The Matrix is the greatest movie ever made.

[QUOTE=T.O.RapsJays]Bro, go do your homework and then come back with an actual intellectual argument. I have 15+ years of studying on the matter, even though that's only because I imagined it so.

Like one of the greatest athletes ever in the NBA once said: "The game is 99% mental, 1% physical."[/QUOTE]
[B]Troll[/B] confirmed.

Albert Einstein once said that intelligence is 99% physical, [B]1% mental[/B]...

Wait... that's not right. It doesn't matter. You're still an idiot and a troll. Come back when you've done your homework. Thanks.

[QUOTE=T.O.RapsJays]Bro, go do your homework and then come back with an actual intellectual argument. I have 15+ years of studying on the matter, even though that's only because I imagined it so.

Like one of the greatest athletes ever in the NBA once said: "The game is 99% mental, 1% physical."[/QUOTE]
I was being sarcastic...

[QUOTE=Bandito]I was being sarcastic...[/QUOTE]
Is this sarcasm or unintended irony? The world may never know.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Look as we advance through intellect, older ideas will be replaced by new ones. Einstein's biggest downfall is his unwillingness to accept the Quantum World. The more we understand QP, the less relevant he will be; just like how he made Newton irrevelant before him.[/QUOTE]

So Einstein is a dick because he didn't figure everything out all at once? It's one thing to disagree but another to disrespect.

[QUOTE=Bandito]I was being sarcastic...[/QUOTE]

Wat? Notsureifsrus...

[QUOTE=Budadiiii]Albert Einstein once said that intelligence is 99% physical, 1% mental...[/QUOTE]

He [B]clearly plagiarized[/B] that phrase.

[QUOTE=dr.hee]... That being said...the whole simulation idea is pretty compelling to me. It's just that you don't need Wikipedia-level knowledge of Kant and quantum mechanics in order to argue for it. It's just common sense. The existence of dreams we aren't reliably able to distinguish from what we call "reality" is more than enough to make such arguments.

I mean basically...Matrix was simply the brain in a vat-idea applied to many humans in the context of a shared reality. You don't need philosophical ramblings and half-assed physics for that. Just the assumption that is shouldn't matter for our own perception of the world whether the input is coming through our sensory system or directly applied to the relevant brain areas themselves. So if it's indeed practically possible (no idea if we'll ever find out) to make the brain respond in the same way to artificially created input than it does to data our sensory system is gathering, a simulation isn't that strange of a thought.

An even better example for this than dreams are neurophysiological differences between auditory hallucinations and imagining a voice. In short...using neuroimaging, we can distinguish if someone is hearing a real voice or just imagining a conversation, because brain areas related to processing data coming in from the outside aren't active when imagining a sound. But we can't tell if someone is hallucinating a voice or hearing a real one only by looking at brain images, because even without any input, the brain still activates the same areas anyway. Hallucinations appear real for people, because the brain is doing exactly the same thing as if the voice was really there. Pretty cool.

So in theory, if it's somehow possible to feed the brain with the relevant data, there's not much that's speaking against simulation arguments. ...[/QUOTE]
best post i've read here in a while. :cheers:

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]
1. Kant believe we have "instruments" that allow us to view this world. It is the 5 senses. It is the mind that constructs this reality. The core of our reality is made up of light, energy, vibrations, etc. The mind takes the light to create vision, vibration to create sound, etc. [B]It is our mind that creates reality and not the other way around.[/B]

2. Planck (a much smarter scientist than Einstein) ran a few experiments that pretty much prove waves (electrical charges) don't actually become matter unless if someone looks at it. He concluded that matter does not exist and our observation of the world is what creates it, hence the creation of Quantum Physics [B](greatest science of all time).[/B][/QUOTE]

C'mon now, this thread will be much more effect with posts like this, OP.

Clearly these ideas are beyond what the average person is exposed to, and since your'e so passionate about this kind of thought why don't you use this opportunity to at least try to share your years of experience and understanding instead of assigning homework and being condescending

Explain what about Eistein physics is outdated... maybe explain or postulate about what carries over and how Einstein's understanding inspired the new school of thought.

