The Matrix: An Alternate Ending (Revolutions spoilers!)

[JPM III]

I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I shall
add to the FAQ:

*** What happened to Neo at the end of Revolutions?

We see both Neo's and Smith's avatars inside the Matrix mutually annihilate,
so they're gone. Also, white light emanating from Neo's organic being can't
be good for him, so I believe it is safe to assume that Neo's real-world
body is toast (perhaps literally). Of course, if there is only one thing
I've learned about Wachowski brothers movies, it's that no assumption is
safe!

I believe it is well within the constraints of the realm of the Matrix to
bring Neo back, but I believe his days of looking like Keanu Reeves are
over. That body, and thus that shell, were completely eradicated. However,
the machines in 01 ("Zero-One", the machine city) certainly now have the
code of The One, because they used it to destroy both Neo and Smith. So it
isn't a stretch that they also were able to download the entire contents of
Neo's mind -- his intellect and his memories particularly. Once they've done
that, there is no reason why they couldn't, if they wanted to, give him
another shell to use.

So, in conclusion, here is my alternate (or deleted) ending to the Matrix
Revolutions that I would have shown at the very END of the credits:



Neo awakens, confused, in a room that is all white, exactly like the
construct we are shown in M1. We see two doors, and we hear footsteps. The
camera pans around Neo much like it did with Morpheus in the construct in
M1, to reveal the Architect standing a few paces from Neo.

First the Architect makes some clever comment about hope and how Neo's
success is no indication of any future guarantees, and that their second
meeting was "inevitable" all along. Like the Oracle, he had to tell Neo what
he needed to hear in order that he would return to the Matrix and lure the
"Negative One" of the anomaly to the machines so that they both would be
destroyed.

The Architect then explains, once again, that Neo has two choices, a
situation that is unusual among Matrix programs because by their nature they
are not supposed to be allowed a choice:

Architect: "The door on your right leads to the Source, to your deletion, to
your rightful end. The door on your left leads back to the Matrix, to the
new world, to a new beginning." (hinting at version 7 of the Matrix)

At some point, I'm sure Neo asks the inevitable question, "Why am I here?",
to which the Architect would necessarily respond with an explanation tying
into Neo's inexorably soothing effect on the system and on the tension
between man and machine.

All this in about five minutes, and the Architect leaves Neo with a final
thought: "The problem is choice, Neo, and it is a choice that I leave to
you." The screen goes black and we hear footsteps, a door open, and a door
close.

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III
I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I shall
*** What happened to Neo at the end of Revolutions?
We see both Neo's and Smith's avatars inside the Matrix mutually annihilate,
so they're gone. Also, white light emanating from Neo's organic being can't
be good for him, so I believe it is safe to assume that Neo's real-world
body is toast (perhaps literally). Of course, if there is only one thing
I've learned about Wachowski brothers movies, it's that no assumption is
safe!

I think it was on the park bench at the end of revolutions that it says
"In memory of Thomas Andersson", so he is quite dead.

[Simon Robbins]

Post by Sandman
I think it was on the park bench at the end of revolutions that it says
"In memory of Thomas Andersson", so he is quite dead.

Ah, I noticed the plaque, but too late to read an inscription, though I
suspected it might say something like that.

Thing is: Thomas Andersson was dead the moment he took the red pill. Thomas
Andersson was an illusion all along. "My name is Neo!" he says to Smith at
the end of M1. He knows that he is not and never again will be the person he
had always believed himself to be.

Si

[Sandman]

Post by Simon Robbins

Post by Sandman
I think it was on the park bench at the end of revolutions that it says
"In memory of Thomas Andersson", so he is quite dead.

Ah, I noticed the plaque, but too late to read an inscription, though I
suspected it might say something like that.
Thing is: Thomas Andersson was dead the moment he took the red pill. Thomas
Andersson was an illusion all along. "My name is Neo!" he says to Smith at
the end of M1. He knows that he is not and never again will be the person he
had always believed himself to be.

Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to point to this
"death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

[Simon Robbins]

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to point to this
"death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

I think my point is that someone has been responsible for putting that
plaque there. The implication is it's someone with an emotional attachment
to him that appreciates the nature of loss, i.e. the Oracle. But the Oracle
never refered to him as Thomas. She knew he was no-longer that person,
right from the point he chose the red pill. So it doesn't make sense that if
she did put it there it's in memory of him following his death at the end of
Revolutions. She recognises as well as he does that "Thomas" died long ago.

In my opinion, the only person who would place a plaque there in memory of
Thomas is Neo himself. But that suggestion provides more questions than it
does answers. It may simply be a visual easter-egg for those who're paying
close attention, without any further implication.

Si

[Sandman]

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to point
to this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?
I think my point is that someone has been responsible for putting that
plaque there. The implication is it's someone with an emotional
attachment to him that appreciates the nature of loss, i.e. the
Oracle. But the Oracle never refered to him as Thomas. She knew he
was no-longer that person, right from the point he chose the red pill.
So it doesn't make sense that if she did put it there it's in memory
of him following his death at the end of Revolutions. She recognises
as well as he does that "Thomas" died long ago.
In my opinion, the only person who would place a plaque there in
memory of Thomas is Neo himself. But that suggestion provides more
questions than it does answers. It may simply be a visual easter-egg
for those who're paying close attention, without any further
implication.

Exactly. Nothing more than a gift to close observers, and I also think it's a
answer to the question "Did Neo actually die?".

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to point
to this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

Exactly. Nothing more than a gift to close observers, and I also think
it's a answer to the question "Did Neo actually die?".

I think there is a difference between Neo and his former self, Thomas
Anderson. Anderson died shortly after given the red pill. Notice how a
funeral was held for Michael Karl Popper despite that the Kid is alive and
well in the real world. If there is a plaque that reads "In Memory of
Michael Popper", I am not going to assume that the Kid is dead.

The Wachowskis like to screw with audience expectations: no assumption is
safe.

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to point
to this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

Exactly. Nothing more than a gift to close observers, and I also
think it's a answer to the question "Did Neo actually die?".

I think there is a difference between Neo and his former self, Thomas
Anderson. Anderson died shortly after given the red pill. Notice how a
funeral was held for Michael Karl Popper despite that the Kid is alive
and well in the real world. If there is a plaque that reads "In Memory
of Michael Popper", I am not going to assume that the Kid is dead.
The Wachowskis like to screw with audience expectations: no assumption
is safe.

Of course - IF there was a Matrix 4 in the works, which there isn't.

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to
point to this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

Exactly. Nothing more than a gift to close observers, and I also
think it's a answer to the question "Did Neo actually die?".

I think there is a difference between Neo and his former self, Thomas
Anderson. Anderson died shortly after given the red pill. Notice how a
funeral was held for Michael Karl Popper despite that the Kid is alive
and well in the real world. If there is a plaque that reads "In Memory
of Michael Popper", I am not going to assume that the Kid is dead.
The Wachowskis like to screw with audience expectations: no assumption
is safe.

Of course - IF there was a Matrix 4 in the works, which there isn't.

As they have proven many times over, they don't need movies to continue
their story.

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to
point to this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

Exactly. Nothing more than a gift to close observers, and I also
think it's a answer to the question "Did Neo actually die?".

I think there is a difference between Neo and his former self, Thomas
Anderson. Anderson died shortly after given the red pill. Notice how a
funeral was held for Michael Karl Popper despite that the Kid is alive
and well in the real world. If there is a plaque that reads "In Memory
of Michael Popper", I am not going to assume that the Kid is dead.
The Wachowskis like to screw with audience expectations: no assumption
is safe.

Of course - IF there was a Matrix 4 in the works, which there isn't.

