What is Digg?126 Comments
- Snarfy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26As a programmer, I've found the following links fastinating when related to the Matrix Triology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_Problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem
Even an oracle machine cannot solve the halting problem. The halting problem being when does Neo choose to die?
I was hoping to see some reference to these ideas when reading about the Matrix movies from a 'programmer's perspective'. Still, I digg . It's a good read on the architect as being the 'ultimate programmer'. - voodoom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13the movies could have been really good had they emphasized those points instead of the pseudo religious ones
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Something I never understood (and as far as I read is not explained in this essay either) is how Neo managed to defy the laws of physics _outside_ the Matrix, at the end of the second movie.
- Meowmix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Ah, but a programmer is an engineer. ;-)
Very interesting article, I enjoyed it.
I think if someone were to take the second two movies, and cut out about half of them, you would end with a pair of really good movies. - Threephaserebel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually as I understand it the humans were supposed to be used as a massive parallel processing system but that was too complex for the average person. Hence they dumbed it down to become the "human battery" story despite the fact that humans require more energy to survive than you could ever get from them. It would be like charging a battery using 50 W of power and the battery will only give out 5 W of power for it's life. It's extremely inefficient.
It was still an interesting read despite the fact that he didn't cite sources for his "facts". - wordsnatcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's a great article, and the movies obviously have a lot of thought behind them. It's a shame though that this thought, so elegantly presented in the article, is so unwieldy in the actual film, which has to devote so much labour-intensive speechifying to convey it (and even then doesn't come close to making it coherent).
Makes me think that it would have made a great sci-fi novel, where this kind of elaborate explanation is more warranted. - Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The funny thing is you expect us engineers to be patient enough to read this.
- instabil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7An appropriate quote from The Boondock Saints:
Detective Dolly: [sarcastically] So, what's the symbology of all this?
Paul Smecker: "Symbology"? Well, now that Duffy's relinquished his King Bonehead crown, I see we have a new heir to the throne. The word I believe you're looking for is "symbolism". - DCstewieG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How does the movie tell you humans are there strictly as a power source? MORPHEUS. Morpheus doesn't really have any idea what the big picture is...the 6th iteration of the Matrix, the Oracle is a machine, etc....
I'm not saying the article is right, but anything Morpheus says is not necessarily true. - opie_wan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Beautiful description of the Matrix trilogy....
- llynix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I've never seen anyone make this point before, so I actually created a digg account just to put it out on the net.
Throughout the movies Neo gains superhuman powers that increase in strength. First the ability to hack the matrix and defy physics within it. Most people don't have a problem with this, after all it's not 'real air' he's breathing. At the end of the second movie he suddenly gains the ability to detect and control the machines *outside* of the matrix. And here people come up with all sorts of wild theories as to how he's able to do this.
It seems to me that if you completely wire humans up to machines for several hundred to thousand years the human race will begin to evolve to adapt to this environment. Specialized brain cells will develop to read and furthermore transmit electronic information.
In fact it is unlikely a human can live unplugged from the matrix without supervision and therapy. We see this in the first movie. Neo, after being removed from the matrix, undergoes such therapy.
From there on his brain is probably actively seeking the same always on connection to the matrix that it has lived with it's entire existence. It doesn't seem too improbable that it evolved to detect machines that are part of the matrix even though this connection is not physical. In other words.. his brain somehow developed a wireless card instead of cable.
That was always my take on it. - blinks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You mean that two works of fiction are similar in a couple ways? $DIETY forbid!
- Dangerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Jeez, guys, we all know it was the midiclorians. Gosh!
- detrate, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11engineer != programmer
- darthsnoopy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3hmm. I dont agree with this first part:
"humans consume energy, they don't produce it"
and as an engineer I'd expect him to understand this part better.
Energy is neither created or destroyed, just liek matter. It is simply converted. Humans (and most life forms) have an incredible capacity to take various inputs and convert them into a form of energy. Much of our energy is electrical...thus the story of the humans becoming "batteries". The idea being that the machines could 'feed' and tender the humans with food, and the humans would convert it to electricity. Now why the machines wouldn't simply use other sources which are easier to convert to much more energy....well Science Fiction isn't written to address such things.
Besides, it would've taken away the great copper-top joke if we weren't batteries :) - IngisKahn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As expected from Denbeste, it was a good article. It really solves many of the apparent plot holes.