Potentially interesting stuff, but if you're looking for well-rearched, hard debate, about quantum physics then this probably isn't the internet community for you. If you're truly passionate and have spent so much time with it, then share it with us so we too can be interested and learn

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]We can alter the past; what happens in the past is no longer an objective reality but rather a reflection of our present mental state. Sure we might have photos, artifacts, videos, etc. to remind us of the past, but the past is nothing more than just a thought, a memory, it doesn't exist other than our reflection of it.[/QUOTE]

But the point is that if we are altering the past why do we still see an interference pattern after the non-observed experiment has been performed? By observing the data we should only see a discrete pattern because our present perception should influence the results of the past experiment no?

Damn..

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]
2. Planck (a much smarter scientist than Einstein) ran a few experiments that pretty much prove waves (electrical charges) don't actually become matter unless if someone looks at it. He concluded that matter does not exist and our observation of the world is what creates it, hence the creation of Quantum Physics [B](greatest science of all time).[/B][/QUOTE]

Planck postulated that actual matter is made of energy of discrete levels and that wavelength & energy are coupled. De Broglie proved that years later.
He hasn't said if you don't look there's no matter, he said if you can not look there's no matter. Meaning if something permits waves from escaping matter can not be formed.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Then I present to you the concept of quantum entanglement. A photon in the present can actually alter one in the past.

What does this mean in elementary terms?

This means our current conscious observation of a photon can alter the "geolical events" of the past. It goes to reason if we can alter physical matter in the past state, we are changing history itself.

This is the reason why some scientists are talking about time travel based on the laws of this new science.[/QUOTE]

This whole concept relies on an experiment of which scientists are not yet sure if it's not a failure of measurement.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Interference supports entanglement. Single particles are interfering with themselves, this means the state of one particle is not seperate from another whether it is in the past or present. Therefore the present particle state can alter the past one.

Even history itself is a perception of our current state. This idea is hard to grasp, but it is now an established fact based on numerous experiments.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]We can alter the past; what happens in the past is no longer an objective reality but rather a reflection of our present mental state. Sure we might have photos, artifacts, videos, etc. to remind us of the past, but the past is nothing more than just a thought, a memory, it doesn't exist other than our reflection of it.[/QUOTE]

I've seen and heard alot of people talk quantum physics and the mostly get tangled up in philosophical stuff like reality. If you want to apply quantum mechanics you have the accept that there's a descriptive reality, because first and foremost you need math. You can disregard empirism - which you obviously do, but not rationalism. Breaking that down to Matrix. Basically it doesn't matter if you live in the Matrix or outside of it. The mind is always there. Neo is Neo inside and outside the Matrix. His mind behaves the same way.

So basically men are made of materia, which itself is made of energy. That makes it possible to grasp rational concepts. Doesn't matter if our conceived reality is the truth. The mind is.

Maybe it's english not being my first language, but it seems to me that you don't know what interference means.

You say you can alter the past, because the reality is made up of photons that don't exist unless you look and since you can not look into the past the past can be changed.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Look as we advance through intellect, older ideas will be replaced by new ones. Einstein's biggest downfall is his unwillingness to accept the Quantum World. The more we understand QP, the less relevant he will be; just like how he made Newton irrevelant before him.[/QUOTE]

Damn Einstein got the Nobelprice for proving Plancks postulates. You should study ten more years. You're quoting the duality of waves, which are a concept of Einstein and nonchalantly state that he disregarded quantum physics.

What you mix up is that the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics at some points basically can not co-exist unless you regard concepts that are generally set in stone(as time), but those are mathematical problems not reality issues.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Because Einstein's is better.
[/QUOTE]

Einstein basically applies Newton's laws of physics(which ones do you mean anyway?), but says that they are not absolut and need tweeking depending on the inertial frame. What Einstein, Lorentz and Minkowsky disregarded are Galilean transformation between frames, which would make time absolut and by that Newton's phsyics.

10 years of studying Kant? :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[QUOTE=moe94]Rambo is basically an unfunny EuroLeague that only posts in the OTC. Damn, what a niche.

They even post the same way.[/QUOTE]

1. AD HOMINEM!!!

2. Philosophical approach. Establish a non falsifiable premise, back it up with Wikipedia and scream at everybody disagreeing with you. First do your homework if you want to talk grown men stuff, bro.