As they have proven many times over, they don't need movies to continue
their story.

Are you saying you wouldn't find it pretty damn misplaced if Neo turns out
alive in a TV miniseries or a Xbox game?

Anyway, if you want to find less then likely theories on why that line is
there, just to keep the possibility that Neo is alive open, then be my guest.
I've always worked after Occam's razor, and it has turned out true for ALL my
theories regarding the Matrix.

Oh, and I forgot to ask you - how wrong were your predictions about
Revolutions? :)

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to
point to this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

Exactly. Nothing more than a gift to close observers, and I also
think it's a answer to the question "Did Neo actually die?".

I think there is a difference between Neo and his former self,
Thomas Anderson. Anderson died shortly after given the red pill.
Notice how a funeral was held for Michael Karl Popper despite that
the Kid is alive and well in the real world. If there is a plaque
that reads "In Memory of Michael Popper", I am not going to assume
that the Kid is dead.
The Wachowskis like to screw with audience expectations: no
assumption is safe.

Of course - IF there was a Matrix 4 in the works, which there isn't.

As they have proven many times over, they don't need movies to continue
their story.

Are you saying you wouldn't find it pretty damn misplaced if Neo turns
out alive in a TV miniseries or a Xbox game?

No. I am saying that the Wachowskis don't need movies to continue their
story. Misplacement of particular parts of that story has more to do with
the answers they choose to divulge than the medium via which they choose to
divulge them.

Post by Sandman
Anyway, if you want to find less then likely theories on why that line is
there, just to keep the possibility that Neo is alive open, then be my
guest. I've always worked after Occam's razor, and it has turned out
true for ALL my theories regarding the Matrix.

You also spell Ockham the lazy way. :-) Also, working with this theory of
some guy's obsession with shaving the truth, sometimes the more complex
theory really is not more complex at all, but instead is simply the result
of an understanding of a simple array of ideas or constructs. In essence, I
believe Ockham's Razor is the Laziness Advocacy Theorem.

Post by Sandman
Oh, and I forgot to ask you - how wrong were your predictions about
Revolutions? :)

See for yourself. These were my predictions:

1. Bane will attack Neo, and before Bane is killed, Neo will be blinded.

2. Neo will realize (if he hasn't already) what he has to do to kill Smith
and save the world -- it requires sacrificing himself, which he can't do
because of Trinity.

3. Trinity will be killed during the movie, and a heartbroken Neo will jack
into the Matrix to fulfill his purpose.

4. Smith will destroy Neo in basically the same way Neo destroyed Smith in
the first movie, taking him over. Someone will then unplug Neo, killing
Smith.

5. Thanks to the war going on in Zion, almost everyone will be killed.

6. I think that annoying little Kid that follows Neo around is really the
One, or at least he has the potential to be more powerful than Neo.

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Are you saying you wouldn't find it pretty damn misplaced if Neo turns
out alive in a TV miniseries or a Xbox game?

No. I am saying that the Wachowskis don't need movies to continue their
story. Misplacement of particular parts of that story has more to do with
the answers they choose to divulge than the medium via which they choose to
divulge them.

Yet you yourself believe that Neo is dead, right?

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Anyway, if you want to find less then likely theories on why that line is
there, just to keep the possibility that Neo is alive open, then be my
guest. I've always worked after Occam's razor, and it has turned out
true for ALL my theories regarding the Matrix.

You also spell Ockham the lazy way. :-) Also, working with this theory of
some guy's obsession with shaving the truth, sometimes the more complex
theory really is not more complex at all, but instead is simply the result
of an understanding of a simple array of ideas or constructs. In essence, I
believe Ockham's Razor is the Laziness Advocacy Theorem.

Well, then I suppose I should consider myself lucky that all my theories
based on Occams turned out true, right? :-D

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Are you saying you wouldn't find it pretty damn misplaced if Neo turns
out alive in a TV miniseries or a Xbox game?