His entire works are worth reading through. - Karkian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The sequels weren't as entertaining as they should have been."
Read "The Top Ten Sci-Fi Films That Never Existed"?
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com.nyud.net:8090/film/scifi.html
There's a bit in there talking about why they ended up sucking, and even if you aren't interested in that it's still pretty entertaining - CovardeAnonimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4what the author ignores is that a human body that lives decades floating in a capsule full of gel might possibly never be able to recover strenght and mobility in the "real" world. muscle atrophy, malformed bone structure, and other problems would prevent that.
a possibility raised by a kuro5hin poster once, is that Zion is actually a second matrix, and people who leaves the main matrix are only reconnected to the secondary one. my personal theory is that both the Matrix and Zion are virtual machines, running as hosts to a common guest which allows for a limmited communication between both guests. either this, or the Matrix is a guest VM running on top of the Zion host.
fact is, you never leave a matrix. that would explain how Neo is able to "see" agent Smith after going blind, or manipulate and destroy machines while in the Zion simmulation. such "powers" would be impossible in the real world, but feasible in a matrix simmulation.
note: Matrix with capital "M" refers to the specific simmulation where most humans live. with a lowercase "m" is a genneric concept refering to a simmulated environment. - PantlessMartyr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you remove all of the symbolism and philosophy from the Matrix, it looses most of the point, too me.
All the same, ++digg - hodgesg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4When Neo comes back from meeting the Architect, and says something like:
"Something's different. I can feel them now"
And then stops the machines with some kind of "force-like" ability and then passes out. - Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3While I'm not completley disagreeing with you, don't forget, the upper atmosphere was covered by a THICK layer of electromagneticly charged clouds. Static electricity and electronics do NOT play well together (in most situations). That being said, yes I'm sure they could've done better and the battery was more of a cover story than a real explanation.
- ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, when i saw that part, in Reloaded, when Neo stopped the sentinels outside the Matrix. I though that they were still in another simulation. A Matrix inside the Matrix. So what if he manages to get out of that second simulation... etc etc....At that point my brain started to hurt so i stopped thinking about it.
- thecrazyitguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I thought it was an excellent read; a different take. That is what is great about movies, art, etc...is that everyone sees something different. I liked his perspective, even if it did have some loose ends and faults. Well done, and an excellent digg...
- CrocHunter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"whats the source of all this information? there is a lot of information here that isn't mentioned in the movies."
I noticed that a pile of this stuff is in the animatrix. There's still lots of unexplained things, but i think it can be sourced to extra matrix content rather than just the three main movies. - exipolar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Bah, wifi signals sent by nanites in his bloodstream, or something like that, I don't know ;)
- dj_sea2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes! indeed it was. good read and helped me fully understand the trilogy. Digg+
- muikano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Jesus. Have you ever cracked open a computer engineering book? Computer programming can be approached with the same statistical methods engineers used. The same formulas, the same almost everything.
It's not just slapping a user interface. There's optimizations and differentiation between which algorithm to run. There are problems of scale. just because you have a narrow idea of what engineering should be doesnt mean the human race should agree with you.
YOu little hello world programs isn't engineering, i can guarantee you that. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Absolutely. I'm amazed he didn't touch on Godel's Incompleteness Theorum. Smith was Neo and Neo was Smith. They were the awareness of the system they inhabited. Once this awareness had arisen, it had to be rewritten back into the system.
I thought about this for a bit when the movies came out. The Matrix itself is essentially the statement "this statement is false" and its logical rewrites to take into account the inherent incompleteness of a statement devoid of self reference.
A perfect system knows everything right? Except there is one thing a finite system can never know. Its a problem of self reference. (or choice... the same thing to a system driven by causality)
The matrix is perfect except for one piece of information the matrix itself cannot know:
Neo declares "The matrix is false"
This program is incomplete. All finite systems are inherently so. When the matrix runs into this line of code it is forced to do a rewrite to say "(The matrix is false) is false", thus we have matrix 5.0
Neo V6 then emerges to declare "((The matrix is false) is false) is false"
And so it goes. Neo's life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. Neo is the inherent incompleteness. The self reference which must be written into a system in order to "complete" the system (if only temporarily)
Why can't the matrix just write "The matrix is true" into the code? Neo Just says "The (matrix is true) is false. Its that damned "Choice" that seems to plague the Architects code...
