Enslaved by Determinism

The Oracle: Candy?
Neo: You already know if I'm going to take it?
The Oracle: Wouldn't be much of an Oracle if I didn't.
~The Matrix Revolutions

One disadvantage of not having a religion is that atheism doesn’t hold the key to the intrinsic purpose of the universe. Neither does sciencism nor existentialism. An atheist, must therefore seek another means for the answer. What else can be a better candidate if not philosophy? After all, it is the fundamental component of any religion ­– minus the fables, of course.

A mere mention of philosophy would naturally project the image of a contemplative Zen monk in some monastery far away from human civilisation. On a contrary, the quest for philosophical truth doesn’t necessary require a visit to the abode of some legendary old sage in Mount Ararat. You may, for starters, get a taste of the philosophical aspects that permeate The Matrix.

Even though cinematography and computer manipulation are the oft-quoted plus-points of the trilogy, the equally significant part that made it stand out from other high-budget Hollywood movies is the philosophical issues it presents. Unlike the typical dumb action-packed blockbusters that do nothing good other than serving as adrenaline boosters, the Wachowski Bros – um, siblings – effectively delivers some subtle philosophical messages that keeps the less dumb viewers pondering long after watching the movie.

Beginning from the first installment, determinism has been one of the themes, as illustrated by the Oracle and the Merovingian. For instance, in one scene from The Matrix Revolutions, the Oracle offered Neo some candy, even though she very well knew Neo’s decision. She “wouldn’t be much of an oracle” if she didn’t. Yet, Neo was given the choice to choose. But, is there free will? Are choices a mere thin veil that deludes us from the fact that we’re ruled over by determinism?

In Newcomb’s Paradox, reverse causation is introduced into the system. Unfortunately, the average Joe would fail to see the significance of the paradox from the arguments put forth by different philosophers. Show it to ten persons and chances are nine of them would only analyse the problem skin-deep.

Wikipedia has a full version of the paradox, together with the analyses and its variant conditions. But, it is thus, in essence:

There are two players named Predictor and Chooser. Chooser is presented with two boxes: an open box containing $1000, and a closed box that contains either $1,000,000, or $0 (he doesn't know which). Chooser must decide whether he wants to be given the contents of both boxes, or just the contents of the closed box.

The complication is that the day prior, Predictor predicts how Chooser will choose. If he predicts that Chooser will take only the closed box, then he will put $1,000,000 in the closed box. If he predicts that Chooser will take both boxes, he will leave that box empty. Chooser knows this rule of Predictor's behavior, but he does not know Predictor's actual prediction.

The question is: should Chooser take just the closed box or take both boxes?

(†Source: Wikipedia: Newcomb’s Paradox)

The idea that the Predictor’s prediction will affect the Chooser’s choice brings unimaginable consequences. One of them is reverse causation. It suggests that events may not affect outcomes in a chronological way, as we naïvely presume. The future may determine the course of events in the past.

Another troubling conclusion is, if time machines or perfect Predictors were to exist, then, there is no such thing as free will – the Chooser would have to do whatever he is fated to do. We are but slaves to determinism. We are merely pawns manipulated by Fate… or Destiny… or Providence… or God… or whatever you want to call it.

Mortals, you may struggle till the end of your days in the attempt to liberate yourselves from this eternal slavery but “behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind”. Perhaps, one should heed Solomon’s advice and be a God-fearing person.

As for me, the revelation brings more frustrations. Nevertheless, it is my rebellious nature to go against Fate.

†http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb's_paradox (accessed on 31 July 2005)