»Architect's Speech Translated«

Here is the Architect's speech as dissected by me ...

The Architect: Hello, Neo.

The Architect knows exactly who has walked through his door.

Neo: Who are you?

Neo lacks the same level of knowledge about the being he is talking to.

The Architect: I am the Architect. I created the matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.

Neo is still just a human. And the first question he has asked ("Who are you?") is the most pressing to Neo as he expected to enter the Source not a program's chamber, but the identity of the Architect is irrelevant.

Neo: Why am I here?

Neo asks a more pressing question.

The 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 to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.

The sum of Thomas Anderson's life (i.e. Neo) is the product of a problem with the perfection of the Matrix. An anomaly exists in the system, but a system of control exists to keep it in check. So Neo finds himself in the Architects chamber.

Neo: You haven't answered my question.

While the Architect has explained the basic conditions (i.e. the existence of the anomaly and that Neo's presence in the chamber is tied to it) he has not explained why Neo is in said chamber.

The Architect: Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others.

There are Ones previous to Neo.

*The responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: "Others? What others? How many? Answer me!"*

More than one One!

The Architect: The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version.

There have been six integral anomalies (counting Neo). The Architect counts the time between the emergence of one integral anomaly to the next as a version of the Matrix. By this count, we are at the "quarter point" of the sixth version.

*Again, the responses of the other Ones appear on the monitors: "Five versions? Three? I've been lied too. This is bullshit."*

More versions of the One! Oh schnap!

Neo: There are only two possible explanations: either no one told me, or no one knows.

Neo's tone suggests that he believes the later, though obviously some knew (i.e. the Oracle) and some did not (i.e. Morpheus).

The Architect: Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.

The anomaly impacts all things within the system (i.e. the Matrix).

*Once again, the responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: "You can't control me! F*ck you! I'm going to kill you! You can't make me do anything!*

The other Neo's guess at the nature of the anomaly.

Neo: Choice. The problem is choice.

Neo states the fundamental flaw overtly. The flaw is choice.

*The scene cuts to Trinity fighting an agent, and then back to the Architect's room*

A moment of fate is looming...

The Architect: The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother.

Originally the Matrix was paradise. This however was a monumental failure. (It seems to me that it would be a failure because it would have been overwhelmed with the problem of choice, what is heaven after all but the ability to choose whatever you want whenever you want?). So the Architect redesigned the Matrix to fit a more vulgar human existence. (This would mean one with slavery and oppression, a strict rule of control introduced over the flaw of choice, however, attempting to wholly repress the flaw equally exacerbated it). The new grotesque Matrix failed. An intuitive program designed to explore the human psyche struck on the solution, there-by gaining the title "Mother of the Matrix".

Neo: The Oracle.

Neo clarifies that the program the Architect is referring to is the program he knows as the Oracle.


The Architect: Please.

The Architect objects to this ostentatious nick-name.

The Architect: 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 probability of disaster.

Choice was channeled and subverted while still being allowed. The ability to exercise choice was granted at a nearly unconscious level by allowing humans to leave for Zion if they searched hard enough. This usually produced humans who were willing to remain in the Matrix rather than search for and enter Zion. However, some exercised the choice and left. As more leave, more leave, creating an escalating amount of exercised choice and escalating the anomaly. The Matrix would end (as it had before) most likely in disaster.

Neo: This is about Zion.

Neo understands that the anomaly (the choice to leave) is expressed in the existence of Zion. Zion is the physical manifestation and result of the choice granted by the machines.

The Architect: You are here because Zion is about to be destroyed. Its every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existence eradicated.

The Architect seemingly confirms that Zion is the phsyical manifestation of the anomaly. This anomaly is about to be, once again, repressed. The Architect is stating a why, but not the why. The Architect reminds Neo what Neo already knows: Neo was compelled down this path because the machines have threatened to destroy Zion and are close to accomplishing it.

Neo: Bullshit.

Neo does not believe that Zion will be so easily destroyed.

*The responses of other Neos appear on the monitors: "Bullshit!"*

The Architect: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

Though Neo claims to doubt it, it is an inevitable fact. It has happened five times before, and will happen once again. The repression of the anomaly is as much a part of the system of subliminal choice as the anomaly (i.e. the choice of Zion) itself.

*Scene cuts to Trinity fighting an agent, and then back to the Architects room.*

Fate draws closer...

The Architect: The function of the One is now to return to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program. After which you will be required to select from the matrix 23 individuals, 16 female, 7 male, to rebuild Zion. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix, which coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race.

