»Systemic anomaly«

Oracle: *rolls eyes* Please... You and I may not be able to see beyond our own choices, but that man can't see past any choices.
Neo: Why not?
Oracle: He doesn't understand them - he can't. To him they are variables in an equation. One at a time each variable must be solved and countered. That's his purpose: to balance an equation.

Hmm, do you guys notice that the Oracle is talking about choice in plural, related to the Architect.

The choices are variables to him that need to be solved one by one.
Hmmm this could question our theory about a singular choice werther to accept the Matrix or not.

Thoughts?

I think that has been Inevitability's point all along.

But I dont agree. He himself doesn't understand many choices; but the system still incorporates them in the equations. The Architect still balances the variables. Even if he doesn't understand them.

And the main point is: It never says that this is the cause of the anomaly. Whoever thinks this is making a big assumption.

Akshat Gupta wrote:

The Architect still balances the variables. Even if he doesn't understand them.

I think this is difficult to understand. Surly it’s the same as saying he is still able to solve a mathematical sum he doesn’t understand. If he doesn’t know the equation how can he solve it? He hasn’t got a formula to base his math on and get started. He’s stumped.
With humans its almost like he can watch the equation develop and unfold, but he doesn’t truly know what causes it of where it will end. As Neo said... 'you can’t control me, you cant make me do anything.' Or to put it another way, you DON’T understand me. Therefore you can’t fully anticipate me to predict me. But he does watch the ‘equation’ unfold albeit with a curious one-sided perspective: pure maths, phenomenal intellect, but fails drastically to interpret its human or emotional meaning/nature. If humans were mere machines with no conscious feeling thought forming will/choice he would understand us completely. But here in lies his dilemma...

It is an equation not only outside of his understanding but is also against his prerogative: He hates humans and this could well be his real reason for his disposition against them, forming his lack of understanding. That which we despise we try to avoid being like.

He has no concept of Neo saving trinity, no concept of the meaning or ‘connection’ (as Rama-kundra put it) of love that causes Neo’s actions.

Undoubtedly he is used to seeing human behaviour, viewing it with contempt. But it is this contempt that is keeping him from opening his heart and feeling its meaning.

It’s understandable after the way that humans behaved towards the AI at the beginning. We helped develop their view of us.

Although I must say, our converse together in this thread is causing me to think and re-examine much of what I have been saying and I have made some more discoveries. I am at this moment unconcluded in my former opinion of the interpretation of the text we have been discussing about the 99% and the 1% etc and from which the anomaly is arising. I can now see it both ways and much of my difficulty had been in misunderstanding the meaning of the word ‘ergo’ that means ‘therefore’ or ‘consequently. But there is still a strong case to build around that text meaning that the choice is the problem and the Zionists constitute its escalation.

It’s becoming a ‘pickle’.
------------------------------------------------------

Also this I have noticed...

'as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level'

This means that they also accept even if it’s not at a near unconscious level. If it had meant just near unconscious etc it would have read...

'as long as they were given a choice, if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level'

This makes it harder to imagine the choice being accepted if we are talking about it being a choice to accept the Matrix as 99% would be also willing to accept even if having a full consciousness of it.

It may make sense in light of the Arc not being able to quantify choice that he may have been talking about the principle of choice in general when he said...

'...she stumbled upon a solution, whereby nearly 99 percent of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level.'

Perhaps this was the result of a series of tests conducted on humans to see what would work and she discovered (stumbled upon) that upon giving a choice, i.e. an environment conducive to alternatives, it worked.

This is understandable if we are talking about the two previous failed Matrix’s the Arc had built was lacking room for mans basic nature to be able to choose, i.e. no alternatives.

So this makes me wonder when Neo said ‘choice the problem is choice’ and then the Arc responding with his failures and the Oracle solution of ‘Choice’ to mean more than just ‘accepting the Matrix’.

Again the near subconscious level of the ‘test’ would then make sense as we still ‘function’ in accepting a world as long as choice is not removed.