No. I am saying that the Wachowskis don't need movies to continue their
story. Misplacement of particular parts of that story has more to do
with the answers they choose to divulge than the medium via which they
choose to divulge them.

Yet you yourself believe that Neo is dead, right?

His human body is certainly dead. His intellect, mind, whatever is either
(1) in a state of stasis or (2) dead. I am agnostic between those two
points, since neither is any more viable than the other in my opinion.
However, I will step out on a limb and make the assumption that because
Neo's body is dead, and his connection to those genes are gone, that he will
never look like Keanu Reeves again. Chances are good that whether he lives
again or not, we'll never see it (or won't for several years).

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Anyway, if you want to find less then likely theories on why that
line is there, just to keep the possibility that Neo is alive open,
then be my guest. I've always worked after Occam's razor, and it has
turned out true for ALL my theories regarding the Matrix.

You also spell Ockham the lazy way. :-) Also, working with this theory
of some guy's obsession with shaving the truth, sometimes the more
complex theory really is not more complex at all, but instead is simply
the result of an understanding of a simple array of ideas or
constructs. In essence, I believe Ockham's Razor is the Laziness
Advocacy Theorem.

Well, then I suppose I should consider myself lucky that all my theories
based on Occams turned out true, right? :-D

Yes. Simple works for you. If only I could be so lucky... Maybe I should
stop knowing things and just be dumb like... err, no, that's a joke. :-)
Heh...

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Anyway, if you want to find less then likely theories on why that
line is there, just to keep the possibility that Neo is alive open,
then be my guest. I've always worked after Occam's razor, and it has
turned out true for ALL my theories regarding the Matrix.

You also spell Ockham the lazy way. :-) Also, working with this theory
of some guy's obsession with shaving the truth, sometimes the more
complex theory really is not more complex at all, but instead is simply
the result of an understanding of a simple array of ideas or
constructs. In essence, I believe Ockham's Razor is the Laziness
Advocacy Theorem.

Well, then I suppose I should consider myself lucky that all my theories
based on Occams turned out true, right? :-D

Yes. Simple works for you. If only I could be so lucky... Maybe I should
stop knowing things and just be dumb like... err, no, that's a joke. :-)
Heh...

Occams razor isn't about simplicity, it's about logic. Believing in logic makes
for simplicity of course, but that's a side effect. You'll note that I apply
logic at all times, often through the usage of Occams razor. You will also note
that due to this, pretty much (and I say 'pretty much' since I haven't actually
gone back and checked every one of them, but as far as I know, it's all of
them) all my "predictions" turned out to be true. I'll admit that I haven't
been as forthcoming as some with regards to predictions per se, but I have made
some statements (as in "Zion IS real" and "He ISN'T the program that governs
time") and have only done so when I have felt that logic, simple or not, agreed
with me.

Logic is really the easy path. You get it all served under your nose - this is
why some people here will go out of their way to create elaborate theories on
why Neo's shirt has a miscoloration in scene 42 or something like that. These
people (including you I suppose) thinks that logic makes it way too easy, that
it isn't complex enough.

You'll note that most of these "theories" end up in the trash bin.

[JPM III]

--- Sandman wrote: ---

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Anyway, if you want to find less then likely theories on why
that line is there, just to keep the possibility that Neo is
alive open, then be my guest. I've always worked after
Occam's razor, and it has turned out true for ALL my theories
regarding the Matrix.

You also spell Ockham the lazy way. :-) Also, working with this
theory of some guy's obsession with shaving the truth,
sometimes the more complex theory really is not more complex at
all, but instead is simply the result of an understanding of a
simple array of ideas or constructs. In essence, I believe
Ockham's Razor is the Laziness Advocacy Theorem.

Well, then I suppose I should consider myself lucky that all my
theories based on Occams turned out true, right? :-D

Yes. Simple works for you. If only I could be so lucky... Maybe I
should stop knowing things and just be dumb like... err, no, that's
a joke. :-) Heh...

