Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ?

In article <ZEs_f.264$pi6.214@dukeread12>,
"JPM III" <jpmccord DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> The problem with you is that you think YOUR WAY is the correct way, and you
> accept nothing else.
>
> I arrived here in 2003, maybe late 2002. I have been on usenet since 1995. I
> don't want to read your presumptuous, ignorant drivel again. And unless you
> attempt to get around being blocked, then I won't.
>
> Enjoy your self-righteous ignorance. I'm finished with you.

At last!


--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

>>You and I are the only ones here, Paul. :P
>
>
> Heh.


Your both wrong on that point. :-P

-Q
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In article <4aej1uFs9n62U1.DeleteThis@individual.net>,
John Coxon <john.coxon.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't see any "viral software" in M3, I see Smith taking over
> > people, something Agents can do - but he doesn't do it temporarily, he
> > copies his code to the RSI (or something like that). A virus is a
> > program that automatically propagates without manual interaction. I'm
> > quite sure each instance of Smith copies himself to a person by choice
> > and by action, not automatically. My point is that I think it's
> > misplaced to use terms from todays computers to explain events in
> > Matrix.
>
> Having said that, by the time that Artificial Intelligence is this
> advanced, we don't know if virii would start to choose their targets in
> order to spread more effectively.

But then it has evolved away from what the word "virus" defines, and
needs a new word to define the propagation.

I'd say that Smith is a program that copies it's code to the RSI's of
humans but stays connected to the original program at all times. This
means that there is still only one smith, only thousands of
input/ouput devices for that program, to use an analogy.

> It may frighten you. It certainly scares the willies out of me.

It's only a movie, you know .)




--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In article <4aej7bFs9n62U2.DeleteThis@individual.net>,
John Coxon <john.coxon.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/04/2006 00:18, JPM III wrote:
>
> >>> Because the Matrix NEEDS Neo to do what he's doing.
> >>
> >> What gives you that wild idea?
> >
> > Every single word about it in all three movies.
>
> I must concur here, this can be considered as canon and any arguments
> around it are completely pointless since it is said in the Matrix that
> Neo and Agent Smith are both part of the inherent programming of the
> Matrix, caused by the factor of choice. The architect said so in Reloaded.

Actually, he said no such thing. Not only did the Architect not
mention Smith at all in that conversation, what he said was that the
anomaly is the result of an unbalanced equation.

It's pretty simple really. If it was a function of the program, it
wouldn't be an anomaly. It's like saying that the spellchecker in Word
is an anomaly. It isn't.

But Neo isn't a function. He isn't designed or created. He is the
result of Oracles way to make the Matrix connect to the human brain.


--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In article <4afokvFs9qtgU1 RemoveThis @individual.net>,
John Coxon <john.coxon RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> I don't see any "viral software" in M3, I see Smith taking over
> >>> people, something Agents can do - but he doesn't do it temporarily, he
> >>> copies his code to the RSI (or something like that). A virus is a
> >>> program that automatically propagates without manual interaction. I'm
> >>> quite sure each instance of Smith copies himself to a person by choice
> >>> and by action, not automatically. My point is that I think it's
> >>> misplaced to use terms from todays computers to explain events in
> >>> Matrix.
> >> Having said that, by the time that Artificial Intelligence is this
> >> advanced, we don't know if virii would start to choose their targets in
> >> order to spread more effectively.
> >
> > But then it has evolved away from what the word "virus" defines, and
> > needs a new word to define the propagation.
>
> Fish evolved past what the word originally meant, but are still called
> fish.

Eh?? Ok, what fish is called fish but doesn't adhere to the definition
of fish?

"a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins
and living wholly in water"

> I would hazard a guess that humans will still be called humans
> even if we do evolve into better beings.

human being
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens,
distinguished from other animals by superior mental
development, power of articulate speech, and upright
stance.

The keyword is "homo sapiens". As long as humans are homo sapiens,
they word "human" can be used to define it.

> I think the word virus will be attributed to malicious software
> programs for a long time, mainly because the general public think of
> a virus as anything malicious which attacks a computer.

Or trojan, or spyware, or malware, or whatever. But these are all
words that define dumb software that has a set of programming and
relies on the host to have a set of functions to propagate.

"Virus" is something solitary and preprogrammed.

This is what you snipped:

I'd say that Smith is a program that copies it's code to the RSI's of
humans but stays connected to the original program at all times. This
means that there is still only one smith, only thousands of
input/ouput devices for that program, to use an analogy.