I’m just not sure.

* scratches his head some more *

* having scratched head some more... *

This makes me think a lot about our choices and how they mean so much in life. Everyday we make a multitude of choices... what to eat, what to wear, what to think over issues, what to do after work etc etc. Removing this environment and placing us in a world of no alternative, whether a ‘perfect one’ or ‘hell’ one deprives us of our ability to make choices. If we are just given say one type of food, that the machines think is ‘perfect’, or one type of home (cage) that they think is what we would love, we would be restricted and bored to death through lack of choice. ‘Variety is the spice of life’. We need to be free independent beings.

'Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this, the peak of your civilization'

By placing us in a 'vacuum' or condition devoid of alternatives to choose from we would die through lack of stimulus, or ‘refuse the program’. Now this might make sense if all we were was just animals or a ‘plague’ as Smith put it.

I think this may reveal the AI’s inital inability to perceive us as beings of value and worth and how the Oracle was begining to stumble upon our meaning?

Also another thought: the more we are involved in choices the more we are creating energy, being ‘alive’ so to speak.

Just some thoughts i'm having at this late hour of the morning in the UK.

Sorry, I lost my mind for a minute there....

Thanks for that, Akshat... let me see if I can sort this out for myself, then....

Akshat Gupta wrote:

Mobil and I are saying only the choice to accept the Matrix or to reject it. Inevitability is saying that the Architect cannot understand 100% of human choices and implement them in the equation and thus the anomaly is born. That is what I disagree with.

I absolutely agree with you and Mobil_Ave_Neo, then, Akshat. But I didn't think that was the issue... Just goes to show you how confounding the Architect is.... Stupid Architect....

Inevitability wrote:

Could we then liken this choice to the sense every human being has albeit at a near unconscious level that there may be more to life than our existence and known reality? Like the reason for our belief in religion, life after death, heaven and the awareness that there’s something wrong with the world and mankind was meant for something better than this etc?

Abso-freakin'-lutely. That is exactly the choice I'm talking about. For the fictional people in The Matrix, that choice is whether to accept the reality that the matrix is feeding them. For the actual people in our world, (as it were) we are faced with a similar choice: the choice of whether to accept the controls placed on us, by employers (when you go to work), religions (when you go to church), and governments (when you pay your taxes!); or to live your own life, and have your own opinions. It is the choice of whether to accept the world as it is, with all its horrors and abominations (as well as its wonders and its beauty); or to do something to make it better, in some small way, as we are able. It is the choice of whether to understand that there are some things greater than we, and that we can aspire to it; or to wallow in our physicality, to accept that there is nothing but the world we experience through the five senses, denying any greater cause or raison de vivre.

You posted some good stuff after that, too, Inevitability. I think we are getting somewhere....

So I guess it comes down to interpreting what that portion of text is saying. But here in lays the problem; it appears that in interpreting it we need it to be consistent with other information given.

I personally like the Idea of it meaning ‘a choice to accept the matrix reality’ or not. But there seems to many difficulties in making this fit. One is what I identified a little earlier about ‘the choice’ to accept the reality even if we are aware of its invalidity at a higher level than ‘near unconsciousness,’ even to the point it seems of full consciousness. Hmmm… the mind boggles.

Also the problem the Arc has in interpreting our basic nature, could he have been capable of forming a world that we would accept where the main deficiency was this ‘need’ to question our reality?

Again the mind boggles.

Is the text about introducing a choice to accept the matrix reality or about introducing the principle need for choice that is integral to basic human nature?

Again thinking about the first Matrix’s, lets suppose that conducive to the atrocities that have taken place between mankind & this young ‘fledgling nation’ the AI psyche and understanding of psychology/behaviour is seriously damaged.

With vast phenomenal intellectual capacity and ‘having long studied mans simple protein based bodies’ they upload individuals genetic data, DNA etc, and form software images of them to feed to their brains. They also create a software environment for them to inhabit.

