if it really changes most of what we know. Treating the discovery the way Chalmers treats the possibility of the universe being a matrix can prevent any hysteria and uncomfortableness that will undoubtedly arise. So, we can take our path towards enlightenment of the nature of the universe in stride and just keep living our lives.