Some Damn Good Reading...(Massive Blog Below)

"The problem is choice"
"Wrong. Choice is an illusion created by those in power to control those without."
"You've already made the choice. You're here to figure out why you made it."

I've probably blogged about this before but it keeps popping up in my head periodically and it seems to clear it from my head to blog about it (hm...what would i have done without a blog?..>Diary? Writings??).

Anyways, the quotes above are basically gists of quotes (not sure of they're exact or not) taken from the blockbuster Matrix Trilogy. (Sidebar: The Matrix Trilogy is apparently a sequel series to the Terminator Trilogy; the producers of both, including the Wachowski Brothers, have been sued for royalties by a woman who submitted a script that contains plots for both movies).

Back to the Matrix, though. When the first Matrix movie came out, it became more than just a blockbuster hit - it became an icon in action sequences and fight scenes (subsequent movies that had similar fight scenes were referred to as matrix-style fight scenes) because of its introduction of bullet-time fighting. Despite this great achievement, for me it isn't what set it apart from other blockbusters; it was the

philosophical concept that was the overlying theme. It's not a new theme: Man has been enslaved by machine that was given intelligence by Man. However, Man is not aware as they are put into a permanent dream-like coma state where they are always experiencing the end of the 20th century, several decades before the emergence of the Artificial Intelligence. There's a bit of backstory to it that we learn about but I'm not

going to get into it. The Trilogy included several interesting concepts:

• The differences between man and machine
• Chaos and order
• Fate vs Free will.

The invention of the computer in the 20th century seems to have been man's greatest achievement. It can be seen anywhere, from someone's desktop to a car's engine to a building's ventilation system. At what is considered its highest level, computer developers are starting to create robots that can look, move, and speak like them. More importantly, these robots are being given, in essence, a brain, with what is

known as Artificial Intelligence (AI). To the best of my knowledge, the AI is generated mostly by complicated algorithms that are responses to input and other parameters on the robot. Using this method, robots are able to respond to situations much like how their programmers would

based on the factors they are told to consider; humans, for the most part, think the same way and, with careful study into each person (since they are unique) can be predictable. However, there is still a critical difference that I believe separates humans and other living organisms from machines and their AI: Computers are predictable. All of their decisions are generated by algorithms (presumably more complex as the intelligence level goes up), which are likely based on many factors to consider. Humans, on the other hand, can be predictable if they choose to be. Person A can look at the factors surrounding Person B's situation and make a limited number of possible predictions that "could" happen. However, Person B can choose to make any decision they want and doesn't necessarily require a reason to. Normally, they may choose to do what is the "logical" choice, but they can choose not to. I'm not sure how advanced the computing field has gone into developing AI so I'm wondering if they have been able to account for that.

One of the most famous examples of AI vs Humans the chess match between Chess Grandmaster Gary Kasparov and Deep Blue, a computer intelligence developed by IBM. They had a monumental tournament where the best human chess player would play chess against IBM's most prominent artificial intelligence to see who would win. In 1996, Kasparov and Deep Blue (DB) faced off in a tournament that would be watched by computer/chess enthusiasts (read geeks and nerds - Yes, i was one of them) around the world. After losing one and drawing several, Kasparov emerged as the tournament victor, using what was known as his signature ability to change game strategies mid-game. After the tournament, he said that the last game he played with against DB was among the hardest ones he'd ever played. Two years earlier,

Kasparov has won a tournament against DB's predecessor, Deep Thought. In 1997, a year after Kasparov's victory over DB, there was a rematch. After two games, the two were tied. The next 2 games were drawn, then Deep Blue won the next two. What does this mean then? Are computers better at playing chess or analyzing strategy than humans? Despite Deep Blue's clear victory in the rematch over Kasparov, the fact still remains that DB was defeated in the first tournament. This fact is important because before the tournament, Deep Blue had never faced off against Kasparov and was not familiar with his style. Thus, DB played in a general sense of calculations and complex strategies to try and counter moves. Did DB have the ability to switch strategies mid-game? Could it change its game objectives? Had Kasparov

faced the same DB in '97 that he did in '96 I believe he would have won. However, the development team at IBM took Deep Blue back into development and reprogrammed it to account for the possibility that Kasparov would change strategies midgame. It was retaught by people. Also, I believe that if Kasparov kept playing the DB that defeated him, eventually it would reach a point where Kasparov would start

winning/drawing more games than losing. This is because I believe humans can go through something many times and learn different things about it. Sort of like watching a movie. The first time through you may not notice things that you will pick up the second time through.

Chaos and Order.

