The Architect's Matrix designs

Yes, I forgot to mention the choice aspect in my OP.

Then again, I don't understand this aswell - didn't *some* people already reject the simulation in the first two instances? How was that different from them rejecting it now, whether it's this "splinter in your mind feeling" or rude awakening due to something too fantasical going on?

What was the exact innovation? I mean, I kind of get it, but only this much. Doesn't man already have the choice to either accept or decline a reality he perceives? Consciously or not?


And actually, I'm still wondering why he didn't just try the 1999 concept first. It was a suggesting idea, considering the two other concepts.

Thats something I sort of wondered. Seeing as the Matrix was so convincing, what makes them so sure that Zion is any more real?

First, the Architect creates a perfect Matrix where no one has to suffer. Failure, because people can't accept perfection as reality.
Then, he creates a fantasy/nightmare world. Failure, because people start scrutinizing, and fearing.

So then, an intuitive program comes to the solution to let 1% out, and all of this causing the Anomaly.

Hm. Why didn't the Architect just design a realistic world, proceeding from how it was before the Machines were invented?

I think you misunderstand the dichotomy in this Arch. conversation. It isn't real vs. virtual.  It's all virtual.  The dichotomy is intuition vs. dogma.

I'm not sure intuition and dogma are a good opposite pair. And I don't quite know what you're talking about anyway. If the question of virtuality and reality has been touched in the Architect dialogue (which I don't think it is), I wasn't talking about it.

If I understand the question correctly, the answer is: The Machines created the matrix so there wasn't one before the machines.

My question was why he didn't try the mere realistic design right away, or after these two failures, before landing in the dead end and introducing the choice feature.

Not sure what your answer is.

Why not just "hmm, paradise doesn't work, nightmare doesn't work - k, then let's try reality". Does that need intuition?

Yes, it does need intuition.  Mathematically, one could not assume because a=0 and b=0 that c=1.  One would need experience(intuition) to tell you that c=1 and how to get to 1 from 0.

The ones and zeroes are the components of the binary language software is programmed in. The letters.

The Architect's thinking is hardly as primitive as "we survive = 1, we die = 0. It already begins with the percentual relation between failure and success regarding the crops. There is no 0.5 letter in computer language, but a 0.5 solution to the Machines' problem - not so many humans, but sufficient.

The Architect is capable of complex logical thinking and certainly can access a large knowledge base. Why did he design a paradise, how did he think it was "1"? He didn't think it was "1", he estimated it would be a successful plan due to calculations and knowledge. Why did he think the nightmare version would be "1"? The same.
Why couldn't he come to the conclusion to try designing a world after the humanity's previous reality? He does have the knowledge, and is capable of calculating.


And may I remind you, the intuition was needed for the "choice" concept, not the realistic design, as far as we know.

And then, I'm still wondering why these people should be contained in Zion - why not just extract them so they can die in the Real, or just killed inside the System so they don't cause trouble - they're gonna be killed anyway.  And was the anomaly an effect of this real world solution?

The short answer to your first question is: Hope.  The short answer to your second question is:  There are many causes that can achieve an effect.  And, yes, the solution is the main cause.

The Machines let people survive out of hope? For what?

But that was the stupid part of my question post, anyway.

"Fantastic" or "fantastical" - not necessarily in the narrow sense of "fantasy-esque", but in the wider sense of "improbable, unrealistic".

The first Matrix was a perfect world, but not realistic because it had no downsides and didn't cause suffering. It was assumed by Smith, and I *think* not disproved by the Architect or anyone else (thus making the theory remain valid), that people rejected it due to exactly this.
They couldn't accept a perfect reality, because they defined reality through downsides (to a part, at least).

The second version was, in the very sense, "fantastical". Based on human fantasy, and containing lots of supernatural creatures and monsters. That's where all the exotic Exiles are from.
I think the Seraphim are from the second version? I've thought for some time they were from the first one, but that was probably wrong.
People couldn't accept it because it was so fantastical, and they started questioning this scenario. (Also due to fear, but I haven't quite got that part.)

Realistic and real isn't the same. Real is real. Realistic is "close to real", "true to reality", "like the reality". We accept a photo because it's realistic and looks like real - not because it's real.

A realistic Matrix is pretty much what the current version is. Not that there weren't weird stuff bluepills run across, but it's based on the modern world, with good and bad sides, and without anything "fantastical" people wouldn't believe in their everyday life.

So, with all the knowledge base he has access to, and (I think?) the logical thinking he is capable of - he first comes to the conclusion that a perfect world would be a solution. Then, he comes to the solution that a fantasy world would be the solution.
The core point is, I can't imagine how he couldn't think of basing the Matrix on known information about the world prior to the Machine age, and thus constructing a *realistic* world. The current Matrix.
I already don't understand why this wasn't his first solution, but even after two failures?


What I'm proceeding from is that the first two Matrices failed due to the scenarios. Not how people would accept reality, rebel, failure.
If this was the cause for the failures, or the Architect saw it as such (considering he changed the scenario for the second one), the next best solution would be just constructing a new scenario, which I'd suggest to be the current one.

Now, the only possible explanation I see to why he didn't first try this would be that either he had realized this wasn't the only or even the main cause, or the Oracle had seen it was primarily due to the humans not being offered a "choice".
Then, he wouldn't bother to first just try the new reality-based scenario, but also worked in the new concept.

However, I don't think this was implied in the movies, and I also don't think you touched it.

PS: As long as the complexity of your answers doesn't really exceed the required level, I don't have a problem with it.

What I'm proceeding from is that the first two Matrices failed due to the scenarios. Not how people would accept reality, rebel, failure.
If this was the cause for the failures, or the Architect saw it as such (considering he changed the scenario for the second one), the next best solution would be just constructing a new scenario, which I'd suggest to be the current one.

Yea, it would constitute a failure and require new ways to succeed. That's what the Architect did, and I wondered why he looked for ways that appear more complicated for me than they had to be.

That's a simple expression I just *understand*. You have a point?