The One will be returned to the Source (interesting word that, "returned," so he's been there before?). After returning to the Source, the code he carries will be spread like seeds (disseminated). Neo will then be allowed to choose a group of males and females to rebuild Zion. (While this may refer to the city, I also assume it refers to rebuilding the choice of Zion with-in the Matrix, a new rebellion. Rebuilding the choice will largely be the work of the humans, rebuilding the city will largely be the work of the machines as it would be beyond the scale of 23 human beings' capabilities.) If Neo does not accept his return to the Source and seperation from the code, Zion and every human in the Matrix will die.

Neo: You won't let it happen, you can't. You need human beings to survive.

Neo believes that the Matrix is a requirement for machine life.

The Architect: There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. However, the relevant issue is whether or not you are ready to accept the responsibility for the death of every human being in this world.

The Architect assures him that the Matrix is not a requirement for machine survival. And reminds Neo that the issue at hand is whether or not Neo will accept his fate, or allow the total destruction of the human race.

*The Architect presses a button on a pen that he is holding, and images of people from all over the matrix appear on the monitors*

The Architect reminds Neo of what he is gambling with.

The Architect: It is interesting reading your reactions. Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the one. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-a-vis, love.

The integral anomalies that preceded Neo (the word "others" suggest they were not Neo himself repeated five times) were designed. (Or does the Great Architect merely assume design in everything, even that which is the outcome of determinent events?) The integral anomalies were designed to have a definite attachment to humanity and a sense of responsibility to the race. This attachment helps to ensure that the One will choose (because the choice to reject the system, the anomaly, must be allowed for) to accept the final destination of the One (his/her return to the Source and seperation from the code). The rest of the designed integral anomalies experienced this attachment and responsibility as a general compassion for all beings. Neo experiences it more specifically as a love of Trinity.

*Images of Trinity fighting the agent from Neo's dream appear on the monitors*

Fate, it would seem, has arrived...

Neo: Trinity.

The Architect: Apropos, she entered the matrix to save your life at the cost of her own.

Neo: No!

The Architect: Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end. There are two doors. The door to your right leads to the source, and the salvation of Zion. The door to the left leads back to the matrix, to her, and to the end of your species. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you're going to do, don't we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple, and obvious truth: she is going to die, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.

The flaw of choice creates the necessity for the Path of the One, and the choice to accept the Path (the anomaly) is ironically the Path's final destination.

Neo must now choose. Reject the system and retain his own will, or accept the system to return to the Source, causing the Matrix to reboot which will save humanity, but seal Trinity's fate.

The Architect enjoys watching the response in Neo. Neo is allowed the choice, but is he making it? It seems that past tendency and chemical need fuel what he now obviously will do. And even though Neo will try, he will fail. Trinity is going to die.

*Neo walks to the door on his left*

The Architect: Humph. Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

Hope is a delusion. But if you can visualize something, you can actualize it. However, if you allow yourself to get caught up in a dream, you blind yourself to the reality of a situation.

Neo: If I were you, I would hope that we don't meet again.

Neo is affirming that hope has nothing to do with it. He knows that his power grows with every actualization he makes, and that after he leaves this chamber, he will be more powerful than before for having put the flaw (choice) to full use.

The Architect: We won't.

The Architect has no intention of seeing Neo again.

End Scene

don't think you'll mind continuing our 'ones' conv on this page.

what do you make of the fact that Neo said on the other screens in the room 'There were five ones before me?' if you stick to your 'this is neo version 7' theory. don't tell me Neo didn't understand. i'm sure that Archie would have made sure he understood his choice perfectly.

Maybe it was more like this:
bn=before the neo program, M=Matrix solution as we know it

bn.1 - paradise - sucked because people wanted to wake up
bn.2 - again crashed and burned
M.1 - created w/ the anomoly in mind, thus the emergence of the first one would be here. Neo.1 - Choose door to rebuild/repopulate Zion after it is destroyed.
M.2 - Neo.2, Chose door to rebuild/repopulate zion after its destroyed.
M.3 - Neo.3, Chose door to rebuild/repopulate zion after its destroyed.
M.4 - Neo.4, Chose door to rebuild/repopulate zion after its destroyed.
M.5 - Neo.5, Chose door to rebuild/repopulate zion after its destroyed.
M.6 - Neo.6 (our Neo), Spoke w/ Archie (with this model it would be the sixth time they've destroyed Zion. this matches w/ what Archie said) Chose door to save Trin.