The problem being choice, they are choosing what we think, feel and do and we would undoubtedly ‘refuse the program’.

So it later becomes apparent that this mysterious need for choice is fundamental to human nature, ‘these strange endlessly multiplying mammals’ (Second Renaissance). So this ‘image’ of self (RSI) is interactively connected to the brain allowing individuals control over it.

Maybe through lack of data as to what humans really are they though it best along with beginning to understand our need for choice to just construct a world from our recent history and let us get on with it?

I have been thinking about this matter for over two hours this morning. I want to share the end result with you.

I think the Matrix works entirely choice-based. The people must have the feeling that they can make their own choiches. The mass (99%) is very predictable by implementing the cause-and-effect-chain. By making calculations with factors like personality, genetics and past experiences, the choices can be predicted quite accurately.

The equation works with a balanced-system. For every choice (variable) there is an opposite choice (variable) in the Matrix-world; this keeps the equation in balance.

Now some people (we are still talking about the mass of nearly 99%) sometimes make choices that were not predicted accurately. This is just a minor group which makes an unexpected choice now and then, mainly based upon emotions; emotions that the machines do not understand for a full 100% yet. Also, maybe some people plugged into the Matrix develop cancer unexpectedly (maybe in this near future setting they can predict cancer based upon genetics, but we are not sure), which might also cause a disturbance of the program.

These choices/events can be countered by the Architect. When an unexpected choice occurs, the Architect puts in a variable to counter-act upon this choice. When a choice was unexpected, it alters the masterplan of things. We can see the Architect like God. He offers you a path that you can consume, but when you 'sin' against him, this path is broken; but he can forgive you for it. The Architect has to alter and/or insert some variables in order to make the masterplan straight again. So these are minor fluctuations that can be dealt with, based upon the yin-yang principle. For every unexpected choice, their must be a counter-act on the other side of the equation.

I think the exiles, like the Merovingian, are also amongst this operation. The Architect tries to counter or control them as much as he can. Concentrating all the exiles in the Merovingian's organisation is (I think) also a meisure of control. It decreases the damage to the masterplan and makes it all fit in.

Now about the 1%-people. These are the real problem. They reject the Matrix as a whole. When they exit the program, alot of future events/choices will never happen. So these people disturb the equation at such a great deal, that the Architect is unable to repair it. They form the remainder within the equation.

The remainder gets even more 'dirty' when the rebels are convincing other people to set themselves free. So at some critical point the Architect summarizes the remainder and puts it into one shell --> the One.

So in fact the equation and the remainder remain intact, the Architect only replaces/re-assigns it.

Neo is this sum and therefore he can perform any action he likes; he is the sum of refusal.

When he chooses to disseminate his code, he compensates for all the refusals. The remainder merges with the equation again, because of the choice of the One. This final choice is the counter-act for all the disturbances caused by the refusals.

Neo, as the sum, is a variable at it's own. And because the equation works on the yin-yang principle, a counter-variable is created: Smith.

Neo and the rebels are indeed an escalating disaster. With their actions they are also influencing the 99%-group. Neo is freeing more and more people and the equation reacts with the emergence of Smith. While Neo frees people, Smith enslaves them.

Now the question that remains is, why do the people refuse the Matrix. I agree with Inevitability on that: they just don't accept the rules of the earth. They don't buy it in exchange for a regular consuming life. They want to know the reason, they question life and the world and won't let it rest.

Sorry I know this goes on from what I have been saying but since this topic is about ‘anomaly’ -(irregularity, difference, abnormality) I want to try and conclude it’s meaning or ‘nature’ as something more meaningful and real to life than just ‘Maths’.

...Hence the overall meaning of the story being the degeneration of relationship between the two species, like one nation to another or parent and child. Thus the reason for the depraved aberration forming a false reality (Matrix), reflecting fallen human nature and the 'program' or 'machine' that we can see operating in our reality/world today.