--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In article <4afoofFs9qtgU2.RemoveThis@individual.net>,
John Coxon <john.coxon.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I must concur here, this can be considered as canon and any arguments
> >> around it are completely pointless since it is said in the Matrix that
> >> Neo and Agent Smith are both part of the inherent programming of the
> >> Matrix, caused by the factor of choice. The architect said so in Reloaded.
> >
> > Actually, he said no such thing. Not only did the Architect not
> > mention Smith at all in that conversation, what he said was that the
> > anomaly is the result of an unbalanced equation.
> >
> > It's pretty simple really. If it was a function of the program, it
> > wouldn't be an anomaly. It's like saying that the spellchecker in Word
> > is an anomaly. It isn't.
> >
> > But Neo isn't a function. He isn't designed or created. He is the
> > result of Oracles way to make the Matrix connect to the human brain.
>
> He is not designed or created, per se, but the anomaly must exist
> because of the coding of the Matrix, and so it is not beyond a measure
> of control. Hence the Architect bringing Neo, inexorably, to him.

But having control over an anomaly doesn't equate the anomaly to being
a function, or necessary.

> All his speech makes it quite clear that for the Matrix to persevere in
> the way it does, "the function of the One" must continue as planned. As
> soon as Neo makes the 'wrong' choice the Matrix is thrown into chaos.

Except it isn't. The Matrix is "thrown into chaos" because of Smith,
not Neo. Not because of the anomaly. Unless you want to argue that
each anomaly "converts" an agent into what Smith is the chaos the
Matrix is in is irrelevant to the anomaly.

The Architect wants the code from Neo to build a better Matrix, hence
the reload. If Neo never got there the Matrix would continue as
always. The prophecy only exists to bring the anomaly to the Architect
and for him to use that code to improve the matrix.





--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

>>>>>> Because the Matrix NEEDS Neo to do what he's doing.
>>>>> What gives you that wild idea?
>>>> Every single word about it in all three movies.
>>> I must concur here, this can be considered as canon and any arguments
>>> around it are completely pointless since it is said in the Matrix that
>>> Neo and Agent Smith are both part of the inherent programming of the
>>> Matrix, caused by the factor of choice. The architect said so in
>>> Reloaded.
>>
>> Actually, he said no such thing. Not only did the Architect not mention
>> Smith at all in that conversation, what he said was that the anomaly is
>> the result of an unbalanced equation.
>>
>> It's pretty simple really. If it was a function of the program, it
>> wouldn't be an anomaly. It's like saying that the spellchecker in Word is
>> an anomaly. It isn't.
>>
>> But Neo isn't a function. He isn't designed or created. He is the result
>> of Oracles way to make the Matrix connect to the human brain.
>
> He is not designed or created, per se, but the anomaly must exist because
> of the coding of the Matrix, and so it is not beyond a measure of control.
> Hence the Architect bringing Neo, inexorably, to him.
>
> All his speech makes it quite clear that for the Matrix to persevere in
> the way it does, "the function of the One" must continue as planned. As
> soon as Neo makes the 'wrong' choice the Matrix is thrown into chaos.

Exactly, except... it isn't even the "wrong" choice, per se, but simply a
less probable one. But, as you paraphrased the architect, it was "not beyond
some measure of control".

The Architect's choice of words there -- "some measure" -- indicate that Neo
cannot be wholly controlled, hence the problem of choice... The Matrix must
in part rely on human choice, and since Neo carries significant weight as
the anomaly, his choice is a much greater problem for the system if he
chooses not to follow the best-case scenario that the Architect has lain
before him.
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

>>>> I don't see any "viral software" in M3, I see Smith taking over people,
>>>> something Agents can do - but he doesn't do it temporarily, he copies
>>>> his code to the RSI (or something like that). A virus is a program that
>>>> automatically propagates without manual interaction. I'm quite sure
>>>> each instance of Smith copies himself to a person by choice and by
>>>> action, not automatically. My point is that I think it's misplaced to
>>>> use terms from todays computers to explain events in Matrix.
>>> Having said that, by the time that Artificial Intelligence is this
>>> advanced, we don't know if virii would start to choose their targets in
>>> order to spread more effectively.
>>
>> But then it has evolved away from what the word "virus" defines, and
>> needs a new word to define the propagation.
>
> Fish evolved past what the word originally meant, but are still called
> fish. I would hazard a guess that humans will still be called humans even
> if we do evolve into better beings. I think the word virus will be
> attributed to malicious software programs for a long time, mainly because
> the general public think of a virus as anything malicious which attacks a
> computer.

Exactly. That's simple etymology. Sometimes nature changes faster than
language; sometimes language changes faster than nature. Sometimes we use
the same word to describe a great many similar things; sometimes we use many
different words to describe the subtlest variations of essentially the same
thing.