Thus our Neo is Neo.6 and he's the sixth Neo. I guess the difference is you have to say that the Matrix as we know it was created w/ the Neo program (the anomoly) to be initiated at some pointe. He started counting there and thus my list of the versions above.

Thoughts?

Choice creates the anomaly.

Aquin wrote:

don't think you'll mind continuing our 'ones' conv on this page.

Not at all

Aquin wrote:

what do you make of the fact that Neo said on the other screens in the room 'There were five ones before me?'

Actually, the Neo's on the screen count backward starting with one saying five before me. Since the Neo's on the screen are counting down, I take their responses as the responses of past Neo's. So, had this Neo said anything (which he does not), he would have said-- "There were six Ones before me?"

Aquin wrote:

...with this model it would be the sixth time they've destroyed Zion. this matches w/ what Archie said...

I'm not debating that this time is the sixth time they destroyed Zion. Zion was either not present during the time of the original integral anomaly or was not destroyed after his/her emergence.

What Archie said was "from...to" not simply "at". If he counted "at" the emergence of each integral anomaly, then the sixth version would equal sixth integral anomaly. But he specifically says "from...to" and I do not believe he lies (only subverts truth). From...to requires a starting point and a destination. So each anomaly would be a from or a to, but each version would be an ellipsis. This would make 7 integral anomalies, and six versions.

I have this problem too, but make sure to distinguish between integral anomaly and the anomaly. The anomaly is choice, the integral anomaly is the one who exercises that choice to a nth degree.

Aquin wrote:

Thus our Neo is Neo.6 and he's the sixth Neo.

Change that to the sixth One and I fully agree. He just isn't the sixth integral anomaly.

Aquin wrote:

I guess the difference is you have to say that the Matrix as we know it was created w/ the Neo program (the anomoly) to be initiated at some pointe. [The Architect] started counting there and thus my list of the versions above.

I fully agree with this part, its just that the statement of from...to indicates an integral anomoly which preceeded the Matrixes designed with Ones in mind.

Quote:

The anomaly is choice...

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

FROM one anomaly TO another in which case this is the sixth. But does he mean that Neo is the "to" or the "from"

If its the "from" he's the sixth, if its the "to" then he's the seventh.

Also, I think the tvs in Archie's chamber are possible reactions of our Neo. I don't buy into they're the other Ones for various reasons; namely, all the past one's don't look like Neo. He's cuter than the O thought.

There's too darn many of 'em. Much more than 5 or 6.

intell wrote:

There's too darn many of 'em. Much more than 5 or 6.

Tru

intell wrote:

And as is the current custom, if someone wants to know the distance between 2 points, it is understood that the measuring actually start at one of these points.... The same with time. How long from one event until another. It is again understood that the time begins at one of the events.

Exactly Two points = one distance. Two events = one period of time. Two integral anomalies = one version. You seem to be agreeing with me, but not?

intell wrote:

I doubt the intent was that the Architect depart from the normal way of understanding the expression.

Agreed

intell wrote:

Quote: The anomaly is choice... How do you arrive at this conclusion?

It's what Neo says (and I agree with him).--

The Architect: Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.

Neo: Choice. The problem is choice.

The anomaly creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations is a problem. The problem is choice.

The Architect then confirms this here--

The Architect: Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end. There are two doors.

The fundamental flaw (i.e. anomaly) is expressed as the beginning (the reason there is a One) and end (what the One now must do). There are two doors (i.e. a choice). The fundamental flaw, the anomaly, is choice.

Aquin wrote:

Also, I think the tvs in Archie's chamber are possible reactions of our Neo. I don't buy into they're the other Ones for various reasons; namely, all the past one's don't look like Neo.

I don't think they are specific recordings of past Neo's either; however, if they are reactions of this Neo, then he's even more confused than anybody. They count down from five to one. Five before me... four before me... three etc. This suggests that they are to be taken as the responses of those informed in previous cycles. (The One before Neo said five, the One before that said four, the One before that... etc.)

Aquin wrote:

FROM one anomaly TO another in which case this is the sixth. But does he mean that Neo is the "to" or the "from" If its the "from" he's the sixth, if its the "to" then he's the seventh.

Now that is an interesting wrinkle if taken this way-- Some people say that Christ did not "come" when he was born, his official "arrival" was when he finally entered Jerusalem on a donkey. So if Neo's "emmergence" is being counted as his arrival in the Architect's chamber (not simply his birth, or his original ingesting of the red pill, etc.), then the Architect is referring to the version of the Matrix that Neo has just come to initiate as the sixth version (not the "version" we have just experienced). In which case, Neo would be the sixth integral anomaly.