Occams razor isn't about simplicity, it's about logic. Believing in
logic makes for simplicity of course, but that's a side effect.
You'll note that I apply logic at all times, often through the usage
of Occams razor. You will also note that due to this, pretty much
(and I say 'pretty much' since I haven't actually gone back and
checked every one of them, but as far as I know, it's all of them)
all my "predictions" turned out to be true. I'll admit that I haven't
been as forthcoming as some with regards to predictions per se, but I
have made some statements (as in "Zion IS real" and "He ISN'T the
program that governs time") and have only done so when I have felt
that logic, simple or not, agreed with me.
Logic is really the easy path. You get it all served under your nose
- this is why some people here will go out of their way to create
elaborate theories on why Neo's shirt has a miscoloration in scene 42
or something like that. These people (including you I suppose) thinks
that logic makes it way too easy, that it isn't complex enough.
You'll note that most of these "theories" end up in the trash bin.

Yeah, but no pain, no gain. The easy path is for wimps. Neo took the uneasy
path. :-P

Logic doesn't work in a human world!

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Occams razor isn't about simplicity, it's about logic. Believing in
logic makes for simplicity of course, but that's a side effect.
You'll note that I apply logic at all times, often through the usage
of Occams razor. You will also note that due to this, pretty much
(and I say 'pretty much' since I haven't actually gone back and
checked every one of them, but as far as I know, it's all of them)
all my "predictions" turned out to be true. I'll admit that I haven't
been as forthcoming as some with regards to predictions per se, but I
have made some statements (as in "Zion IS real" and "He ISN'T the
program that governs time") and have only done so when I have felt
that logic, simple or not, agreed with me.
Logic is really the easy path. You get it all served under your nose
- this is why some people here will go out of their way to create
elaborate theories on why Neo's shirt has a miscoloration in scene 42
or something like that. These people (including you I suppose) thinks
that logic makes it way too easy, that it isn't complex enough.
You'll note that most of these "theories" end up in the trash bin.

Yeah, but no pain, no gain. The easy path is for wimps. Neo took the uneasy
path. :-P
Logic doesn't work in a human world!

Well, since it seems like you're joking, I'll make no further effort to explain
it.

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Occams razor isn't about simplicity, it's about logic. Believing in
logic makes for simplicity of course, but that's a side effect.
You'll note that I apply logic at all times, often through the usage
of Occams razor. You will also note that due to this, pretty much
(and I say 'pretty much' since I haven't actually gone back and
checked every one of them, but as far as I know, it's all of them)
all my "predictions" turned out to be true. I'll admit that I haven't
been as forthcoming as some with regards to predictions per se, but I
have made some statements (as in "Zion IS real" and "He ISN'T the
program that governs time") and have only done so when I have felt
that logic, simple or not, agreed with me.
Logic is really the easy path. You get it all served under your nose
- this is why some people here will go out of their way to create
elaborate theories on why Neo's shirt has a miscoloration in scene 42
or something like that. These people (including you I suppose) thinks
that logic makes it way too easy, that it isn't complex enough.
You'll note that most of these "theories" end up in the trash bin.

Yeah, but no pain, no gain. The easy path is for wimps. Neo took the
uneasy path. :-P
Logic doesn't work in a human world!

Well, since it seems like you're joking, I'll make no further effort to
explain it.

I'm joking because I already understand the theory and what you're trying to
say. I just don't believe in absolutes, and I like to think that simply
taking the easier path is not always the most logical, since logic itself is
occasionally difficult to understand.