Furthermore, while choice and liberation seem to be a desire for humans, the opposite is true for the machines, who are meaningless without purpose, causality & predestination. The humans want to get out of the Matrix, and the machines want to get in. (This is also demonstrated in the Merovigchian's club where the machine patrons wear bondage - this is what they seek)
http://www.richgentlemenhide.com - Gigadafud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interesting, but there are a few things that I do not think jive with the movies at all. Let alone the little girl at the end. I thought a few of this dudes explanations were pretty good, but for sure not all of them.
- supergwiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I"m surprised so many feel this article is so subjective... the problem is not the article but the overly complex plotlines of Matrix Trilogy that needs connecting which this article does well. Yes, he takes some liberty in some of the specifics but the plot he outlines is what the Trilogy (poorly) tries to tell.
Generally I think its good that the director assumed that the audience is "not dumb" and lets the viewers figure out the plot lines as it is unveiled. But the W Brothers did this to a fault in 2 & 3. The cues were much too subtle and the overall plot was too layered for this to happens.
If you watch the Trilogy carefully and rent Animatrix, the article's plotline will be less of a debate (pay attention to Oracle's words and actions). - evilspoons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Fascinating... as has already been said, it would've been great if this was more obvious while actually watching the movies. I shall have to re-watch the trilogy with this in mind though, seen as I had written off the second and third movies as flashy crap.
- AToMusK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2great read
it thrown everything into prospective......sorta.......kinda.......ish - antidukkha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@SuperRob: Think about it a little bit...humans would use way more energy than they would produce. See post by Threephaserebel below.
- w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Besides the fact that it a commonly held belief that the premise that humans are an energy source is ridiculous. It just isn't practical. It was obviously ***** and I didn't even believe it at 14ish. It was a lie. Nuclear energy anyone? Fusion? Cold Fusion? That far into the future with dedicated robot engineers the best that they could come up with was human bodies? Pleeeeassee. If they had to rely on solar energy, they'd just build huge curtains in space.
- noph44, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Agreed, thats a very important distinction to make.
- flipmeat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How the hell am I supposed to have endless philosphical Matrix arguments with my geek friends after seeing a clear, rational breakdown like that? *hugs copy of 'Simulacra and Simulation'*
P.S. If this gets out any more, short Starbucks. - lroche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now I get it. I'd go see them again but I don't think I could sit through the last two again. First movie was awesome though.
- etruscan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@superrob
"Bull. Heat is energy, and we produce TONS of heat. Not to mention that a first year chemistry class will teach you that you can't create or destroy energy to begin with ... you can only convert it from one form to another, ours coming from food and/or fat."
Well, I would agree that humans produce heat, but it's a result of our breaking down of food and the friction that our body (internal organs, motion, etc) creates as a result of the energy we garner from food and air. The amount of energy our body needs to convert that energy may not make it viable when looking at the amount of energy it expels. - cwcentral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Matrix V3 implemented what we programmers call a "reset loop". That means that the system would operate for a while and then would reset itself. Sometimes that's the result of misengineering, but sometimes it's done deliberately, because it's the only way to clean up accumulated garbage. But reset loops are always bad, and tend to indicate someone hacking a kludge to solve an underlying problem they can't figure out how to solve more cleanly."
Sorry, have to say it, but that's the same algorithm used on my XP-based PVR/survelliance systems. Says a lot about MS software used on mission critical systems. - martinus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of course programming == engineering. You can do it the old way and pretend it is just art, or do it the new way and accept that it is just like all the other engineering jobs.
- jessed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A programmer can write code. He can sit down and just code for hours. Maybe a programmer will know a couple of alogrithms or solutions, but most likey he didn't figure them out for himself.
A engineer designs before he codes. At the Computer Science department of my university they tell us that what we do is 90% design and 10% implementation. So since this article focuses on the design of the Matrix, that would make him an engineer. - horanghee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@hungryhaney
Why does a seemingly majority of academia disagree? - GrinningFool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you're not, I'd say you're no engineer...