I don't think that's right, but I could definitely see it.

Quote:

Exactly Two points = one distance. Two events = one period of time. Two integral anomalies = one version. You seem to be agreeing with me, but not?

Factual error.
1. Two events = two periods of time. Remember there is no year name 0 BCE or CE.

2. It seems like you're saying that there was no matrix until first there was an anomaly caused by it. Now I'm starting to understand how your brain works.

Quote:

The anomaly creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations is a problem.

So how could it predate the matrix?

Quote:

So if Neo's "emmergence" is being counted as his arrival in the Architect's chamber (not simply his birth, or his original ingesting of the red pill, etc.), then the Architect is referring to the version of the Matrix that Neo has just come to initiate as the sixth version (not the "version" we have just experienced). In which case, Neo would be the sixth integral anomaly

Once again, are you saying that a one "emerged" to start the original matrix? I think you're reading a bit much into the Archie's words. Let's move onto the next subject.

What the anomaly is not
I ask why do say the anomaly is choice. Your answer is:

Quote:

The Architect: Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations. Neo: Choice. The problem is choice.

The problem is choice but it is not the anomaly. They are not the same, capt.

Quote:

The fundamental flaw, the anomaly, is choice.

Once again I agree the flaw and the problem is choice. But the anomaly is different.

'Choice is a problem. The anomaly is a problem. Therefore the anomaly and choice are the same things.'
This is an example of fallacious inductive reasoning.

The TV screens

Quote:

if they are reactions of this Neo, then he's even more confused than anybody.

Neo didn't have these reactions. The confusion is with AI trying to predict them.

What the anomaly is
I'm of the humble opinion that the Arc's words went to the effect that adding choice to the matrix (a solution that worked but he said is fundamentally flawed. Neo guessed right that it (the design of the matrix) is a problem. This is confirmed by the Archetect continuing on the subject where he brings up the Oracle's role. Then in clear terms, he said that it created "the otherwise contradictory anomaly".

So if choice creates the anomaly, what is the anomaly?
If, though, choice is the anomaly, what kind of choice would be anomalous?

HINT: Which door in his office would the Arch consider anomalous?

intell wrote:

Factual error. 1. Two events = two periods of time. Remember there is no year name 0 BCE or CE.

This contradicts what you yourself just said--

intell wrote:

And as is the current custom, if someone wants to know the distance between 2 points, it is understood that the measuring actually start at one of these points.... The same with time. How long from one event until another. It is again understood that the time begins at one of the events.

If we change integral anomalies to o'clocks and versions to hours, then how many hours are there between 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock. If we change versions to years as you have done, then how many years are there between 1 c.e. and 7 c.e.?

intell wrote:

2. It seems like you're saying that there was no matrix until first there was an anomaly caused by it.

Ah, well then that would be confusing. No, the Architect indicates there were at least two Matrixes without a "The One." These he apparently does not count as "versions" of the Matrix. These earliest two presumably were more like beta runs. They were the perfect Matrix, and the grotesque Matrix. That he disregards these two as versions is evident no matter which way you take the statement "from...to" in that both were created and destroyed without a the One presenting itself. It is only with the Oracle's Matrix that the integral anomaly seems to have been introduced.

The Architect: The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me because it required a lesser mind, or perhaps a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother.

Neo: The Oracle.

The Architect: Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% 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 probability of disaster.

The statements in red above illustrate the three Matrixes prior to the institution of the Matrix as we know it. In programming speak it would perhaps look something like this. Matrix 1 beta--Matrix 2 beta --Matrix 3 beta-- Matrix 3.1 (the first Matrix with a standardized One and the Matrix in which the Architect begins to count as "versions" indicating the constant need for updating and revising-- i.e. version 3.1, version 3.2, version 3.3 and so forth)

intell wrote:

What the anomaly is not I ask why do say the anomaly is choice. Your answer is: Quote: The Architect: Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly's systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations. Neo: Choice. The problem is choice. The problem is choice but it is not the anomaly. They are not the same, capt.

How so? It would seem to me that Neo must say "The problem is choice" in response to the Architect's statement for a reason. If the anomaly is not choice, then why is Neo suddenly blurting out this (by those terms) off topic statement?

intell wrote:

Quote: The fundamental flaw, the anomaly, is choice. Once again I agree the flaw and the problem is choice. But the anomaly is different.

How so?

intell wrote:

The TV screens Quote: if they are reactions of this Neo, then he's even more confused than anybody. Neo didn't have these reactions. The confusion is with AI trying to predict them.

Okay, then that still negates that Neo is stating there were 5 previous integral anomalies.

inell wrote:

What the anomaly is I'm of the humble opinion that the Arc's words went to the effect that adding choice to the matrix (a solution that worked but he said is fundamentally flawed. Neo guessed right that it (the design of the matrix) is a problem.

I don't see anywhere that Neo mentions the design of the Matrix. Please show me this.

intell wrote:

This is confirmed by the Archetect continuing on the subject where he brings up the Oracle's role. Then in clear terms, he said that it created "the otherwise contradictory anomaly".

Exactly. The contradictory anomaly. The contradiction would be that the solution to choice is to allow choice.

intell wrote:

If, though, choice is the anomaly, what kind of choice would be anomalous?

Any choice. Choice is conter productive to a balanced equation. But it is not beyond a measure of control. So having the Ones predestined for a specific Path helps guide the anomaly to the least of all possible anomalous outcomes.

I think i'm going to have to concede, Capt. I worked w/ a nuclear mathemation yesterday and we're on our 7th anomoly (ok - it was just me and a friend, but we came to the same conclusion). As Yoda would say, 'Right-o you are'.

Biggest Edit Ever:
I was just recalculating:
Archie said that he counts from the emergence of one anom to the other in which case this is the sixth version.

Version1, then first anom; Version2, then anom2; - Version6, then six anom (which is our version, thus making 5 before neo)

I guess what i've learned here is it depends on how you count the begining. I'm just confusing myself

You had it, then dropped it. Go back to that years thing. How do we count years? From the emmergence of one January 1st to the next. So if it's been exactly six years, how many January 1st's are there?

January 1st 2001--January 1st 2002 (1 year, 2 January 1sts)/January 1st 2002--January 1st 2003 (2 years, 3 January 1sts)/January 1st 2003--January 1st 2004 (3 years, 4 January 1sts)/January 1st 2004--January 1st 2005 (4 years, 5 January 1sts)/January 1st 2005--January 1st 2006 (5 years, 6 January 1sts)/January 1st 2006--January 1st 2007 (6 years, 7 January 1sts).

Count through the above, and you'll see it works out. Now, you had a more convincing point with your "is Neo from or to?" When the Architect reffers to "this" as the Sixth version, does he mean the version we are now entering or the one we have been in? If he means the one we are now entering, that changes things a bit.

"This is about Zion."

Alright Aquin, I can see it now using this "is Neo from or to?" question. So it is I who must concede. It works out like this...

1st Integral Anomaly (I.A.) emmerges
1st Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber
Zion is destroyed for the 1st Time
Matrix is "rebooted" for the 1st time
2nd I.A. emmerges
Version 1 ends
2nd Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber
Zion is destroyed for the 2nd Time
Matrix is "rebooted" for the 2nd time
3rd I.A. emmerges
Version 2 ends
3rd Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber
Zion is destroyed for the 3rd Time
Matrix is "rebooted" for the 3rd time
4th I.A. emmerges
Version 3 ends
4th Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber
Zion is destroyed for the 4th Time
Matrix is "rebooted" for the 4th time
5th I.A. emmerges
Version 4 ends
5th Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber
Zion is destroyed for the 5th Time
Matrix is "rebooted" for the 5th time
6th I.A. emmerges (Neo)
Version 5 ends
6th Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber ...

And this is where we are at when the Architect delivers his speech to Neo. My problem was in correllating the reboots with the versions. If it were years, then we would be in the spring of the 6th year (i.e. 2006), not December 31st of the 6th year (i.e. heading into 2007).

It totally makes sense now. Thanks Aquin

Quote:

So a timeline-- 1st Integral Anomaly (I.A.) emmerges 1st Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber Zion is destroyed for the 1st Time Matrix is "rebooted" for the 1st time 2nd I.A. emmerges Version 1 ends 2nd Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber Zion is destroyed for the 2nd Time Matrix is "rebooted" for the 2nd time 3rd I.A. emmerges Version 2 ends 3rd Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber Zion is destroyed for the 3rd Time Matrix is "rebooted" for the 3rd time 4th I.A. emmerges Version 3 ends 4th Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber Zion is destroyed for the 4th Time Matrix is "rebooted" for the 4th time 5th I.A. emmerges Version 4 ends 5th Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber Zion is destroyed for the 5th Time Matrix is "rebooted" for the 5th time 6th I.A. emmerges (Neo) Version 5 ends 6th Integral Anomaly enters Archies Chamber ... And this is where we are at when the Architect delivers his speech to Neo.

Hmmm. I'm impressed.

I've revised my OP accordingly to state that Neo is the sixth integral anomaly.

Hey that's cheatin'!

intell wrote:

Hey that's cheatin'!

Smith: Oh, no, no, no. No, it's not fair.

Quote:

It would seem to me that Neo must say "The problem is choice" in response to the Architect's statement for a reason. If the anomaly is not choice, then why is Neo suddenly blurting out this (by those terms) off topic statement?

You really have to understand what is being discussed up to this point and that involves more than a mere line-by-line examination. What had Archie been talking about up to now. Why Neo is here, right? A flaw in the matrix's programming, yes? This flaw causes what is called an "anomaly" that Thomas Anderson's life is the eventuality of...<insert shameless plug to Gina Rink's op in "7/7 The Future">...

Thomas Anderson can not be the anomaly. Why? Because the Architect just said that he is the eventuality of the anomaly. The effect can not also be the cause. That would not make sense.

Is choice the anomaly? Not according to this conversation because the Architect said that the matrix was accepted by "test subjects...as long as they were given" an anomaly. Oops. That's not what is said. "as long as they were given a choice. "This answer functioned." But... "it was...flawed". Why? "thus creating the otherwise contradictory anomaly". Choice can't be the anomaly according to this, because adding it to the matrix, creates the anomaly. The cause, this time cannot be the effect. That would not make sense either.

So what is the anomaly? Here's a summary to aid in the correct understanding. (where >> = "leads to")

First 2 matrixes failed>>
Give those in it a choice>>
An anomaly contradictory to the reason behind having matrices>>
Neo>>
This conversation in the Arc's chamber>>

Hmm. Well 2 doors, where the "fundamental flaw" / choice is "untimately expressed" / proven to be a problem to all concerned. And just in case Neo (or the audience) still didn't get it, "As you so adequately put it, 'the problem is choice.'"

This Conversation went pretty DEEP

you have to remember that the prvious 5 ones were affermation designed to fascilate the function of the one. But the 6th one was different, he was human and with that comes feelings,

The Architect: Humph. Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

intell wrote:

Thomas Anderson can not be the anomaly. Why? Because the Architect just said that he is the eventuality of the anomaly. The effect can not also be the cause. That would not make sense.

Absolutely correct. Anderson as Neo is the integral anomaly, but not the "the anomaly." (This becomes important again at the end of this post when we repeat the Architect's great revealing of the anomaly as both beginning and end).

intell wrote:

Is choice the anomaly? Not according to this conversation because the Architect said that the matrix was accepted by "test subjects...as long as they were given" an anomaly.

In fact he did. The problem of choice was not an anomaly until it was given. Remember, the systemic anomaly is only inherent to the post Oracle-solution Matrixes-> While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly... If you're saying "bullsh*t," then read on--

intell wrote:

Oops. That's not what is said. "as long as they were given a choice. "This answer functioned." But... "it was...flawed". Why? "thus creating the otherwise contradictory anomaly".

An anomaly was created, one with a "contradictory" nature.

Contradictory: Involving, of the nature of, or being a contradiction.

The contradictory nature would be that choice is both the anomaly and a solution to it. Keep reading->

intell wrote:

Choice can't be the anomaly according to this, because adding it to the matrix, creates the anomaly.

Choice was always present in one form or another, it was how it was applied by the Oracle that allowed it to function with-in the Matrix and simultaneously created the anomaly.

intell wrote:

The cause, this time cannot be the effect. That would not make sense either.

And yet, that is what the Architect indicates--

Architect: Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw [i.e. the systemic anomaly-- Don't believe me? Keep reading->] is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end [Okay, here we go folks, the anomaly revealed is->]. There are two doors [i.e. a choice].

Choice, it is the quintessential flaw of the Matrix, simultaneously the source of its insured stability.

Edit: Alright, this is enough of an edit to need a new post. I think I'm catching your drift, intell. The anomaly is a specific choice (the choice to accept or reject the Matrix as manifested by Zion). The problem is choice in general.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Edit: Alright, this is enough of an edit to need a new post. I think I'm catching your drift, intell. The anomaly is a specific choice (the choice to accept or reject the Matrix as manifested by Zion). The problem is choice in general.

Actually, yeah. Is this notion supported. Hmmm. Let me see...

"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."

An anomaly is something that goes agains the norm, I forgot to add.

But anywho, you get my drift.