I recently watched the film again, and it's fascinating how much times have changed since it came out.
When it was first released, I remember having long conversations about the 'freakish' idea of living in a virtual reality, escaping it just like the Matrix, etc. I personally sort of got Cypher's perspective on things, but it was a minority view among my friends.
But upon rewatching it, and talking to others about it, much of that fear/repulsion is just not there anymore. The idea of a 'fake' reality that stands in stark contrast to a 'real' reality just isn't that novel anymore. To have a similar long conversation, I have to pull out the 'matrix within the matrix' card (which as far as I can tell is almost 'canon' at this point?).
The idea that the 'real world' is just another matrix, but for the rebellious, to take the pressure off the whole system while still ultimately being fake, is not only more fitting to the franchise as a whole (trilogy, animation, etc.), but also a better fit for our contemporary culture.
Manufactured outrage, reddit bots that intentionally misrepresent themselves as that which they oppose: "as a black woman", "as a white male Bernie voter", "as a Hillary fan" all coming from the same account with the inevitable "I came around to <x>" conclusion.
The idea that perhaps most of what appears to be genuine conversation around us is really just various intentional forms of manipulation, whether for political, monetary or other ends, seems to have permeated 'common' culture around me, and it's both fascinating and depressing.
I often wish the second and third films weren't such wank-fests because the themes they explore are very contemporary, much more so than when they first came out.
Good analysis. I suppose Enlightenment philosophers were going through a similar experience when they reflected about the traps of the devil, and how could you be certain about anything at all.*
This was shortly after the invention of the printing press, but before society learned to adapt to the flood of thoughts (most of them, ramblings) from any lunatic, now easily reproduced en masse. They invented newspapers and the scientific method, so maybe it was worth it.
* (Their answer was to begin from first principles, and double-check everything with reality, a novel way of thinking that brought the scientific revolution; before that, arguments from authority carried a lot more weight).
Maybe we're just facing a similar dynamic from the arrival of the 'net, which brought us instant mind-to-mind connection. I'm betting on the blockchain being used for radical accountability. Even if we won't be sure of what information is true and what is a deepfake, at least we'll be able to consistently assess what bits of information are coming from the same source and thus are built to support the same worldview (and also that it isn't being changed behind our backs, 1984-style).
If anything I'd say it's the post-enlightenment (postmodern) philosophy chickens coming to roost, so to speak, more than anything.
The idea of 'double-checking everything with reality' being novel, useful, but ultimately just another convenient fiction because perhaps there is no reality, or perhaps knowing it is impossible, that idea seems to finally have become part of the 'common' vernacular.
statistically speaking, we're almost guaranteed to be a simulation though
in case we've got a lucky 10k person around:
this guarantee comes from the believe that technology will at one time be able to simulate one human to a degree that it thinks to be real and thinks that it experiences reality.
This technology would inevitably be used to simulate billions of lives for scientific research. you're thus statistically one of these simulations, as there had been ~10 billion "real" humans to the unlimited amount of simulated ones
(this is just a fun thought experiment. don't treat your fellow humans like simulations please)
So it's not statistically speaking, it's not a guarantee, it's a belief. I'm ok with that, but please don't try to present it otherwise. I personally don't believe there'll ever be a technology able to simulate a human to the point you describe, which I think is ok to believe too and not less scientifically correct or incorrect.
I literally wrote your rebuttal in my third sentences.
My intro was just a humourous answer to the parent comment
And I'm pretty sure you're actually overestimating the required technological competency we'll need to start these simulations. Most of the actual blockers such as General intelligence, realistic physics and free thinking aren't necessary to create a program that mimics a human to a degree to be useful in a simulation. Even scale isn't necessary, as "real" interactions aren't required and the memories can be "mocked"