3. [B]My premise still stands.[/B]

4. I'm supporting my view with misinterpretations of statements by some of the greatest minds of all times, you with Euroleague. Now who's the idiot, huh?

5. Immanuel Kant, therefore Quantum Mechanics, thus proving absolutely nothing...

6. Newton played in a weak era, but he had a nice wig.

[QUOTE=dr.hee]1. AD HOMINEM!!!

2. Philosophical approach. Establish a non falsifiable premise, back it up with Wikipedia and scream at everybody disagreeing with you. First do your homework if you want to talk grown men stuff, bro.

3. My premise still stands.

4. [B]I'm supporting my view with misinterpretations of statements by some of the greatest minds of all times, you with Euroleague. Now who's the idiot, huh?[/B]

5. Quantum Mechanics

6. [B]Newton played in a weak era, but he had a nice wig[/B].[/QUOTE]

[img]http://www.wed114.cn/jiehun/uploads/allimg/131201/1411163Y2-0.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Budadiiii][img]http://www.wed114.cn/jiehun/uploads/allimg/131201/1411163Y2-0.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

Elbows too pointy, 2/10. Would smash Kant instead.

[img]http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/gone-with-the-wind-1939/large_lqPnvmaX4oZY9teAOT7M0txCLkS.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Lebron23][img]http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/gone-with-the-wind-1939/large_lqPnvmaX4oZY9teAOT7M0txCLkS.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

Somehow I don't get what's supposed to be great about that movie. I know it's a consensus all time great one, but I don't like the dialogue and acting at all. Maybe I'm too dumb for that shit...

[QUOTE=dr.hee]Somehow I don't get what's supposed to be great about that movie. I know it's a consensus all time great one, but I don't like the dialogue and acting at all. Maybe I'm too dumb for that shit...[/QUOTE]
i think the trick is to evaluate it for its era. it's not only a glimpse in to the civil war age, but 30's hollywood and the culture at large. and it reverberated deeply among almost everyone, it seems.

gotta be an archeologist to appreciate some stuff in life...

[QUOTE=gigantes]i think the trick is to evaluate it for its era. it's not only a glimpse in to the civil war age, but 30's hollywood and the culture at large. and it reverberated deeply among almost everyone, it seems.

gotta be an archeologist to appreciate some stuff in life...[/QUOTE]

Definitely not a movie I'd watch for entertainment on my laptop at home...more like something for an arthouse cinema evening with a girl smarter than me if it means getting laid...

But it's definitely interesting how much movie aesthetics have changed over the decades.

[QUOTE=dr.hee]Definitely not a movie I'd watch for entertainment on my laptop at home...more like something for an arthouse cinema evening with a girl smarter than me if it means getting laid...

But it's definitely interesting how much movie aesthetics have changed over the decades.[/QUOTE]
haha, i gotcha. i think when i first saw it, we were covering the civil war in 6th grade. i was doing a report, so was naturally interested.


so many old, classic movies i feel like i need to watch, but somehow i'd rather watch stuff like this, instead: :D
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilya_forever[/url]

at least 15 better movies i can think of in the last minute.

[QUOTE=Lebron23][img]http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/gone-with-the-wind-1939/large_lqPnvmaX4oZY9teAOT7M0txCLkS.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
:applause: lots of good quotes and scenes in that one.

Only the first Matrix movie is good...but not actually the whole movie...actually not even most of it. Up until about the point where there is deja-vu glitch, after that its a karate action flick. But the coolest part of the movie is the whole underground-hacker-world idea of the Matrix. The Animatrix is more of what i wish the motion picture was like. Neuromancer without the cowboy-esque vibe.

[QUOTE=Overdrive]
What you mix up is that the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics at some points basically can not co-exist unless you regard concepts that are generally set in stone(as time), but those are mathematical problems not reality issues.
[/QUOTE]

I'm sure a theory will come along that will surpass theory of relativity and quantum mechanics and combine parts of both while encompassing elements of each. That will allow the two to co-exist within a single theory.

Einstein tried to work on that in his later years. He spent almost a decade on this "Theory of everything." People said he wasted a huge portion of his life when he could have spent his time on developing other theories and concepts. To this day, the theory of everything is probably the single most important theory to develop in all of physics & maybe science.