If something evolves beyond the term originally used to define it, then one
of two things will happen: either the term itself will evolve to represent
the evolved object, or the language (or its speakers) will evolve and create
a new term to represent the evolved object, treated as something new.
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

"John Coxon" <john.coxon RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4akis0Ft37noU2@individual.net...
> On 17/04/2006 08:48, Sandman wrote:
>
>> In article <4afoofFs9qtgU2 RemoveThis @individual.net>,
>> John Coxon <john.coxon RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But having control over an anomaly doesn't equate the anomaly to being a
>> function, or necessary.
>
> It isn't necessary in as many words, but it will be created by the
> function of choice, as the Architect says at the end of the second film.
>
>>> All his speech makes it quite clear that for the Matrix to persevere in
>>> the way it does, "the function of the One" must continue as planned. As
>>> soon as Neo makes the 'wrong' choice the Matrix is thrown into chaos.
>>
>> Except it isn't. The Matrix is "thrown into chaos" because of Smith, not
>> Neo. Not because of the anomaly. Unless you want to argue that each
>> anomaly "converts" an agent into what Smith is the chaos the Matrix is in
>> is irrelevant to the anomaly.
>
> When Neo reaches the source his code and Smith's are assimilated on his
> terms, balancing the equation. The Architect wanted that to happen on
> *his* terms at the end of Reloaded, which is why the anomaly is
> necessary - to eliminate the Smith equivalent which is the result of the
> anomaly and comes around with each new Matrix.

Right. Before Smith interacts with Neo, he is simply an "agent" of the
system. After their interaction, Smith is affected by Neo and therefore a
function of the anomaly. This makes more sense when you consider how the
Oracle describes Smith to Neo as "you, your opposite".

At that point, Smith had become the other side of the unbalanced equation,
but as Smith says in Reloaded, "he know what he had to do ... but didn't" --
be broke the rules because he had become part of the anomaly. The problem,
as the Architect put it, was choice, and Smith now had a choice to defy the
rules of the system, which he elected to do.

This is where the manipulation of Neo and Smith by the Oracle was most
important -- she is the one who said just what everyone needed to hear in
order to create the inevitable result. As the Architect described her, she
is the "intuitive program" who understood the human mind -- human choice --
well enough to manipulate them into their final positions.

The Architect expressed his displeasure about relying on the Oracle, because
according to his logic, he is far superior. It makes sense: logic always
seems superior, but logic doesn't solve the problem -- intuition does.


>> The Architect wants the code from Neo to build a better Matrix, hence the
>> reload. If Neo never got there the Matrix would continue as always. The
>> prophecy only exists to bring the anomaly to the Architect and for him to
>> use that code to improve the matrix.
>
> I see no evidence in the films to even begin to suggest that the Architect
> has improved the Matrix since the introduction of choice.

Only in the sense that he -- maybe -- uses each anomaly to reload the
system, allowing it to survive another cycle.
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In article <4akis0Ft37noU2 RemoveThis @individual.net>,
John Coxon <john.coxon RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> > But having control over an anomaly doesn't equate the anomaly to being
> > a function, or necessary.
>
> It isn't necessary in as many words, but it will be created by the
> function of choice, as the Architect says at the end of the second film.

It's a result of that, yes. Not "created" by it. "Creation" is
purposely in this context. "Side effect" would be a better word.

> >> All his speech makes it quite clear that for the Matrix to persevere in
> >> the way it does, "the function of the One" must continue as planned. As
> >> soon as Neo makes the 'wrong' choice the Matrix is thrown into chaos.
> >
> > Except it isn't. The Matrix is "thrown into chaos" because of Smith,
> > not Neo. Not because of the anomaly. Unless you want to argue that
> > each anomaly "converts" an agent into what Smith is the chaos the
> > Matrix is in is irrelevant to the anomaly.
>
> When Neo reaches the source his code and Smith's are assimilated on his
> terms, balancing the equation.

But this happened only with Neo, as far as we know, and is not proper
procedure for the anomaly. Smith taking over the Matrix is not part of
the "prophecy" or the anomaly. Neo turned out to be a very special
anomaly, and that in itself had some interesting results. But none of
that was by design or intentional or even under control.

> The Architect wanted that to happen on
> *his* terms at the end of Reloaded, which is why the anomaly is
> necessary - to eliminate the Smith equivalent which is the result of the
> anomaly and comes around with each new Matrix.

This is *pure* speculation on your part. Are you really claiming that
an agent is "mixed" with by the one on each reload and the Smith thing
wasn't at all unexpected? Either way, there is absolutely no support
for this.

