In this blog post, using the movie ‘The Matrix’ as a starting point, we’ll explore whether the concepts of “real” and “fake” actually exist, and why that distinction might be illusory.
Imagine you’re an ordinary office worker when a stranger wearing black sunglasses approaches you. He hands you a red pill and a blue pill and says, “This world is ‘fake.’ Come with me to the ‘real’ world.”
This is a scene from the movie ‘The Matrix’ (1999). The film’s protagonist, Neo, accepts Morpheus’s proposal and steps into the “real” world, where he soon discovers that the world he had been living in was a fake world created by machines. The “real” world is one where humanity is waging a grueling war against machines for survival. Neo emerges as a leader dedicated to saving the “real” humanity living in the “real” world. Why did Neo choose to leave the Matrix—where he had lived an ordinary, peaceful life—and enter the “real” world, where everything was unfamiliar and life-threatening dangers lurked everywhere? The reason was simple: the Matrix is “fake,” and even if the “real” world is a science-fiction-like setting where humanity, on the brink of extinction, wages war against machine monsters like the Sentinels, it is still “real.”
Those who, like Neo, advocate staying in the “real” world essentially grant an ontological superiority to the concept of “real.” While they point out, one by one, the technical limitations of the Matrix—that it is imperfect and cannot fully mimic the real world—once you strip away such arguments, only one simple proposition remains in their claim: it is more valuable precisely because it is real.
However, before weighing the value of the “real” against a “realistic fake,” we must first consider whether the “real” actually exists. Does the “real” truly exist? In many cases, the concept of “real” is tied to temporality. Generally, the “real” is “what was created first.” In the movie ‘The Matrix’, reality was created first, and the Matrix was created later. Of course, since original information exists and a physically inevitable time delay occurs when that information is copied elsewhere, it is possible to distinguish between “what was created first” and “what was created later” in a purely physical sense. But does “what was created first” truly deserve the label of “real”?
Another criterion often cited to distinguish between “real” and “fake” is the “process of creation.” The logic goes that if something is created by copying existing information exactly as it is, it is a replica—and because the process of copying was involved, it is fake.
Let’s take the example of identical twins. Identical twins are formed when a single fertilized egg, for some reason, splits into two independent fertilized eggs, resulting in two separate individuals. The DNA of the split zygotes is virtually identical. Half of the DNA in each cell originated from the original zygote, and the other half was replicated during the division process. This implies two important points: first, that the two cells were created simultaneously, and second, that both cells are the result of replication. However, it is self-evident that neither twin is a “fake.” They are both “real.” Both are “copies” derived from the replication of the original fertilized egg’s DNA, and at the same time, they are both “originals.”
The case of identical twins reveals a great deal about the concept of “authenticity.” First, the replication process does not necessarily involve a temporal sequence. In the cell division of identical twins, there is no time lag between the original and the copy. The original and the copy participate in the replication process simultaneously. This leads to another important implication. The “transfer of information” that occurs during the replication process necessarily requires two entities, and if both entities participate in the process simultaneously, they ultimately both become replicas. Here, the twins are both “replicas” and “originals.” The crucial point is that the two entities are, in essence, completely equal. So, should we call this “real” or “fake”? The moment we attempt to distinguish between “real” and “fake,” neither an “absolute real” nor an “absolute fake” exists.
Ultimately, what the case of identical twins reveals is that the act of “replication”—which involves all kinds of information transfer, whether through modification, imitation, or creation—undermines the very concept of “the real.”
To begin with, the entity known as “the real” does not exist anywhere. Until an identical entity appears, that entity does not possess the attribute of “the real.” This is because “the real” can only be established in the presence of “the fake.” Logically, if “the real” and “the fake” are conceptual sets that must coexist, then the fake also acquires the same ontological status as the real. So what happens if a replica capable of proving its own “authenticity” appears? Unfortunately, the moment identical objects appear, each one becomes both “real” and “fake” at the same time. This is because the moment the “real” is exposed to create a “fake,” the entity known as “real” collapses on its own.
So, let’s imagine—for the sake of argument—the moment when the “Gateway to the World of Ideas” opens just once. We have already seen that the moment replicas are mass-produced, the “real” is also incorporated as part of those replicas. This time, let’s assume that the Creator labeled one world “real” and the other “fake” from the very beginning. Since God—an “ideal being”—has distinguished between the “real” and the “fake,” we have effectively gained the opportunity to verify the substance of the concept of “the real,” which had vanished into the world of the Forms. Now, there exist two worlds labeled “real” and “fake.” Does this mean that a hierarchy of ontological value is established between these two worlds?
Despite the Creator’s intervention, “real” and “fake” still exhibit no difference. It might seem, as some argue, that “real” finally acquires essential value “because we know whether or not it possesses essence.” However, this is merely the result of a romantic interpretation of the relationship of inclusion between the metaphysical and the physical worlds. As long as we do not abandon the premise of living as human beings, the value of the labels “real” and “fake” is identical. No, humans cannot even read the value of those labels.
From a human perspective, concepts such as “Ideas,” “the real,” “essence,” and “truth”—which are referred to as the so-called “metaphysical world”—can only be understood within the “physical world” composed of sensation and experience. One might even go so far as to argue that metaphysics is a subset of the physical world. Throughout human history, experience and sensation have always come first in human thought, and it is difficult to deny that the abstract concept of “truth”—often called “a priori”—was created only afterward. Even if one were to argue that metaphysics existed from the very beginning and that the world of the physical subsequently emerged as an imitation of it, humans cannot access the metaphysical world without passing through the world of the physical. All metaphysics is a product formed through the world of the physical and, strictly speaking, is an excellent replica of it. At least, this is true for humans.
Only when one reaches the realm of God—which transcends all human senses—can something “real” truly possess the “value of being real.” The “essential value” they speak of goes beyond the physical world and ultimately exists beyond the human realm. If one could become a god, it would be fine to choose the label “real.” However, humans are not given the option to live as gods. They are merely given the opportunity to obtain the label “real.” Even if they choose that label, humans lack the ability to read it. That name can only be read within the human imagination, and, ironically, in the world where humans live, it also bears the label “fiction.” What is fiction? It is yet another replica recreated in the mind based on objects accepted through experience.
“The real” is a romantic concept—something that does not exist, something unattainable, much like a unicorn that exists only in the imagination. We often equate “the real” with “something of value.” Yet we do not know what the real is, nor what value it holds. The real is a concept like “front” and “back”—one that cannot exist without its opposite, the fake. The moment replication occurs, the essence of the real vanishes. Even if we were to actually obtain something guaranteed to be “real,” it would only hold value in a realm beyond the human sphere. Ultimately, “the real” is nothing more than a “label”—a fictional construct created to fulfill humanity’s romantic desire to approach a “realm beyond humanity.” Let’s return once more to the first proposition of people like Neo.
“The real is more valuable.”
Is there any proposition more fictitious than this one?
