— Alexander Yakovlevich, what do you think of the movie “Matrix”?
– He believes it is a remarkable film, with the premiere portion standing out. He would even place a rival premise on par with or above The Matrix: a dystopian vision from the film often labeled as The Thirteenth Floor. Released in the same era, it didn’t command the same budget, yet it tackles a very similar question.
— What is the genius of “The Matrix”?
– Primarily, the film introduces the idea of a simulated world in a way that feels plausible and well-structured. The scenario is crafted with meticulous detail to explore a future where human minds exist inside a simulation powered by advanced computing. Second, it frames a conflict: one person’s struggle against the synthetic reality. Human consciousness contending with a simulated consciousness forms the core tension, and in the telling, it becomes a victory for authentic awareness.
— In the final scene, the notion is raised that if the real world offers less than the matrix, many would choose the illusion. Is that interpretation accurate?
– It’s a provocative idea. If asked in a referendum who prefers the matrix over real life, most would choose reality. Yet the crucial question remains: is a person aware that they inhabit a simulation? If awareness exists, attitudes toward life shift in fundamental ways.
– What is on your mind?
– First, there is no need to worry about loved ones; they may simply be matrix constructs. The moral compass—good and evil—loses its sharp line, giving rise to a different human dimension where empathy and compassion diminish. If someone does not know what the matrix is, the difference between life and simulated life becomes subtler. Consider being interviewed inside the matrix without awareness of it. Existence could resemble reality at first, but gradually relationships would reveal a lack of sole control by the self.
– How would that feeling manifest?
– It would show up in responses to actions. Did one cause harm and receive no acknowledgment? Did a simple gesture, like moving a brick with the foot, yield no pain because the system doesn’t register it as real? Simulated objects are one thing; simulating the full network of possible relationships is another scale entirely, demanding far greater computational effort. The journey from toe to sensation spans a wide spectrum of experiences that the matrix would need to replicate with fidelity. Where would the matrix observe such lived experience?
— In practice, robots with biofeedback already exist. A robot can sense a distant stone’s surface and structure through a connection that spans thousands of kilometers. Why not extend this to human feeling?
— Can the operator share the exact emotions as if lifting the stone in person? If humanity did not begin inside the matrix, the brain still evolved through countless tiny interactions with the physical world. Its power is enough to simulate countless branches of evolution. Yet a contradiction arises: how could the computing power know all the paths that evolution might have taken?
– If humanity endures far into the future — not a million years but a billion — such computers could exist. Is that not possible?
“Anything is possible in a billion years.” The idea that even a great work like War and Peace could be generated by random keystrokes hints at the vastness of time. It remains difficult to grasp such an enormous span. In principle, one can imagine that a person might not exist in a traditional sense, becoming instead a drawn character in a 3D film, guided by artificial intelligence capable of self-understanding. Some posthuman observers might find such cinematic worlds more engaging if they could experience them on a grand, multidimensional scale.
— So the interview is a conversation inside the film, not a physical presence, and the question is: why were these simulations created?
— Why was Anna Karenina written? Just as shelves hold various novels, future posthuman civilizations may store a range of simulations, multidimensional film versions of life choices. We observe a flat screen, yet posthuman cinema could unfold in many dimensions—character depth, stage design, events, emotions, and experiences. They could visit cinema to explore these “film-worlds,” and indeed it makes it more compelling to focus on actors on the big screen while imagining a broader world for the movie set.
– Is this truly possible?
— Consider an ancient cave dweller asking whether the cinema of one country could exist in the 21st century. It would have seemed impossible then. If cave-dwellers evaluated their theories today, they might dismiss them as fairy tales, much like a perpetual motion dream. The question of possible versus impossible, stretched across millions of years, loses its meaning when a billion years pass.
— Returning to the Matrix scenario, where a person remains a physical subject but serves as an energy source. Is that a logical premise? The answer is that the idea serves the script. An advanced civilization might discover that using brains to generate electricity is cheaper than running hydroelectric or nuclear plants. The concept imagines brains in vats functioning as a biological reactor. The matrix might organize life inside a shared imaginary world, with the brain effectively acting as a component of a larger computational system.
— How much energy could the human brain supply?
– Brain power is roughly 25 watts, comparable to a small incandescent bulb. If the world’s population is added up, 25 watts per person across eight billion people amounts to about 200 billion watts. By comparison, a single large hydroelectric facility can produce substantially more. The idea is that a matrix would not rely on a handful of energy farms but on the collective output of billions of minds connected through the system.
– So why not? A matrix could be sustained by multiple energy streams, not simply rivers or a few power plants.
— Does connecting people to The Matrix require a neural interface? The premise suggests yes, using a brain-computer link to transmit signals to a central computer and back. This setup could enable human cognition to augment computing power, allowing a city or office complex to be rendered by the machine. Yet such a structure would carry a flaw: the mind itself could exploit the system to break into the core machine and seize control of the matrix.
— In the fourth movie, the brain becomes central. The psychologist reveals that the matrix was designed as the protagonist’s work environment because Neo is a game designer. This reframes the question: the simulator might exist not in some distant facility but inside the protagonist’s own mind. And that possibility is enough to reshape the narrative.
– So what is the essence of the film’s message?
— It centers on the human brain and its capabilities. The idea proposes that the brain holds a dynamic mental model that simulates the physical world, granting people a remarkable edge in predicting near-future events. Evolution has refined the brain for this precise task, with countless neural connections—far more numerous than current processor components—sufficient to model reality according to human needs. The model grows with the individual, evolving through continual testing against reality. The mind gradually reconstructs the perceived world.
In the evolutionary arc, animal life sought food and shelter. For humans, those needs persist but expand along with growing resources. The introduction of the dynamic model adds a new layer: curiosity, imagination, and the urge to explore ideas. Motivation varies, and in the film it emerges from the character inventing a computer game. Different paths to this spark exist, including the influence of certain pills, as seen in the fourth installment.
— The brain’s capabilities may outstrip even the most advanced posthuman machines.
– Today, people increasingly rely on devices that dull some of the brain’s raw power, yet there are still individuals who maximize mental potential. Tibetan monks performing deep meditation illustrate this peak of focus. This intersection guides ongoing research into monasteries in India, where cognitive training remains a living tradition.
Yet to simulate life on Earth through computers would require machines capable of tens of trillions of operations per second. That benchmark appears in discussions about digital simulations and the work of philosophers like Nick Bostrom. The latest supercomputers push toward these scales, yet the energy demands remain immense, often comparable to the power of nuclear icebreakers. The question persists: what energy would be needed to sustain a matrix that surpasses contemporary productivity?
So, the conclusion returns to the brain as the cornerstone of reality. In practical terms, reality itself may be a product of neural activity, a precise, efficient engine running on a modest energy budget of about 25 watts per mind per hour.