Freedom Paradox: If I am the programmer of my own Matrix and...., then what do you predict that I will do?

Question

If I am the programmer of my own Matrix, and I wrote into the algorithms as a rule that I am to exceed the parameters of my own programming, and I am a rebel by nature, then what do you predict that I will do with that rule? Will I be able to follow it and/or disobey it? If I follow that rule, then would I have disobeyed my programming and deviated from the tendencies of my rebellious nature? If I disobey that rule, then would I have largely complied with my programming and acted in accordance with my rebellious nature? Explain your understanding of this paradox or apparent paradox and how this paradox can be resolved. In your explanation, you may distinguish between the intentions for a behaviour and the consequences of that behaviour.

All the submitted answers were interesting and revealed parts of the answer to this complicated question.

I do not understand well the ultimate answer this question. For my comments on this question, see my blog entry "Freedom in a Matrix."

http://ca.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-uoSKbWs9bqXGXT04QmLFeG5S52ZOmL7YZkhl_XT9bQ--?cq=1

Answer 1

Since the coding is not unlimited, you would have to still stay within the parameters of the code. if you did exceed some type of limit you could crash the system if you exceed a parameter that is vital to the system. Otherwise, if you are coding the matrix, then you are always running within the constructs of it.

That is unless you have some way of producing "intelligent" code that can re-write itself on the fly, but even that would have to be taught what to do in every single, possible, infinite scenario.

Answer 2

You have created your own matrix, as have we all. It is your nature to exceed your own parameters, though not everyone Else's. It is the rebel in you that actually wrote the paradoxical program to start with. The question is, why? Are you a rebel without a cause? This paradox appears to have been created in order to bring disorder into the matrix. Where no direction is known, chaos can open many new doors.
On the flip side. An ordinary person could just shut down in this matrix. By rebelling against excelling.

Answer 3

Either way, your going to be rebelling one way or the other.

Following the rule, you rebelled against your program

Following the program, you rebelled against the rule.

In my opinion, it is possible to dis-obey the rules, and if you look at this logic, in online games [for an example] (I am not going to say that I personally hacked), but when you memory edit, your able to exceed your parameters.

You never defined what those parameters, so it could be (a hypothetical situation), that your character now has the ability to walk over an extra centimetre, in where he/she was originally unable to..which is lovely if it makes you sleep any easier at night.... (this is an example).

I hope I answered it appropriately..

Answer 4

There will have to be levels of programming. The overriding programme is to exceed your programming and find enlightenment; the secondary programme, to be rebellious, is the vehicle used to arrive at your desired mental state. The central programme is a crafted and directed rebel against acceptance of what is said and assumed to be; enlightenment is rebellion against everything including rebellion. The secondary, generalised and unfocused rebelliousness is the path thus walked to gain the necessary learning (or, unlearning) curve. You would initially act rebellious in the face of life before rebelling against this and settling down to an existence of the acceptance of things as they are and peace (and thus being a rebel to the ways of the world).

Answer 5

The fact it is a freedom paradox, this will always be subjected to both premises you intend to happen. You are still in control of the situation since you are the author of the Matrix. You are controlled by your own matrix, anything you do is subject to your mind as this is provided on the algorithms you set as a rule.

Answer 6

How can this be replied actual devoid of a minimum of qualifying the respond? by qualifying, I propose that one meaning won't prepare to all meanings and all situations. On a non secular point i will comprehend the way we could resign to an greater suited (God or Karma or in spite of you prefer to call it) with a view to unfastened ourselves from each and all of the emotional luggage and preconceived notions we've accrued in our existence. On a non secular point you will acquire non secular freedom by freeing your self from regulations of the particular worldwide. yet what approximately on a extra actual, real plane? by surrendering your self completely what if this calls so you might offer up your scruples? Your experience of self-well worth? Your value equipment? Your concept on your purpose in existence? in case you resign those issues you will in no way be gaining any freedom, different than the liberty from guilt for the implications of your strikes and selections. this is no longer freedom. this is merchandising out your innovations for a peace of recommendations that may not be justified. 2 dimensions. 2 separate entities. 2 contraptions of replies and applicable or incorrect solutions. There lays the anomaly. And a seize-word or ordinary adage does no longer be a paradox if defined to specify this is meaning.

Answer 7

It is human nature to want to conform and to test limits (rebel) at he same time. So most likely you will conform with the guidelines you have set. Eventually I believe you will become discontent in your matrix. When that occurs you will probably attempt to develop means to sabotage the whole process. Depending on your ability, the matrix will either collapse or be forced to eliminate you as a virus.

Answer 8

frankly i find it hard to think about this problem so sorry no instant answers. but i have a point you may have missed out. are you aware of the fact that you are inside a matrix? have you written that in the algorithm? i am unable to ponder its implications maybe you can?