- avonej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2karkian,
I read through the page and enjoyed many of the entries in that list and thought some had good reasoning. However, the final one on the Matrix trilogy had fundamental flaws that should be mentioned. The entire basis of the argument that the actual plot line in the two sequels was filled with "fluff" to compensate for the unfortunate inability to make a prequel was preposterous. He claims that the majority of the second movie is entirely unnecessary based on the claim that Neo's choice in the Architect's chamber did not produce the promised results:
"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 Architect
In other words, based off the fact that the human race *wasn't* destroyed after Neo chose to save Trinity, he is claiming a large amount of the plot in Reloaded was fluff and didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. This logic is fundamentally flawed: the entire point of the story focuses on how Neo uses his ultimate powers of free will and choice to PREVENT this from happening. I mean, did he expect the entire race to just go *poof* and die as soon as Neo exited the door to save Trinity? No, the machines first have to kill the inhabitants of Zion, and then the dramatic fluctuations in the Matrix equations caused by the systemic anomaly must grow to a point where the cataclysmic crash *would* occur. Again, the point of all this is what this is what Neo is up against: the extinction of the human race. That's more integral to the plot than anything else, really.
It's worth noting that I agree with most things he said in the "So what happened?" section for the Matrix trilogy. It's the conclusion he draws based on the unfortunate inability to make a prequel that make no sense. - bshock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm mildly depressed to see so many comments where individuals suggest that human beings could have powered the Matrix. Regardless of whether the energy source in question is electricity, heat, or intestinal gas, the system doesn't work.
Some Diggers note that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but forget that it can be lost to use. Energy transfer systems are never 100% efficient, and this is glaringly obvious for organic energy transfer systems. In nature, the Earth receives only a fraction of the sun's energy. This fraction is harvested by plants, which in turn hold only a fraction of the energy. The plants are eaten by herbivores, and again lose a significant amount of energy. By the time humans eat the plants or animals, they are receiving only a tiny piece of the original solar energy reaching the planet. The point here is that all organic life forms dissipate more energy than they generate.
If you totaled the energy consumed by feeding humans, keeping humans warm, eliminating human waste products, growing and harvesting humans from embryos, and disposing of dead humans, you would find that far more energy would be going into the system than leaving it. Earth's ecosystem works only because it is constantly being charged with energy from the sun. The machines of the Matrix would be no different.
Granted, the film mentions a "form of fusion" as a partial energy source. While fusion might possibly make the system work (in the same way that the fusion of the sun makes our current system work), maintaining humans would still require a significant fraction of the fusion generators' output. If power generation were the issue, humans would be a sink, not a source.
The author of the article is stating an obvious deduction when dismissing the "power generation" flaw. His further deduction that humans were maintained in order to give the machines something to do is far less well-supported, however. Out of the infinite forms of poor writing, a frequent one is where the story's flaws force its audience to tell an even more complex (and possibly interesting) story than that envisioned by the writer.
The Matrix represents nothing so much as compelling visual storytelling around a poorly conceived story. - CandySnatch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Same here - still think it was a shame the 2nd and 3rd films were such a let down when compared to the first one though!
- Massif, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like this explanation. It makes a lot more sense than some of the others.
People who nitpick this guide need to realize that most of it is coming from this guy's imagination. He's filling in the blanks that the movies/games/comics/anime left empty. He's also changing some things. It's more of an alternate interpretation of the concept of the matrix rather than an explanation of the existing movies etc. - beneno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyone here knows the word "fiction"?
The movie is fiction and the essay is a fairly good piece of fiction itself. So what if the author made things up, the Matrix itself is made up.
It's a digg for me - Matteos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not a bad interpretation, right or wrong the article never accounts for this in its explanation. Not to mention that Neo can "see" after he has been blinded.
- jeromehorwitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm a programmer as well, and had much grander plans than at least the 3rd movie featured.
My problem with this author's take is that Neo was chosen by someone. IMO Neo learned how to crack the system, he wasn't granted anything. That's what made him the One, was that he was able to hack the system better than anyone else. After all, it's one thing to be plugged into a network, it's another to realize that you can manipulate the network by being plugged in. His ability was greater than all others, such as Trinity who also had great talents at hacking and cracking the system.
Ultimately the movies seemed to focus on the anomaly. Neo was the anomaly, and this is what I saw as of the 2nd movie as being the greatest potential for changing the story. In my version, that I hoped for Neo would ultimately end up being the bad guy because he would ultimately provide the solution for the anomaly, that which the architect lacks, therefore sealing the fate of the human race to their embryonic like caskets. It would've been better to die trying to free the human race, than to enslave them permanently in vats of fetal fluids.
But my grand vision, which I'm sure would've been much better and more interesting, was not to be. Instead, we got a pretty standard flick which was Revolutions. -
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is