In this blog post, we deeply explore the meaning of choices between reality and virtuality for the values and direction of our lives, based on the movie The Matrix.
Often hailed as a masterpiece, what is the core message running through the film ‘The Matrix’? It likely lies in the question Morpheus poses to Neo early in the film. Morpheus tells Neo, who senses something amiss in the world he inhabits and is investigating it, that taking the blue pill allows him to continue living as he always has, while taking the red pill reveals the truth. Hearing this, Neo chooses to take the red pill. He thus discovers that the real world is one where humans are enslaved by machines, and the world he had lived in until then was a virtual reality created by the machines. Ultimately, Neo chose the real world over the virtual one. Of course, it’s somewhat ambiguous to say he chose the real world, given he didn’t know what consequences his choice would bring.
This scene transcends a simple choice, embodying a profound philosophical contemplation of human perception and free will. It poses the question: Is the ‘reality’ we know truly real, or is it merely a virtual construct manipulated by someone? This doubt is a theme explored continuously, from the ancient philosopher Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ to various modern science fiction works. In the world of The Matrix, Neo’s choice of the red pill is not merely a pursuit of truth, but an expression of his will to ask fundamental questions about his own existence and the world, and to seek answers to them.
Now, let’s change the situation. Suppose the real world, like in the movie, is not a world occupied by machines, but a world identical to the virtual world. In short, the difference between the real world and the virtual world is simply whether it is real or fake. And Morpheus asks: Take the red pill, and you live in the real world. Take the blue pill, and you live in the virtual world. Furthermore, let’s say that after taking the pill, you lose all memory of which world you chose and live believing the world you selected is the real one. What would you choose? If I were asked this question, I would answer that I would take the red pill.
When we face such a choice, we cannot decide based solely on personal preference or intuition. This choice demands a deep understanding of our values, philosophical beliefs, and the meaning of life. If ‘reality’ encompasses not just the physical world but everything we experience and perceive, which world should we choose? This question goes beyond a simple logical problem, compelling us to reflect on what kind of life we truly desire.
Much discussion has been had regarding this debate. Among the arguments, there are various grounds for choosing the virtual world. However, considering the assumption that the real world and the virtual world are identical, only one primary argument remains. It is precisely that human perception cannot distinguish between reality and simulation. Human perception occurs through the senses. The process involves sensory organs—vision, touch, smell, hearing, and taste—transmitting signals via neurons to the brain, which then interprets these signals to recognize objects. Therefore, if we bypass the sensory organs and send identical electrical signals directly to the brain, humans would perceive a virtual world that doesn’t actually exist. If humans cannot distinguish between reality and the virtual world, the primary argument for choosing the virtual world is that there is no need to live in the real world.
This argument appears valid on the surface. However, it overlooks one crucial point: this is not the case at the moment of choosing between the real and virtual worlds. If the person making the choice feels no difference between the two worlds at that moment, the argument holds true. This is because, whether one chooses the virtual world or the real world, there is no difference in life afterward or in the reasons for that choice compared to choosing the other world. However, at the moment of choice, the virtual world and the real world clearly possess the difference between fake and real. Nevertheless, since the purpose of choice is for the future, and since we anticipate future outcomes when choosing, it is true that the time after the choice is made influences the moment of choice to some extent. The attached text is also based on this line of reasoning. Yet, the crucial point is that after the choice, there is no difference between the virtual world and the real world. Since the outcomes are identical after the choice, the justification for the choice is determined by the differences that existed before the choice. While it is true that the future influences the outcome of the choice, the outcome of the choice is not solely determined by the future.
This logic suggests that the moment of choice is not merely an instantaneous decision but has a profound impact throughout our entire lives. Depending on the choices we make, our subsequent lives can change completely, and those choices determine the quality and direction of our lives. Particularly in the choice between reality and virtuality, our lives demand deep reflection: are we merely living in the physical reality of existence, or are we seeking the true ‘reality’ within the realm of perception?
