Are You Living Within "The Matrix"

The theory that we are all living within a computer simulation was made popular in 1999 due to the release of The Matrix, and since than has become a serious topic of debate among scientists, with leading figures such as Elon Musk claiming that the idea that we are all computer generated is not only possible, but is in fact very probable. His reasoning is as follows.

Imagine that in the future, someone where to recreate 2017 as a very elaborate video game, so elaborate, that it simulated the emotions and thoughts of all the people on the planet, and was indiscernible from "the real world" in every way. Then in theory every time this game was run, it would "create" a new version of every person alive in 2017, including you. Now if just one copy of a program was created, the odds of you being a computer simulation would be one in two. If the program was then recreated and sold as a product and one hundred people bought this video game, there would be a 99% chance that you were a computer simulation, but the percentage continues to increase.  If a sequel of the game were to be released, say a game about 2018, and was also sold a hundred times, you would then have 0.5% chance of living in the real world. Now do the math for if the games were sold a more realistic number of times, say one million each, and you have a one in two million chance of being a real person, and these numbers assume that only two simulations that include you were ever created in all of time.

Now things get complicated.

Say a simulation of the year 3000 was created in the year 3001. By 3000, the technology for creating hyper-realistic simulations would already exist. This would then mean that within that simulation, other simulations would would be created, and within those even more simulations would exist. Think of the movie Inception. This in theory means there are an infinite number of simulations stemming from one simulation being created, thus making the likely hood of you being real one in infinity. Then multiply that likely hood of one in infinity by the total number of simulations that were created in the "real world." Needless to say the chance that you are an original copy of yourself is unimaginably small, if you go off of this theory.

So can all this math nerd stuff be true? And if it is, does it make life any less meaningful? The answer is up to you to decide. There is no way to feasibly determine if what we see hear and smell is real or just a computer running a code for what it thinks would have happened in the real world.

Sources Cited:

Are We Living in a Simulation? – 8-Bit Philosophy. Dir. Allec Opperman. Perf. Nathan Lowe. Youtube. Wisecrack, n.d. Web. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB3v3bDba5g>

ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? - Nick Bostrom, Oxford University - 2001

Jury Nullification

It should be noted that this essay in no way condones the use of Jury Nullification, and should you ever be on a Jury I do not suggest using Jury Nullification as, under certain circumstances, it can result in your arrest.

So what is Jury Nullification? Well, put simply, Jury Nullification is a loophole in American law that allows a Jury to declare a defendant guilty, but nullify the law so that the prosecuted person is not convicted for their crime.
The loophole comes as the logical consequence of two other laws. First one law states that Juries cannot be punished for a wrong decision, even if everyone else believes the opposite of the Juries verdict. Second, a defendant who is declared 'not-guilty' can't be tried again for the same crime. The result of these two laws is that a Jury's verdict legally doesn't need to match what they believe. e.g. the Jury may believe that the defendant is guilty, but not convict them because they don't want to. Similarly a Jury may prosecute a defendant even if they think he/she is innocent, but to do this as much harder do to an overrule ability of the Judge (The Judge may negate the Jury's prosecution if he believes they are incorrect in declaring the defendant guilty, but not in the case of declaring the defendant innocent).
This loophole in essence allows Jury's to ignore the law as it is written, and naturally Lawyers, Judges, and most people into Law try to to prevent it.

So how is Jury Nullification combated? Why don't we see it more? Well, all potential Jurors are asked the following Question. "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?" If you know of Jury Nullification and believe it is a good idea, you would be expected to answer yes, which would then result in you being rejected from jury duty. If you answer no and then go on to suggest Jury Nullification in a court of law you have technically just committed perjury, which is a federal crime. This causes Jury Nullification to be mostly prevented. If you know, about and are called onto a Jury, you are most likely not going to bring up the idea, as you can be convicted.

So is Jury Nullification a bad thing? Well, in the past it has been used to prevent run away slaves from being convicted, but on the other hand it has been used prevent the conviction of lynch mobs. So in theory Jury Nullification is a good thing (in my opinion). It allows us to negate unjust and out dated laws that do not match our current day beliefs. The only problem is the potential abuse associated with the loophole.
Either way, Jury Nullification is an interesting topic and point for debate.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a highly influential philosopher; his work influenced several important historical events, such as the French Revolution, as well as inspired many modern political ideas such as Liberal, Conservative, and Socialist theories.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher and writer from the age of enlightenment. Born in Geneva Switzerland in 1712, he was raised Calvinist, with a minimal education outside of religion. He later moved to France where he gained citizenship and spent the remainder of his life moving around within the country. In adulthood he spent his time working on philosophy, which was mainly politically based, and pursuing the fine arts. He died in 1778 of a stroke.

Jean Jacques Rousseau is remembered best for his political philosophy. His views on the freedom of individuals and the importance of equality were uncommon and controversial, especially in France during the 1700’s. His most influential work, The Social Contract published in 1762, later was an important influence for the start of the French revolution. Jean Jacques Rousseau also possessed revolutionary ideas on education which were equally controversial, yet aren’t remembered as well today.

In addition to his philosophical work, Jean Jacques Rousseau was a prolific artist who achieved a fair amount of fame in his time and is said to have invented the modern autobiography. He also was an exceptional musician, writing several compositions including an opera, Le Devin Du Village, that was performed for King Louis the fifteenth, as well as creating his own form of musical notation that was said to show great musical talent and understanding, but was rejected as overly complicated. In addition to music Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote one of the most commercially successful novels of his era, Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse,  which also has received critical acclaim.

Jean Jacques Rousseau’s views on nature were fairly unique. He believed man is good by nature, but has been corrupted by vanity and lust through a move from our primal state in a drive for luxury. He believed we should attempt to revert back slightly with a political system that would not pit man against man. His views on liberty were based off a democratic system that would not imply one man is greater than another, and that no man should control others. He was one of the few people of his time to be anti-slavery, and wanted everyone to be equal.

Today he is remembered as a figure who helped fight for equality and partially inspired the French Revolution.

Works Cited:

Bertram, Christopher. "Jean Jacques Rousseau." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

Cranston, Muarice. "Jean-Jacques." Google Books. Google, n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.