In a general sense, chaos and order are two concepts that are opposites of each other, or rather defined as being the absence of the other. Total chaos, in the absence of order is a complete lack of restrictions, rules and boundaries. Everything is boundless and abstract. Total order, on the other hand is a set of rules, regulations, boundaries and form, where everything follows a certain pattern. It is almost impossible to conceive a notion of one existing without the other in partiality, for with chaos comes a degree of freedom that order would limit. Yet with order there is a sense of security or comfort or sense that chaos doesn't provide. So in the world you can see examples of the balance between order and chaos all around you. When you drive your car you are free to drive at whatever speed you like as long as its within the

speed limit, but it is a degree of freedom that you are given. When you go shopping you are free to buy whatever your money can buy you, but you have a sense (however vague) of what you want to buy (say, some clothing) and what you don't want to buy (a pet maybe...). When you talk with someone you can say whatever you want, but you say what you think will ultimately prove beneficial to you. (BF: while writing this I

inadvertently began thinking about cause and effect).
This idea is also somewhat related to the concept of cause and effect, which can argue that chaos and order are so integrated that they are almost the same entity. The cause-and-effect concept is such that every action has a resulting cause. Cause and effect, action and reaction, task and reward. If you've gotten all the way down here you've probably been here for at least a few minutes. When you are asked a question you give a response, even if it is no answer. In terms of total chaos, if there are no consequences for actions (thus implicating the absence of order) is that (the lack of reaction), in a sense its own consequence, thus negating the implication of the absence of order? Yet what about order itself? Does the very nature of order require the presence of chaos?

Fate vs free will.

This was my original intention for this blog. I came upon this one morning some time before my alarm clock woke me up to get ready for work. Now, normally, this would not bother me as I attribute this to my circadian rhythm (I get up the same time every morning, sometimes a little earlier anyways so this even would be considered rather normal) however, there was one critical thing that I remember happening just before I woke up, if that's possible: I was dreaming and I don't remember where in the dream I was but I somehow knew I was dreaming and told myself I needed to look at the clock to check what time it was. Right after that I woke up and looked at my clock. I still had about 10 minutes to go before it went off but that event just baffled me; it got me thinking about one question: Did I consciously decide to wake up and wake up or was that part of a perfectly timed dream? This isn't the first time things like these happened either. I remember other occasions where I've either woken up at the end of a dream at seemingly the precise moment where I intend to wake up or woken up to what seems like real life then woken up again (this means waking up about 3 times without going back to bed). If you've seen the season finale of House that's a good idea of what happened. Both instances, in retrospect, I consider to have been one of the scariest types of dreams one can have, assuming I'm not the only one experiencing these - even scarier than the ones I used to have as a child.
But back to the "waking up on command" instances. In a larger sense, they could be applied to our waking lives. When we are awake what we do is fairly ungoverned and free, moreso on the weekends. We can choose when and where we eat, when we shower and brush our teeth and where we choose to spend most of our day (yes, each of these choices brings along with it its own consequences but that's blogged above)...or can we? What if what we do is already known about and was known about before. What if everything we do has already been dictated and it is known what we will do before we even do it. I'm not just talking about predictability of most likelies, I'm referring to certainties. Having no vision of the future we can't conceivably know if what we've done in the past is what we were supposed to do nor whether it could have been better. This freedom to choose what we do, is it an illusion? Has our every choice been predetermined? What about a balance between fate and free will. In the previous section, I talked about how chaos and order cannot conceivably be separated but in a general sense it does seem that free will and fate can possibly exist without the other, but can they co-exist? Can some things be fated to happen while others are left to happen on their own? Let's tangibalize something.

Suppose someone goes and buys an ice cream cone with 2 scoops and a vanilla flavour.

Chaos would say that they had the freedom to choose to number of scoops, the freedom to choose the flavour; to pay for the cone or not; to eat the cone or not.

Order would say if they buy the cone they can select from a limited number of scoops, a limited number of flavours. Order would also call upon the person's sense of morality and desire to decide whether to pay for the cone or not and whether or not to eat it once its in the person's possession.

Assuming complete fate, we would say the person was going to buy that cone with 2 scoops of vanilla flavour. Assuming complete free will, this would have been done of their own free will.
Now, with a co-existence of fate and free-will, say, the person was fated to buy a cone but was free to choose the size and flavour?

Now let's see how cause and effect would see this. This one event would affect things down the road.

Say Person A buys an ice cream cone with two scoops of vanilla ice cream, pays and leaves. Person B comes along and wants to do the same thing but Person A has inadvertently purchased the last of the vanilla ice cream, thus, Person B is forced to select a flavour other than *gasp* vanilla...maybe chocolate. So if Person A had chosen a different flavour than Vanilla, Person B would have had Vanilla. But since it wasn't available B could only take a different flavour. But not all events are changed because of certain actions. For example, the ice cream vendor still would have made money from both A and B since they were both there to buy ice cream. Only now the vendor has to go back to the back room to see if he can find another tub of vanilla ice cream as nobody should ever be out of vanilla ice cream.

If your mind isn't hurting yet congratulations. Now have a break.

This past Monday, I watched the Stanley Cup Finals between the Edmonton Oilers and the North Carolina Hurricanes. After watching all the other Canadian teams (Ottawa, Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto...) fall during the playoffs, all Canadian fans seemed to unite in a way behind Edmonton, who was seeded 8th place in the finals. It could not have come down to a better conclusion without winning though as it was Game 7 and the Oilers had come back from a 3-1 series deficit to tie the series 3-3 with a crushing 5-0 game six in Edmonton. The final game itself was rather anti-climatic as NC dominated the entire game eventually scoring an empty net goal in the final minutes of the period. Millions of Canadians watched as the final seconds of hte game ticked away, sealing the fate of the Cup to North Carolina until next year. Despite that, I'm proud of how far the Oilers got; they have impressed me with their gameplay since losing primary goalie Dwayne Roloson. Were they fated to lose or was that up for grabs?

Have a nice day;.