Philosophers versus Movie Stars, Round 1

Pythagoras, pre-Socratic philosopher and hero of geometry students everywhere, is credited with such a wide array of advancements in the field of mathematics that it would be wrong to write him off as a nut job. Still, his various bizarre semi-religious beliefs tend to seem a bit strange when viewed in a modern context (and the cult that sprung up around him, which some sources indicate even Pythagoras thought was a little weird, probably doesn't help matters). So, aversion to fava beans aside, what did Pythagoras teach?

The traditional method of explaining the pre-Socratic philosophers is to assume that they were, for the most part, trying to figure out what the world was made of. Thales said everything was made of water, Anaximenes said everything was made of air, Heraclitus got fire, and, after leaving earth standing around waiting to be picked like the fat kid in gym class, Empedocles finally stepped up and just said it was made of all four. Then there was Democritus, who said everything was made of 'atoms', and Anaximander said it was all made of 'apeiron' (which, if you take to refer to energy, is almost true).

The problem with this teaching method is Pythagoras, who believed everything was made of... numbers? If you're trying to imagine this materialistically, you'll have some difficulty (I tend to imagine putting a slide under a microscope and observing tiny digits nestled closely together), and thus a lot of Phil 100 students will just conclude "Yep, Pythagoras was wacky," make a note of it, and move on. Which is fine, if you're just trying to fulfill your Culture requirements and graduate with a degree in business.

There's a better way to think of it, though, and it comes straight from that classic philosophy documentary known as The Matrix. Forget the sequels; The Matrix is still one of my favorite movies of all time (even after I realized how little sense it made thermodynamically).

Spoiler: The world as we know it is nothing more than an elaborate computer program put in place to keep our minds comfortably entertained while our evil robot overlords use us as batteries. This 'false reality' (though whether it's any less real than the 'real reality' is a completely different subject) is very much built the way Pythagoras hypothesized. After all, what is a computer code other than ones and zeroes?

Neo, of course, is somehow immune to the basic rules of this computer program (its never explained why; perhaps he's subconciously re-writing the code as he goes along). Its probably a simple bug; some robot programmer was running behind schedule and left off a close-parenthesis somewhere, accidentally creating a minor diety. In any event, he can rewrite the world as he sees fit, though Neo mostly just uses this to look really cool while killing people the old fashioned way.

In essence, Pythagoras taught that the world was governed based on underlying rules and principles which were, in turn, based on mathematical rules. He does not mean that the physical substance of the universe is numbers, but compared to understanding the rules, knowing the physical substance is mainly an acedemic notion (compare a world made up of matter to a world made up of electrical impulses fired directly into your brain, and try to find a way to tell the difference). It makes sense that he would devote his life to understanding these mathematical rules, and his insights proved fundamental to the progression of mathematics as a whole.

So, who would win a fight? Neo, or Pythagoras? One can understand the fundamental principles of the universe, and the other can change them to a certain extent. Overall, though, my money's on Pythagoras. Everyone knows the old guy always has some mad kung fu.

Next Time: The Difference between a Nakama & a Karass