> > The Architect wants the code from Neo to build a better Matrix, hence
> > the reload. If Neo never got there the Matrix would continue as
> > always. The prophecy only exists to bring the anomaly to the Architect
> > and for him to use that code to improve the matrix.
>
> I see no evidence in the films to even begin to suggest that the
> Architect has improved the Matrix since the introduction of choice.

"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."

It's clear that he's trying to eliminate the anomaly. I'd say it's
safe to assume that:

"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"

means that the Architect wants to use the code to improve the Matrix.



--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

To appease the killfiled troll:

Most of my words likely only represent my personal interpretation, but drawn
entirely from the various Matrix works overseen by the Wachowski Brothers.


>>>>> All his speech makes it quite clear that for the Matrix to persevere
>>>>> in the way it does, "the function of the One" must continue as
>>>>> planned. As soon as Neo makes the 'wrong' choice the Matrix is thrown
>>>>> into chaos.

>>>> Except it isn't. The Matrix is "thrown into chaos" because of Smith,
>>>> not Neo. Not because of the anomaly. Unless you want to argue that each
>>>> anomaly "converts" an agent into what Smith is the chaos the Matrix is
>>>> in is irrelevant to the anomaly.

>>> When Neo reaches the source his code and Smith's are assimilated on his
>>> terms, balancing the equation.

>> But this happened only with Neo, as far as we know, and is not proper
>> procedure for the anomaly. Smith taking over the Matrix is not part of
>> the "prophecy" or the anomaly. Neo turned out to be a very special
>> anomaly, and that in itself had some interesting results. But none of
>> that was by design or intentional or even under control.

> This is because all the previous anomalies have chosen to allow the
> Architect to reboot the Matrix in his white room rather than to reenter
> the Matrix and try and save humanity themselves, so the events which
> happen past that time would not have ever happened before. Neo, whilst
> not beyond a measure of control, chooses the option he's not meant to
> choose, and this means we see what happens when things are left to
> continue.

More to the point: Smith states that it's "happening exactly as before",
indicating that the system's various functions preceding the end of a cycle
are in place. The other Smith's clarification -- "well, not exactly" --
simply acknowledges that it's a new cycle with new humans and new choices
being made. Neo is one of those humans, an anomaly like the previous ones,
but not the same man as any of the previous ones by any means.

The functions of the Matrix and of the anomaly are still the same, but with
a different carrier and different "players" (humans) in the virtual world,
the chronology doesn't follow the same pattern of events. It's simply the
reload routine inherent in the programming of the Matrix that happens
exactly as before.


>>> The Architect wanted that to happen on *his* terms at the end of
>>> Reloaded, which is why the anomaly is necessary - to eliminate the Smith
>>> equivalent which is the result of the anomaly and comes around with each
>>> new Matrix.
>>
>> This is *pure* speculation on your part. Are you really claiming that an
>> agent is "mixed" with by the one on each reload and the Smith thing
>> wasn't at all unexpected? Either way, there is absolutely no support for
>> this.
>
> There has to be an opposite side of the equation, the equation trying to
> balance itself. You can't not have an opposite side of the equation,
> since the Oracle explains the Architect's purpose is to "balance the
> equation". When Neo asks her for hers, she says, "to unbalance it."

I have a different theory about this.

I see the Oracle's "unbalanc[ing]" of the equation as a disruption of the
Architect's "perfect" system, rather than simply a part of it. The Architect
had something that functioned logically, but didn't hold up. The intuitive
program he speaks of in Reloaded (the Oracle) realized the flaw of logical
perfection in a human world, and thus she manipulated the system in whatever
way she did to insert the anomaly. (How? I don't know. We just know that she
did, because the Architect pretty much says so in his Reloaded spiel.)

Someone might then ask why the Architect acknowledges an "unbalanced
equation", as if it's HIS unbalanced equation.

It is clear from the Architect's speech that nothing about his logic is
unbalanced or imperfect. He acknowledges that the anomaly was not his
creation or his idea, and his words reveal that he doesn't care for it
tainting his system all that much. His words about the purpose of the
anomaly are simply stated as what Neo is intended to be there to do. When he
answers Neo's question ("Why am I here?"), he is specifically telling Neo
his purpose, not the origin of the code he carries or why it is attacked to
him. That is, had Neo asked "why me" instead, he would have gotten a very
different answer.


> Thus, we must say there are always two halves to the equation for her to
> make sense.

For every action, there is equal and opposite reaction. It seems to me that
the anomaly in the Matrix is presented in such a way as to be a leftover
remainder at first, with no opposite. Only when it reacts with the system
can the anomaly's negative or opposite come about.