So, what distinguishes the fake from the real? And if there is a difference, which holds greater value? I believe the real world holds greater value than the virtual world. The basis for this is independence. The real world can exist on its own, without the virtual world. The virtual world cannot. If the real world is an unhappy one, the virtual world will also be unhappy; if the real world is a happy one, the virtual world will likewise be happy. Furthermore, if the real world did not exist, the virtual world could not exist at all. It’s like you can’t make a replica without the real thing. The will of the virtual world itself plays no part in this. In other words, the virtual world is subordinate to the real world.
Of course, the real world is distinguished and recognized by people through the fake world, the virtual world. Therefore, conversely, it seems possible to argue that without the fake virtual world, there would be no real world. It’s like how darkness must exist for light to be recognized. However, the real world exists even without the virtual world. It’s just that humans are unaware of its existence. Perception and existence are unrelated. Historically, this was the case with the electron. People were unaware of its existence until its existence was revealed by Thomson’s cathode ray experiment. That doesn’t mean electrons didn’t exist before Thomson conducted his experiment. Thomson’s cathode ray experiment merely provided the means for people to recognize electrons. Similarly, the fake serves as a means to make the real stand out more; it cannot be said that the real did not exist before.
The claim that the real world is more independent than the virtual world can also be confirmed by examining the purpose of that world, regardless of its existence. The virtual world has a different purpose from the real world. The real world exists for its own sake. In other words, its purpose of existence lies within itself, giving it independence in terms of purpose. That is, it possesses intrinsic value. However, the virtual world is a world created by replicating the real world. Its reason for existence does not lie within the virtual world itself but in the real world, its original source. That is, because its purpose lies externally, the virtual world possesses extrinsic value rather than intrinsic value. Extrinsic value is inferior to intrinsic value because it depends on its purpose and can be replaced at any time if a better object emerges to fulfill that purpose. From this perspective, the intrinsic value possessed by the real world can be considered more valuable than the extrinsic value of the virtual world.
However, some may argue that considering external factors in the process of value judgment is flawed. Consider, for example, a luxury handbag. There is a genuine luxury bag and a counterfeit bag that perfectly mimics it. Earlier, we stated that the purpose of the counterfeit bag lies outside itself, not in the bag itself, so the counterfeit bag has less value than the genuine luxury bag. But is it correct to judge the value of the counterfeit bag not by looking at the counterfeit bag alone, but by considering the genuine luxury bag, which represents the counterfeit bag’s external environment? In this case, the value being judged is not the value of the object itself, but the value of the object’s environment. Therefore, the question arises: “Shouldn’t value judgment be made solely on the fake bag?” However, any object always exists within a specific context. There is no such thing as an object free from its situation. For example, consider the situation of traveling abroad by ship. To alleviate boredom on the ship, you can play games on your smartphone. In this case, the smartphone’s value is significant. But then, the ship encounters a typhoon, sinks, and you find yourself alone, adrift on a deserted island. There’s no cell reception on this island. Would the smartphone’s value still be the same as it was during the voyage? On the deserted island, the smartphone is useless for finding food to survive immediately or for sending a distress signal. Thus, the outcome of value judgments for the same object changes depending on the situation it belongs to. Therefore, when judging the value of an object, it is not only impossible but also incorrect to consider it in isolation from its context and environment.
Similarly, when comparing the real world and the virtual world, one must consider their respective contexts. No matter how much the virtual world feels identical to the real world, one cannot ignore that its reason for existence and context are rooted in the real world. Everything in the virtual world is formed under the influence of the real world and cannot exist without lacking independence. For this reason, we can conclude that the real world possesses value in and of itself, while the virtual world is ultimately nothing more than a shadow of the real world.
In conclusion, the real world holds greater value than the virtual world because its existence and purpose are independent. The attached text argues that once a choice is made, whether for the real world or the virtual world, it becomes impossible to distinguish which is real and which is virtual, thus there is no necessity to choose the real world. However, at least at the moment of choice, a clear difference exists between the two worlds. And as discussed thus far, the real world holds greater value than the virtual world. Therefore, I would unequivocally tell Morpheus that I would take the red pill.