Is this film among other things revealing the complex nature and needs of human beings and how a lack of interpreting them causes the anomaly in our lives/world? Meaning each of us is the ‘One’ and we must all strive to understand what is truly going on in our world/psyche and begin to make peace with ourselves and our neighbour.

Trinity: They're watching you, Neo.
Neo: Who is?
Trinity: Please just listen. I know why you're here, Neo. I know what you've been doing. I know why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night you sit at your computer. You're looking for him. I know, because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn't really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It's the question that drives us mad. It's the question that brought you here. You know the question just as I did.
Neo: What is the Matrix.
Trinity: The answer is out there, Neo. It's looking for you. And it will find you, if you want it to.

Conscience is its path.

The Matrix is the ‘human condition’ It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth

Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind.... Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

'Know thyself'

What is it that makes you think, feel and choose what you do?
And what programing is operating in you life?

'Causality, there is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the why

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smith/Oracle: Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why, why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is, do you even know? Is it freedom or truth, perhaps peace - could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself. Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now! You can't win, it's pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?

Neo: Because I choose to

In the end it may not be so important whether the anomaly arises from the 99% or the 1%, as the problem is more expressly Choice and understanding it’s reason. On the one hand it could be the 99% relating to human behaviour in general, or more poignantly those that refuse the program questioning reality and life’s deeper meaning. Maybe it’s both. Either way it seems apparent that both species need to understand its reason.

Councillor Hamann: There is so much in this world that I do not understand... I have absolutely no idea... But I do understand there is a reason...

I only hope we understand that reason before it's too late.

Wow, Mobil that is a lot of stuff. I seriously need to sit down and think about this whole thing carefully.

Quote:

Is this film among other things revealing the complex nature and needs of human beings and how a lack of interpreting them causes the anomaly in our lives/world? Meaning each of is the ‘One’ and we must all strive to understand what is truly going on in our world/psyche?

Yes indeed. There is alot of human nature and psychology in these movies and I have been analyzing it recently.

Akshat Gupta wrote:

I seriously need to sit down and think about this whole thing carefully.

Me too, but I need to have a rest for a while and come back to it later, afresh.

Sorry if its been a long one, just my thoughts unfolding from the 'splinter in my mind'

Actually, i have a much different interpretation of the whole architect speech, and the anomalies. I have considered this theory for a while now and haven't been able to find any holes in it thus far, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Basically, i believe that:

The systemic anomaly = The one

The reasons for this is:

1) When the architect tells neo that "the anomaly is systemic", neo takes it very personally ("You can't control me"etc.). Obviously this suggests that he is referring to neo, rather than something else.

2)The architect says that neo has "undoubtedly gathered that the anomaly is systemic". Up until then they had only been talking about neo (the integral anomaly), so again this suggests that the systemic anomaly is neo (how would gather something if they have not been discussing it)

3)The last anomaly the architect referred to was the integral anomaly (neo), so therefore it is likely he is still referring to neo, otherwise the architect would have stated otherwise.

4)Why would the architect repeat himself when talking about the escalating probablity of disaster? If the systemic anomaly is indeed who refused the programthe zionites then he is basically saying "While this answer functioned it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the minority who refused the program, which if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Therefore those that refused the program, while a minority, if left unchecked, would constitute an escalating probablity of disaster". I don't think the architect - a master of efficient language - would repeat himself like this.

So if neo (and the other ones) is the systemic anomaly, how should we interpret the speech? Well, basically the architect is saying that the oracle's solution for an accepotable matrix, was fundamentally flawed because it introduced choice, something which the architect was unable to succesfully define mathematically (it is the unbalanced equation the architect refers to - see below). This unbalanced choice equation resulted in the occurance of the systemic anomaly (the one), which if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Therefore, as one of the people who 'refused' the program would inevitably be the one, as time goes by, those that refused the program would constitute an escalating probability of disaster, because it would become more and more likely that that the one would arise (due to the laws of probability). Therefore zion was primarily created to find the one and tell the the one the prophecy (in order to control him) when he is found.