The reason?

Mathematically, an "equation" is balanced only if both sides are equal. If a
remainder is involved, then it only exists on ONE SIDE of the equation.
Think of a division equation in which the dividend is not a multiple of the
divisor. One side has the dividend and divisor, and the other side has the
quotient and some remainder. A remainder is only the last bit of excess
information on one side of an equation.

So when an anomaly first develops, it has no opposite. But as it interacts
with the system, both the anomaly (as human) and the system (as interactive
environment) evolve according to their interaction. This is simply how any
evolution takes place: some being interacting with some environment.

But the Matrix is special because it is specifically designed for the
occurrence and correction/deletion/whatever of this anomaly, hence after a
certain time of analyzing the problem, a solution is divised in which the
anomaly can be cancelled out. (I'm using a mathematical analogy here, since
that's how the Architect operates.)

The events of this chronology manifest visually within the Matrix, which are
much easier to see or understand than the mathematical operations of a
computer system. But, really, it's all a computer system, and that's what it
boils down to.
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In article <4aoo9rFtvdmhU1.DeleteThis@individual.net>,
John Coxon <john.coxon.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> > But this happened only with Neo, as far as we know, and is not proper
> > procedure for the anomaly. Smith taking over the Matrix is not part of
> > the "prophecy" or the anomaly. Neo turned out to be a very special
> > anomaly, and that in itself had some interesting results. But none of
> > that was by design or intentional or even under control.
>
> This is because all the previous anomalies have chosen to allow the
> Architect to reboot the Matrix in his white room rather than to reenter
> the Matrix and try and save humanity themselves, so the events which
> happen past that time would not have ever happened before.

Which is irrelevant, since the events that led to Smith taking over
the Matrix started long before Neo ever visited the Architect.

> > This is *pure* speculation on your part. Are you really claiming that
> > an agent is "mixed" with by the one on each reload and the Smith thing
> > wasn't at all unexpected? Either way, there is absolutely no support
> > for this.
>
> There has to be an opposite side of the equation

No, there is nothing in the movies that says that "there has to be an
opposite side of the equation". You don't even know what "the
equation" in that sentence means or what it is in reference to.

> the equation trying to balance itself.

You're only regurgitating the words from the Oracle - a person that
isn't really known of speaking in direct and clear terms.

> You can't not have an opposite side of the equation,
> since the Oracle explains the Architect's purpose is to "balance the
> equation". When Neo asks her for hers, she says, "to unbalance it."

Figuratively speaking. The Architect wants order, she wants less order
(I'm avoiding the word chaos here). It's not like they're sitting at
each end of an table with an actual "equation" in front of them with
one trying to "balance it" and the other doing the opposite.

> Thus, we must say there are always two halves to the equation for her to
> make sense.

Listen, this is the Oracle. Nothing she ever said has made much sense,
or explained very much. It's not like you can take her words at face
value and try to draw any kind of conclusions from them.

And, since you're obviously not claiming that every version of the
Matrix has had an agent gone rogue, it's irrelevant anyway.

> >>> The Architect wants the code from Neo to build a better Matrix, hence
> >>> the reload. If Neo never got there the Matrix would continue as
> >>> always. The prophecy only exists to bring the anomaly to the Architect
> >>> and for him to use that code to improve the matrix.
> >> I see no evidence in the films to even begin to suggest that the
> >> Architect has improved the Matrix since the introduction of choice.
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > It's clear that he's trying to eliminate the anomaly. I'd say it's
> > safe to assume that:
> >
> > "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"
> >
> > means that the Architect wants to use the code to improve the Matrix.
>
> Meaning he wants to reboot the Matrix using the code as there is
> evidence for him having done in the past, more a harddisk reset than
> anything else. There is no indication that the Matrix has improved since
> the first One, and so it's an unwarranted assumption to assume it has
> been improved.

So, despite his sincerest efforts, he has not only not been able to
eliminate it, he has not been able to make any progress what so ever?
Either way, you're right. It's just an assumption. But it's an
irrelevant assumption.


--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ? 

In message <pAM1g.2648$pi6.1344@dukeread12>, JAM III
<jpmccord.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> writes

>Smith states that it's "happening exactly as before",
>indicating that the system's various functions preceding the end of a cycle
>are in place. The other Smith's clarification -- "well, not exactly" --
>simply acknowledges that it's a new cycle with new humans and new choices
>being made.

.... "Well, not exactly" is self-referencing: Smith is saying that the
difference is Smith, surely?

--
Gavin Smith
 >> Stay informed about: Why neo can't escape from the 'man of train' ?