[Ar-list] Matrix-RG among other things (really big)

[W Isaac Carroll]

First of all, I love the activity we've got going on the list.

Next, I've converted my as-yet-embryonic Matrix-RG to Lyx/LaTeX format, and
the results are up on my web site in a variety of formats. Please check it out
and let me know what you think. TeX-based documents do look like academic
papers, but that's an issue of publicity rather than utility.

http://skyhook.diamond-void.org/AR/

(The PDF file looks really rough for some reason. The DVI is much prettier.
yap is a very nice DVI viewer for Windows.)

Now, on with the discussion:

Ira wrote:
> so no one had any problem with my interpretation of finding the time it 
> takes to accomplish something via continuous form test?

It sounds like a good method to me. I don't know statistics and probability so
I leave the derivations to others. I'm happy to use what they come up with
though. :)

Carter, is it possible for you to post your math in TeX format? I have trouble
understanding what the ASCII formulas are trying to say. If I could paste them
into a TeX viewer I would know which symbols I need explained to me, etc.

TeXaide is a handy little Windows (yes, I know) utility I found that allows
you to enter math formulas wysiwyg, then paste them as TeX. YMMV

> From: Carter Butts <ctb@andrew.cmu.edu>
> > For my part, I'm a Linux user, so Word is not optimal for me.
> > Personally, I use LaTeX these days for just about everything for which
> > ASCII is overly limiting, but distributing LaTeX files is probably
> > nonoptimal for others.  One possibility would be to use HTML, since this
> > is A) universal, and B) fairly readily recoded into other, more
> > layout-friendly, languages.  Or you could just offer us PDFs, and we
> > could send you our notes as text.  Do others have thoughts on this?
> 
> I still like TeX/LaTeX, although perhaps--since it's so easy to turn 
> dvi's into pdf's anyway--pdf should be our format.

PDF is a happy (meaning capable and widespread) format. The PDF files my tools
produce are too ugly for comfortable online viewing but hopefully print ok.

-----

Bear with the large quoting please. I'm putting a sense of continuity here so
I can comment on everything in turn and you don't have to keep jumping between
messages. If I have overlooked anyone's comments, please let me know and I'll
remedy. (Great discussion BTW. Thanks for contributing. :)

I wrote:
> I have run into a problem in my Matrix RG: There is no good reason for the
> Machines to keep humans around in the Matrix. I originally thought that it
> would be enough to say they keep humans around because they need hardware
> to run their AIs on, but I've come to feel that that explanation doesn't
> hold water. So I'm left with an uncomfortable decision: Do I give some
> hokey reason why they keep humans around? Or do I leave it unexplained?
> Neither one sits well with me.

Ira wrote:
> didn't they say in the movie that the humans were the power generators 
> that kept the machines going?

Matthew wrote:
> That is what they said in the movie, but it really makes no sense - if you
> want electricity, you don't need life at all to produce it, and even if
> you need your energy in the form of some kind of chemical that living
> things synthesize, it would seem much easier to just splice the
> appropriate genes into bacteria and grow them in vats.  Even if you
> supposed that that didn't work for some reason and multicellular life was
> necessary, there's no clear reason why *humans* would be needed.  Humans
> seem like the most inconvenient creatures possible to use as domestic
> animals; anything else would be better, and a sane machine society would
> go to extreme lengths to use anything other than humans as its power
> source.

I agree with Matthew here (thus the source of my dilemma), but...

Ira wrote:
> I never said it made sense.  but, if one is trying to make a "the 
> matrix" RG then it stands to reason that one should at least include as 
> an option what they said in the movie.

Ira has a good point. Things which happen in the movie must be taken into
account. Otherwise I may as well make my own Kewl-Virtual-Reality-Kung-Fu-
Battles-Using-High-Tech-Brane-Implants-Against-Evil-AI-Programs-Which-Look-
Like-Elrond-Dressed-Up-As-A-Secret-Service-Agent scenario.

> as has been pointed out, the movie didn't make a lot of sense, in many 
> ways other than this.  granted, AR is put together in such a way that 
> things are supposed to make some kind of sense, at least.  but not 
> everything has to.  it's just our collective bias, really...

It is my conceit that I can recast the movie in the mold of our collective
bias. Whether it can be done remains to be seen.

Matthew wrote:
> Fortunately, my friend Quetzalcoatl Bradley thought of a simple answer to 
> this question; it's one of those things that as soon as you understand it,
> you see that is must be correct and wonder why you didn't think of it
> yourself.  As he put it, "One word:  orgone."

I had to look that one up. :)

Ira wrote:
> that would be another way.  but then, why would machines need life-force 
> energy like that?  why, if they're alive too, wouldn't they have an 
> analogous machine variety?  how would you define it in game terms?  
> this, too, needs sense made of it, much like any other approach.  imho, 
> "the matrix" wasn't really meant to make too much sense.

I think that it's a plausible explanation. Even so, I won't be using it
because it adds too much that isn't present (explicitly or implicitly) in the
movie.