Finally i think the unbalanced equation/anomaly (which neo is the eventuality of) is in fact the unbalanced choice equation. The reason for this is that when neo identifies that "the problem is choice", the only 'problem' that the architect has discussed is the unbalanced equation/anomaly, therefore he must be referring to that. Therefore, the systemic anomaly (the one) is the eventuality of the unbalanced choice equation.

Hope that made sense. As is said before, i would be surprised if there is anything which disproves this theory, so please offer evidence if you are going to dismiss it.

He refers to the systemic anomaly as plural. `Those that refused the program'. He didn't say `you, who refused the program'. Also, dont forget the 99% and the 1%. The 1% are the ones that refuse the program. So its gotta be more than just Neo. And this is what leads to the systemic anomaly, because right after he talks about the 99% and the 1%, he says this solution was flawed which results in the `otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly'. After this whole talk, Neo confirms our feelings by mentioning `This is about Zion'. I suggest you read this part of the script again:

Architect: She stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99 percent of the test subjects would accept the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.

Neo: This is about Zion.

I think we should all take five and return to this discussion in perhaps a few days with a fresh mind. We should think about it till then.

I have constructed this to hopefully summarise and outline the dilemma, to help understand what we are dealing with. There seems to be two main issues...

1.

Certainly the problem seems to hinge around choice in one form or another, I think most are agreed on that.

But the problem seems to be what that choice represents?

Is the text about introducing a choice to ‘accept the program’ or about introducing the principle need for choice that is integral to basic human nature?

Also you have to consider this...

'as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level'

This appears to mean that they also accept even if it’s not at a near unconscious level. If it had meant just near unconscious it would have read...

'as long as they were given a choice, if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level'

This means the 99% are willing to accept even to the point it seems of full consciousness of the choice.

-------------------------------------------

2.

Is the Arc linking the problem of choice to the systemic anomaly and then identifying Zion as part of its ‘constitution’ escalating the already present threat to the system onto a ‘probability or disaster’?

Or is he more expressly linking the systemic anomaly to those that refuse the program identifying the threat to the system to be escalated by Zion and that they constitute the probability of disaster?

--------------------------------------------

These things have to be considered while keeping in context with the rest or the Arc/Neo encounter as well as what knowledge is revealed regarding them both.

I think you must have misunderstood what i was saying. My whole point is that "those that refused the program" aren't the systemic anomaly (the one is) therefore it is irrelevent to my theory that he refers to them as plural. This is what i was afraid of - people dismissing the theory without any evidence (or in this case not understanding the theory)
I will go through the speech again.

"She stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they wewre given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned it was obviously fundamentally flawed thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, which if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if left unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster."

Now, this is how i interpret it, as i believe that neo is the systemic anomaly (for which there is extremely strong evidence - see previous posts).

"She stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects accepted the program as long as they wewre given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned it was obviously fundamentally flawed, because it introduced the unbalanced choice equation (the problem is choice), thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly (the one), which if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Therefore, as one of the people who refused the program would inevitably be the one, as time went by it would become more and more probable that 'the one' would arise"

Neo says "this is about zion", because the architect implies that zion was created to find the one (any of the people who refused the program could potentially be the one), and control it.

BTW. further evidence that the "fundamental flaw" is choice - not the zionites or the 1% - comes from the fact that when the architect is giving neo his choice, he says that the "fundamental flaw" is being expressed. It is possible (and extremely likely) that he is referring to choice, because you can express choice, whereas if the fundamental flaw was the 1% who refused the program, how are ou suppose to express those that refused the program? It wouldn't make sense.

I recommend you watch the architect scene again (bearing in mind the evidence i provided, in another post, about the systemic anomaly actually referring neo), as i think you have misunderstood it.

The Kid's post made simple and put in plain English (correct me if I'm wrong):

The problem for the machines is people waking up. In order to combat this a program was written which prevented every person in the matrix with a choice of whether or not to stay within the matrix. It was found that when given this choice only 1% would actually decide to leave.

The 'systemic anomaly' is caused by the 1% of people leaving, but it cannot be described AS those people. The program which allowed people to leave had a minor flaw which would eventually lead to a 'one' arising: a person like Neo who has special powers and could threaten the system itself.

The 'one' is the systemic anomaly, and this anomaly is controlled by reinserting its code through the matrix whenever it arises.





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
personal note: Even if the one has stopped the war, there seems to be no reason why he should not return. Everyone seemed to previously suggest that his return would mean another war had broken out. It seems to me that since the one arises whenever people are escaping from the matrix there seems to be no reason, peace or not, why the one should not return. (ie. he'll have the powers, but there'll be little point in using them)

No, youre wrong. I'm in a rush right now so I cant give a detailed response. Im sure somebody else will do that.

Kid, you obviously didn't read my post. I haven't dismissed any theory of yours. You seem to be dismissing mine. Why would the perfect Architect with perfect english refer to the ONE! in plural? The Architect's logic and sequential order suggests that 1% of the population refuses the program when given a choice. This creates the systemic anomaly. Neo is a measure of control created by the system to re-insert the sum of the remainder of the equation back into the equation thus stabalizing it and reloading the Matrix. Are you saying that 1 person (NEO) is around 1% of `billions of people living out their lives'?

Akshat Gupta wrote:

Why would the perfect Architect with perfect english refer to the ONE! in plural?

Because there were five of them (excluding Neo)?

One thing, before the point; The mind does not boggle, it gets boggled: 'it boggles the mind.' To use the verb intransitively means 'to hesitate or waver because of scruples, fear, etc.' So did you mean 'it boggles the mind,' Inevitability, or truly, 'the mind hesitates or wavers because of scruples, fear, etc.'? Just curious.

TheKid does make an interesting point... Indeed, that is what I thought Whitey was talking about at first, too. ...However, I may remind TheKid that your 'interpretation' is just that -- evidence for it does not make you right, only justified in your interpretation. Others may have different interpretations, with their own evidence to justify them. Like so...:

The Architect refers to Neo from the start as 'the eventuality of an anomaly,' not as the anomaly itself.

Plain English, indeed.

'As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly is systemic - creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.' If the anomaly is systemic, and Neo is the anomaly, then Neo is systemic. Erm, yeah, that doesn't work... Neo does not 'affect the system as a whole,' only parts of it at a time.... If you can find evidence that he does, I would be glad to hear it.

The very next line (aside from the TV Neos) is:
Neo: Choice. The problem is choice.

So, this is how that reads: the anomaly is systemic; the problem is choice.

May I back up for a mo'?...

Neo: Why am I here?

Architect: Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the Matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which, despite my sincerest efforts, I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably... here.

'Your life is the sum of a remainder... the eventuality of an anomaly... a burden assiduously avoided... not beyond a measure of control....'

The anomaly, therefore, is not plural (Sorry, AG) but it is neither Neo himself... the anomaly leads to Neo. ...How could I ever put this more succinctly than ol' Whitey?... Neo exists as the One because the One is the result of all the unbalanced equations inherent to the anomaly - the remainders which make up the anomaly. As I read it, the unbalanced equations (which by definition have remainders when they are subsequently balanced) cause fluctuations (simpler word: instabilities) in the system, which must be controlled, or else they will increasingly threaten the system itself. The remainders of these unbalanced equations must also eventually be dealt with, although it is avoided as long as possible ('assiduously'); and so, they are added up and the result is the One. The function of the One is to return to the Source and reinsert that sum of those remainders so that the primary equation is once again balanced.

Are you with me so far?

The Architect does not repeat himself, that's true. You're right about that. But I don't think your interpretation of 'repeating himself' is valid. Let's see if we can kill two agents with one bullet, so to speak....

As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probablility of disaster.

Here Whitey is saying that 'the mother' of the matrix figured out that humans needed a choice, even if they were only subconsciously aware that they had the choice. Yes, Inevitability. This means that some may be fully aware of the choice. However, with few exceptions, like Cypher for instance, I doubt that many who were fully conscious of that choice would choose the matrix over the truth... I'm not a betting man, but I would guess that not more than 10% of that 99% would be conscious of their choice, probably less. Now, this answer, to give humans a choice to accept the program or not (this much seems clear to me from the syntax), works well enough, but the flaw is that it does not work for all, 100%, only 'nearly 99%'.

Some say that this means that 'thus creating...' refers to the remaining 1+%. TheKid seems to be saying that 'thus creating...' here refers to the One. The point is that the 'otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly' might threaten the system if left uncontrolled, and therefore, the few who refuse the program, if uncontrolled, make up (or establish) a growing probability of system failure. I don't see any redundancy at all, here, even if the anomaly is the minority. The Architect says that the anomaly 'might' threaten the system, and therefore, ('Ergo') the minority 'constitute' a growing threat. ...If we're talking about the minority = the anomaly, then the Architect is merely clarifying!

Sorry, Kid. I think you have the right idea, but if you want to survive here, you have to be flexible. I myself do not think the anomaly has anything directly to do with the One, Neo, the majority OR the minority. I think it's about the choice itself -- the fact that the choice results in the equation becoming unbalanced. The remainders are the anomaly. Since the One is the sum of those remainders, it COULD be said that Neo is the anomaly, but I don't think it is entirely accurate, because Zion is also a part of the equation, and of the remainders... so the anomaly is quite a complex thing, which cannot be equated with one specific entity.

Has anyone got anything to say on the topic of my idea as follows:

Fatpie42 wrote:

Even if the one has stopped the war, there seems to be no reason why he should not return. Everyone seemed to previously suggest that his return would mean another war had broken out. It seems to me that since the one arises whenever people are escaping from the matrix there seems to be no reason, peace or not, why the one should not return. (ie. he'll have the powers, but there'll be little point in using them)

I said it earlier but no one seems to have noticed it (or at least, no one has cared about it)....

Fatpie42 wrote:

Even if the one has stopped the war, there seems to be no reason why he should not return. Everyone seemed to previously suggest that his return would mean another war had broken out. It seems to me that since the one arises whenever people are escaping from the matrix there seems to be no reason, peace or not, why the one should not return. (ie. he'll have the powers, but there'll be little point in using them)

Yeah, man. I agree wholeheartedly.... 'Will we see [Neo] again?... I suspect so.' He may or may not look like Neo, but I think the One may well come back, after the peace has lasted 'as long as it can'. Then, who knows? Maybe the matrix will truly be destroyed, and Man and Machine can truly live in peace.... the true Zion....

annaerullo wrote:

So did you mean 'it boggles the mind,' Inevitability?... Just curious.

It boggles the mind. I was just using the term loosely as something we all relate to. But all I meant really was ‘ it makes you think’.

I like your explanation, I found it helpfull.

About the ‘remainder’.

14 divided by 3 = 4 with a remainder of 2

Neo then would represent the 2 and the equation would represent 14 dived by 3, which of course will never work. There will always be a remainder... ‘which despite my sincerest efforts, I have been unable to eliminate’

This remainder (sum of) is disseminated after those that constitute its meaning are destroyed i.e. Zion. To me it’s like destroying the anomaly’s source and making its power void thus scattering the code, reinserting the prime program. So rather than actually being balanced and ‘eliminated’ is just temporarily destroyed.

Hence the rebuilding of Zion and the whole process repeating itself and emerging (One), escalating to a probability of change/disaster.

Which of course is what has happened this time, but not the feared disaster but rather ‘change’. A revolution.

Any good?