Anyways, to say that QM completely surpasses einstein & theory of relativity is an extremely ignorant thing to say. Both have elements that fit together like a puzzle, but clearly there are other major details that QM/TOR have yet to take into account. Somebody someday much smarter than Einstein/Planck will come along and solve that.

Schindlers List > Matrix

OP makes some valid points. I don't doubt that people would pawn their kids off to machines if it meant free time for them (that's different from the Matrix but we already do it somewhat with technology now and I only see it getting more extreme). I could easily see a world where an elite group of people run the world with advanced machines. I could easily see a lot of crazy things happening because Like Einstein, I am not sure whether our technolgy/humanity is meshing cleanly and I also know there are angry people out there that wouldn't mind destroying everyone. Quantum mechanics shows us that we all live in a virtual nothing so definitely any perception of reality should be challenged. I am pretty sure consciousness cannot be stopped though at this point no matter what happens. Quantum mechanics disproves black holes and that is in line with my own personal theory of light being an unstoppable force... Light spawned consciousness and we are too advanced at this point to be destroyed. There is just too much information.

[QUOTE=ShannonElements]I don't think it's a crazy claim. If someone posts their top ten move list and The Matrix is at the top I wouldn't balk at that. It's a great movie and we all use different criteria.[/QUOTE]
i agree... it's a "great" movie if one is poorly acquainted with sci-fi and metaphysics, doesn't find keanu laughable, and hasn't watched many movies.


but it did come up with bullet time, mofo.

[QUOTE=moe94]Keanu's acting or lack thereof works well for this character.[/QUOTE]
inoright?


but calling the matrix "great" is like going to a cotton candy factory and getting excited about the sugar content.

[QUOTE=moe94]List 10 better sci-fi films from the 90s.[/QUOTE]
i wasn't aware that such was the debate.

regardless, was there even ONE good sci-fi film made during the 90's? solaris...?

in any case, i'd watch any old wong kar-wei, hitchcock, coen bros, woody allen, noir or spaghetti western in favor of watching cotton candy like the matrix. that's just me, though. :cheers:

[QUOTE=gigantes]regardless, was there even ONE good sci-fi film made during the 90's?[/QUOTE]

Terminator 2 was pretty great!

i love sci-fi. my favorite author all-time is philip k. dick. but hollywood... not a big fan, so initiate your law suits.


i'm afraid that i don't post here for your enjoyment, moses.

[QUOTE=moe94]What's your opinion of Children of Men? What you say next might decide both of our fates.[/QUOTE]
wow, that looks neat. thank you!

huh...??

i don't know that film, sorry. i read the WP entry and it sounded neat. :confusedshrug:

I had a crazy ass dream the other night and I think it was after looking at this thread.

I kept hitting my snooze alarm for another ten minutes of sleep and in the dream itself I was half in and out of sleep.

At one point I was sleeping on my couch and I woke up and looked my TV and it was totally different. At that point my front door unlocked and I said Honey, what happened to our TV, but it wasn't my wife. I realized that I someone went into the wrong apartment and fell asleep. I started freaking out and apologized to her and all of a sudden we are having sex.

A bunch of other crazy stuff happened that I can't remember, then I went to walk my dog and another dog came by and was growling at my dog and I'm look at this dog and it's about 5 feet away from me, but I feel it biting my finger. That felt really real. And I couldn't understand how I could be looking at this dog 5 feet from any part of my, but know that it was biting my finger. And I realized that I was feeling things like 20 seconds in the future. The bite felt as real as anything I have ever dreamed.

Then the woman who I had sex with walked by and thanked me for before, but she looked much different, same face, but a much hotter body.

The first half of the dream was a bunch of crazy shit happening and the second half of the dream was like I was kind of aware I was in some weird state like being drugged or hypnotized or something.

[QUOTE=moe94]I'm used to everything being sarcastic and I figured you'd know this film if you're a fan of scifi. My mistake. :hammerhead:

Absolutely watch this film. It's a must.[/QUOTE]
oh, okay.

but i'm still going to watch lilya 4-ever first. you know... for the hot sex. :D

The Matrix is one hell of a movie. No doubt it's action scenes were epic for their time, my favorite part is the concept itself. I remember being mind blown when I first saw the movie at age 12 :oldlol: