»Handling the Anomaly: An Alternate View«

When the Architect says that Neo is an "eventuality of an anomaly which despite my sincerest efforts, I have been unable to eliminate" he's letting Neo know that he is not wanted—in fact never wanted or intended, and most of all, not needed. Think about that assumption—that Neo is needed by the machines to reload the program, the potential problems with this theory are obvious (eg. "Why spend 2 movies trying to kill him?"). Consider this: "the anomaly is systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations." No anomaly == no fluctuations in the simplistic equations—and the Matrix would function properly, or at least for the better. The very existence of the anomaly is a major problem; it creates disruptions in equations. The anomaly that cannot be eliminated before it exists, needs to be within a “measure of control”, so: How to handle, the One?

Killing him is plan A, that's why Agents try to kill him, why sentinels try to kill him--the prophecy of "the One" and being led to the source (the Oracle tells us returning to the source is what happens to programs about to be deleted) for all of humanity is plan B. Plan C could be the threat of Smith--formed after it was proven typical Agents could not stop this version of the One and this One could not be fooled into deleting itself. Plan C could also be shutting down the Matrix entirely and dealing with those "levels of survival we are prepared to accept."

Something as powerful of Neo couldn't be forced into much of anything, so it’s all a clever plan created to control the anomaly. Lesser anomaly's were killed off by plan A, five anomaly's managed to get to plan B but were led into the Source trap, and now version 6.0 resisting all other controls has the potential to be "the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself."

Thoughts?

I have always wondered what's the role of the One and your hypothesis seems to make sense - and it fits either the "Real Zion" theory or the "Matrix within the Matrix" theory.

Dear assumption

I would like to state that although your theory seems very intriguing, it is “fundamentally flawed”.

Do not forget that the “anomaly” is inherent to the programming of the Matrix, systemic, and creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.

Your plan A proposes “killing Neo”, which will contradict the above statement, due to the simple fact that the “integral anomaly” can not be deleted or eradicated from the main program, because its emergence creates “fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations” preventing the system from deleting it.

Hence this integral anomaly – from the Machine point of view – or the One – from the allegedly Humans point of view – once emerged cannot be deleted. Agents are sentient programs, they must first spot this integral anomaly and the only way to do this is by eliminating any other program resembling an anomaly, this mechanism alongside others such as the Oracle serves to reveal the source of the systemic anomaly.

A program that could be eliminated would certainly not be the Anomaly.

So much for plan A. There is no Plan A. There never has been a Plan A.
There can be no plan A.

Plan B is what the Architect proposes.

Plan C is actually not a plan yet, more of a proposal, because both options – the threat of Smith or using other levels of survival – are of no benefit to the Machine.


Regrads,

atreides

If we are to believe what the Architect says, then we have to also conclude that Plan C is not an option, either, since there seems to be no benefit to the machines to allow Smith to overtake the matrix.

However, we must question the Architect's motives, as he makes it clear that there were versions of the matrix prior to the current model (with the "One" being an integral part). If a matrix existed before the "One" and was recreated after it's failure, why wouldn't the machines be able to just "reboot" the matrix in the first place? Why, then, is the "One" so important? Is the architect not telling us something important?

Dear atreides,

Your points are well understood—and upon reflection, they help me better understand what exactly my initial post was trying to convey. Please take a look at some of my thoughts after reading your reply:

The problem is choice—how many choices are big problems?

The choice of every individual to accept or reject the Matrix
The choice of every possible the One to go to the "real world"
The choice of whether or not to continue the cycle

The One is a remainder—not a probability, I think that's a very important distinction. This remainder gets created by all these googols of calculations required for the Matrix to function. So some equation—related to the choice equations because that's what first introduced the anomaly—isn't precise and it’s responsible for the anomaly. Once that equation gets executed in the code—or series of equations, whatever—the anomaly occurs. The anomaly is inherent to the programming because of an imperfect calculation (or imperfect calculations) regarding choice. Think of it as: "Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of [choice]".

I’m suggesting that when the Architect says: "You are the eventuality of an anomaly" meaning: "you are one consequence of the anomaly ", he’s telling Neo that he is only an offshoot of the anomaly rather than the whole. So killing Neo might not be killing the inherent anomaly (an impossibility), but instead: killing Neo would be stopping that consequence of it. Stopping the function of the One would make great strides towards better controlling the burden of the greater anomaly: people and their illogical choices. It would also help slow the growth of Zion which "if unchecked would constitute an escalading probability of disaster". Remember this version of the One was killed by the Agents—with a certain satisfaction I might add—and the Agents were upgraded, again to hoping kill Neo specifically.

"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." I also believe, is a threat (unlike the reality of the destruction of Zion, which will happen anyway) designed on a bad choice calculation—the whole dialogue is meant to foster detachment from anti-reality, to get Neo to focus on all of humanity and make the logical choice of saving everyone in the Matrix rather than the illogical choice of saving one woman--who would probably die anyways given the grave possibilities set forth by the architect. The Oracle told Neo he couldn’t see beyond the choices he didn’t understand when in fact, he couldn’t see beyond the choices the Machines didn't understand.

"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." I think reads as: "Which brings us here where choice, and its related calculations, get us into trouble once more—the anomaly was born from the imprecise choice equations, and now a result of those choice calculations must make one".

Sincerely,

assumption

Nothing in the world is perfect. Humans are not perfect. Machines' objective is perfection, so they minimized the problem, giving a choice that 99% accepted. But this was not enough, so from time to time machines must do the 'cleaning' and remove the imperfection from both the Matrix and the Real World(I don't believe in MiM theory).

For "perfect beings" like the machines, it is really a hard job, because they cannot understand the flutuations caused by the imperfection. So they created an 'escape plan'. They used hope against the humans(the greatest strenght, but also the greatest weakness), making people believe in the prophecy, that would lead Neo(the anomaly carrier) to the source and eliminate it.

there is a lot of problems with this theory, but the problems impulse humans to find a better solution.

@assumption

assumption wrote:

Your points are well understood—and upon reflection, they help me better understand what exactly my initial post was trying to convey.

I am much delighted in case my response could have elicited such a result, because this has been my very intention.
But to what extent did it change your opinion from the first post?

assuption wrote:

The problem is choice—how many choices are big problems? The choice of every individual to accept or reject the Matrix The choice of every possible the One to go to the "real world" The choice of whether or not to continue the cycle .... So some equation—related to the choice equations because that's what first introduced the anomaly......

You have not only updated your original post, but also added some new content, introduced some new elements, which in my opinion are somehow regarded as unnecessary branching.

I have previously discussed why choice could not be underlying reason of the anomaly. You can read it here:

matrix-explained.com...

assumption wrote:

The One is a remainder—not a probability

Are you referring to “eventuality” as “probability”? , since I can’t find any reference to “probability” neither in the Architect’s speech, nor in our discussion.
If so, in this particular case “probability” could not substitute “eventuality”, due to the fact that it changes the whole context of the speech.

But aside from “choice” being the underlying problem or not, it is irrelevant to your proposed Plan A. Plan A dealt with killing the One, or deleting the anomaly.

assumption wrote:

Remember this version of the One was killed by the Agents

Agents have not killed any version of the One. They have played their designated role in expressing the "integral anomaly".

But another semantic argument would be that Neo was not the One before being killed.

And what do you mean by killing in the Matrix? I refer to killing as deleting the codes comprising any program from the Matrix, may it be a remainder of an equation, the integral anomaly, or simply a program.

assumption wrote:

he’s telling Neo that he is only an offshoot of the anomaly rather than the whole. So killing Neo might not be killing the inherent anomaly (an impossibility), but instead: killing Neo would be stopping that consequence of it. Stopping the function of the One would make great strides towards better controlling the burden of the greater anomaly: people and their illogical choices.

You are – I suppose unconsciously, because you are revolving around the same point – avoiding the fact that if something exists in a closed system – in our case an integral anomaly-, it will impact all other parameters in the system, and eliminating its consequences will not deter it from having the same or other consequences, unless itself eliminated from the system, which in term will cause another fall of events unless the system containing this existence is terminated.

This brings us to the point that this “integral anomaly” could not be deleted from the system. The One is the embodiment of this anomaly, if merely an off shoot of the anomaly it could have been simply eradicated from the system.

Unless Neo is not the one, or the spotted anomaly is not the anomaly itself, it could be terminated.

regards,

atreides