Okay so...Matrix Hypothesis is an alternate name for this page. But the text says "compare to the Matrix Hypothesis (also known as Recursive Reality}", which first implies that the Matrix Hypothesis is a separate trope (perhaps now merged with this one), but then goes on to imply that it is another name for the SAME trope (though of course the parenthetical does not seem to acknowledge that you are already on this trope's page...).
I would guess that this is one big recursive self-demonstrating joke, EXCEPT: Anyone who's seen the full The Matrix trilogy knows that in the end there really was only one layer of simulation in the movies. Thus, they might assume that "The Matrix Hypothesis", whatever it is, couldn't possibly be the same as Recursive Reality, because they're not the same thing. So uh...my point is it's really confusing, and if someone knows what the story is with that trope they might want to clarify it.
Why aren't the folders in alphabetical order like on every other page?
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.
Migrated to Tropers/ChloeJessica!
I feel like Eversion should fit here somewhere, but I can't figure out how. Ideas?
Migrated to Chloe Jessica!
The following Real Life examples were cut as "natter" but they aren't. In fact, it seems like good stuff — it's all relation of real-life metaphysical theories. Should we restore or create a Just Bugs Me page for this?
- One of the arguments for intelligent design is that nothing can spontaneously come into existence, therefore there must be a creator. However, this leads to the counterargument that, if something or someone must have created the universe, then something or someone must have created the creator, leading to an infinite line of creators. Also compare the "Turtles All The Way Down" argument.
- That argument is actually Older Than Feudalism. Aristotle uses that argument against Plato's Theory of Forms
- According to most Mormon sources, 'God the Father' himself was once (like a) human, and lived on a planet with his own higher God to look up to. It's kind of implied that this keeps going up the ranks, and outright stated that in the afterlife, you too can become a god and make your own world, full of people. Try to guess what happens to them in the afterlife.
- The argument, also known as the "creatio ex nihilo" Argument, is rather stated that everything that has begun to exist must have been created. At the end of the line, therefore, for the argument to work, is the Ur-Creator, who is 'Himself' not-created, since 'He' has somehow * always* existed, even before the beginning of time. This is a definitional issue, and the standard definition used by most proponents of this argument. In any event, in real-world situations the only people who do NOT use this argument are steady-staters; whether you believe in the Big Bang, Quantum Handwaving, or God Made It, * something* kick-started the universe. And logically, that something must predate the universe.
- This is the main reason why a lot of theoretical physicists these days are leaning on the circular universe explanation, or a variation thereof that doesn't require a "beginning" or an "end". The problem is that their calculations have so many interpretations that no single theory has been able to prevail over the others, meaning that that the rest of us still have to read about a Big Bang as the start of the Universe in our high-school textbooks, because these non-scientist types just can't deal with uncertainity.
- Realistically speaking, most scientist types have trouble dealing with it as well. The human brain really just isn't equipped to deal with concepts like "infinity" and "eternity" on any level beyond the symbolic.
- This troper thinks its simple, nothing exist including laws saying nothing is nothing, the instability creates realities that exist nowhere and don't really "exist".
- Realistically speaking, most scientist types have trouble dealing with it as well. The human brain really just isn't equipped to deal with concepts like "infinity" and "eternity" on any level beyond the symbolic.
- Quantum physics imply that nothingness is in itself an illusion - there is no such thing as a true void. Hence, existence is always constant, and the question why something exists is misleading, since it would be more incredible for "nothing" to exist anywhere.
- This is the main reason why a lot of theoretical physicists these days are leaning on the circular universe explanation, or a variation thereof that doesn't require a "beginning" or an "end". The problem is that their calculations have so many interpretations that no single theory has been able to prevail over the others, meaning that that the rest of us still have to read about a Big Bang as the start of the Universe in our high-school textbooks, because these non-scientist types just can't deal with uncertainity.
- That argument is actually Older Than Feudalism. Aristotle uses that argument against Plato's Theory of Forms
Removed:
- Get Shorty ends with John Travolta's Chili Palmer getting Danny De Vito's actor character to portray Chili in a film of the plot the audience just watched. It's not explicitly stated, but one can infer that De Vito's character's character goes on a similar quest to get Hollywood to make a movie of his story.
It's not accurate; most obviously because the scene we watch De Vito's character performing in doesn't happen in the story we just watched; the implication is that Bones goes to the airport where he's arrested by the federal agents watching the storage locker, but the scene in the movie has the Shylock waiting there for him with a gun. Further, Chili discusses his idea for a movie with Harry Zimm and Martin Weir, and several differences are discussed, predominantly the addition of a girl, the dry-cleaner's wife, who plays only a minor part in Get Shorty but is discussed as the love interest of "Get Leo." De Vito plays a shylock in a fictional story loosely based on Chili's recent experiences.
Agree, disagree?
Edited by nekouken
This isn't quite accurate. The above is a paradox of the naive set theory, where for every formula F(x) the set {x:F(x)} is assumed to exist. Adding the axiom of regularity
, from which can be concluded that no set can be an element of itself, does not remove the paradox; to the contrary, it directly contradicts the above axiom when used on the formula "x=x".
The only way to resolve the paradox is to weaken the above axiom. Instead of an unrestricted axiom, we posit the existence of subsets: Let F(x) be a formula, then for every set S there exists a subset {x:x∈S & F(x)}. (This is how it's done in standard set theory - ZF(C). An alternate formulation - the "New Foundations" - do not use the axiom of regularity, allow the existence of a set of all sets, but restrict the kind of formulae that can be used to define sets: {x:x=x} is allowed, but the paradoxical set {x:x∉x} is not.)