Starting a different thread, Carter wrote:
> This is Yet Another Problem with that movie...there is no good reason I 
> can think of for the machines to keep the humans around, and the reason 
> given in the movie (human as energy source) makes no sense at all. 
> (Have the superintelligent AIs forgotten about _algae_?)  Some other 
> _bad_ reasons you could try include:
> 
> 1. Some sort of Asimovian "laws of robotics" prevent the AIs from 
> eliminating humanity.  (This assumes, inanely, that the AIs are not 
> capable of modifying their own programming.)

This would mesh well with the "lobotomized humans are protected humans" idea
presented by Joe Mason. (see below)

> 2. The AIs are divided into internal factions, some of which eventually 
> hope to "re-educate" the humans and restore peaceful relations with 
> them; the humans lie in a state of stasis while the various factions 
> debate their fate.  (This would seem to contradict the movie backstory, 
> in addition to being rather at odds with observed AI behavior.)

I agree, it adds too much that isn't in the movie.

> 3. The AIs want to keep humans alive for sheer amusement.  (Not very 
> likely.)

Again, extra-canonical. (and silly)

> 4. Some/all of the AIs have some sort of superstitious aversion to 
> destroying the human race, fearing that it will bring some kind of doom 
> upon them.  (Again, this contradicts the movie, and isn't all that 
> sensible in and of itself.)

Ditto.

>      Sorry that I can't provide better advice, but as Karim points out, 
> this is one of several gaping holes in the movie itself (which was very 
> entertaining, but not very carefully conceived).  To what extent is your 
> goal to follow the movie directly, as opposed to providing rules which 
> support some of the ideas explored within it?  If you seek to try the 
> latter, you might also want to explore other cyberpunk visions of 
> immersive man/machine interaction, e.g., the "matrix" described by 
> Gibson in Neuromancer, etc.  You could then offer the "humans kept alive 
> by malevolent machines for fun and torment" as a _potential_ scenario, 
> much like the "scenario seeds" SJG typically includes in the GURPS 
> supplements.  This might allow you to evade the problem of having to 
> create a setting which is both true to the movie _and_ internally 
> coherent.  :-)

My hope is to find a story which is true to the actual events in the movie
that doesn't offend my sense of logic. The end-product RG may be separable to
create a more generic set of rules, but that's not my primary goal.

Lizard wrote:
> A quick note on the Matrix issue...the writers missed a very good
> opportunity.
> 
> Why do the machines keep humans around? We're solving a problem for them. 
> Each human mind is a node in a network billions strong; the purpose of the 
> simulation is not to keep us content, but to provide inputs to the nodes in 
> a coded form. A lot of what a human/node does is just busy work, the 
> equivalent of running a screen saver, but, every so often, a bit of real 
> computing is done.
> 
> Why do the machines need humans for this? Because their AI minds can't 
> solve the problem, whatever it is. They aren't even sure they understand 
> the question.
> 
> What IS the problem? It could be "Is there a God?" or "Why is there 
> something instead of nothing?" or "What is the meaning of life?" or "How 
> high is a mouse when it spins?" or "What is the question to which the 
> answer is '42'?". It doesn't matter, really.

The idea that humans are a cheap and plentiful source of computing power is a
good one (and a lot better than the one in the movie). However, why are the
human minds left intact?

Joe wrote:
> I like that, too.
> 
> I had pictured the 'real answer' (obviously not that battery thing, that's
> just stupid) as being more like the rationale from Jack L. Chalker's _Rings
> of the Master_, where the computer's main programming was to keep humanity
> safe, and it decided humanity would be safest if it was lobotomized.

That would be quite the plot twist, wouldn't it? I don't think it meshes well
enough with the details of the movie though. The Agents don't seem too
concerned with the safety of individual humans (humans could be expendable in
small numbers though). More importantly the Matrix itself can be deadly to the
people in it. The simulation is no safer than the actual environment would be.

And first but not least, Karim wrote:
> Hmmm, now you understand my general dislike of this film ;-P Um, I really
> can't think of a good explanation beyond the need for Wetware processing...
> What is your reasoning for discounting this idea?

If the Machines are just using humans as computers (defining mind=program and
brain=computer), why are the human minds left running? Wouldn't they just take
up processing power that the Machines could put to better use?

The best answer that I've come up with so far is: What if human brains are
incapable of _not_ running a human mind? In other words if you erase a human's
mind, either a new (infant) mind spontaneously forms, or the brain itself is
damaged in some way. The movie seems to indicate the latter in that Matrix
hackers die when they are prematurely unplugged.

So here is my story-in-progress telling why the Machines keep human minds and
bodies around: The humans created intelligent programs that ran on quantum
computers. Humans also created the mind-machine interface technology at around
the same time. During the Man-Machine War, the Machines discovered that human
brains could run AI programs. This is possible because Roger Penrose was right
and the brain is fundamentally a quantum computer. They also discovered that
the human mind must be allowed to continue running because any attempt to
erase it destroys the brain. With the wholescale capture of the human race,
the Machines took advantage of this plentiful supply of computing power. They
retain the knowledge of how to build a non-organic quantum computer, but for
the most part they do not use it. They already have the infrastructure in
place to use human brains, and they see no compelling reason to change.

Does anyone see any problems with this story? Anything which conflicts with
the movie, or assumes too much?

TTFN