From: Eugene Leitl (eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 17:59:26 MDT
Dan Fabulich writes:
> The Matrix has no hard science explanation. Do not seek one out; do
> not try to rewrite it so it acquires one. Not even an explanation
Actually, if you consider the movie as a source of constraints arising
at the implementation layer, you can hit upon some interesting
ideas. Ideas one might not have hit upon, if not seeing the movie.
In this sense, speculations about hard science aspects of usual bland
Hollywood fare are quite valid.
> like: "The movie claims that all our physics is wrong, so everything
> that happens in it could happen in whatever physical universe they
> inhabit." That's fine if you're willing to call metaphysical humanism
> a physical theory, but the movie just doesn't bow to realism, and to
> fully enjoy it, you have to come to terms with that. :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:56 MST