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Occams razor isn't about simplicity, it's about logic. Believing in
logic makes for simplicity of course, but that's a side effect.
You'll note that I apply logic at all times, often through the usage
of Occams razor. You will also note that due to this, pretty much
(and I say 'pretty much' since I haven't actually gone back and
checked every one of them, but as far as I know, it's all of them)
all my "predictions" turned out to be true. I'll admit that I haven't
been as forthcoming as some with regards to predictions per se, but I
have made some statements (as in "Zion IS real" and "He ISN'T the
program that governs time") and have only done so when I have felt
that logic, simple or not, agreed with me.
Logic is really the easy path. You get it all served under your nose
- this is why some people here will go out of their way to create
elaborate theories on why Neo's shirt has a miscoloration in scene 42
or something like that. These people (including you I suppose) thinks
that logic makes it way too easy, that it isn't complex enough.
You'll note that most of these "theories" end up in the trash bin.

Yeah, but no pain, no gain. The easy path is for wimps. Neo took the
uneasy path. :-P
Logic doesn't work in a human world!

Well, since it seems like you're joking, I'll make no further effort to
explain it.

I'm joking because I already understand the theory and what you're trying to
say. I just don't believe in absolutes, and I like to think that simply
taking the easier path is not always the most logical, since logic itself is
occasionally difficult to understand.

I think that says more about you than it does about logic. :P

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Occams razor isn't about simplicity, it's about logic. Believing
in logic makes for simplicity of course, but that's a side effect.
You'll note that I apply logic at all times, often through the
usage of Occams razor. You will also note that due to this,
pretty much (and I say 'pretty much' since I haven't actually
gone back and checked every one of them, but as far as I know,
it's all of them) all my "predictions" turned out to be true.
I'll admit that I haven't been as forthcoming as some with
regards to predictions per se, but I have made some statements
(as in "Zion IS real" and "He ISN'T the program that governs
time") and have only done so when I have felt that logic, simple
or not, agreed with me.
Logic is really the easy path. You get it all served under your
nose - this is why some people here will go out of their way to
create elaborate theories on why Neo's shirt has a miscoloration
in scene 42 or something like that. These people (including you I
suppose) thinks that logic makes it way too easy, that it isn't
complex enough.
You'll note that most of these "theories" end up in the trash bin.

Yeah, but no pain, no gain. The easy path is for wimps. Neo took the
uneasy path. :-P
Logic doesn't work in a human world!

Well, since it seems like you're joking, I'll make no further effort
to explain it.

I'm joking because I already understand the theory and what you're
trying to say. I just don't believe in absolutes, and I like to think
that simply taking the easier path is not always the most logical,
since logic itself is occasionally difficult to understand.

I think that says more about you than it does about logic. :P

I think it says that logic is not necessarily what any single person thinks
it is. Objectively, logic is above and beyond anyone's interpretive
capacity. Subjectively, logic is entirely reliant on anyone's interpretive
capacity. So... it depends on how we're looking at it.

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III
I'm joking because I already understand the theory and what you're
trying to say. I just don't believe in absolutes, and I like to think
that simply taking the easier path is not always the most logical,
since logic itself is occasionally difficult to understand.

I think that says more about you than it does about logic. :P

I think it says that logic is not necessarily what any single person thinks
it is. Objectively, logic is above and beyond anyone's interpretive
capacity. Subjectively, logic is entirely reliant on anyone's interpretive
capacity. So... it depends on how we're looking at it.

No, that's not correct at all.

Logic is the art of exact reasoning (chaos theory aside). "Logic" is by
definition the correct thing. Nothing ever defyes logic, because logic is
formed by everything.

Logic has mathematical origin. It's a calculated probability. Mathematicians
apply logic all the time when there is no easy way to otherwise calculate
something (chaos theory again). Logic is a very precise science.

That said - some people (including myself at times) will claim that they have
applied logic to their reasoning even though the process hasn't been as
scientifical as it should have been. But if you begin with logic, and then form
a conclusion with that base, you are often very close at being right, even
though you might be missing something.

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman
Logic is the art of exact reasoning (chaos theory aside). "Logic" is by
definition the correct thing. Nothing ever defyes logic, because logic is
formed by everything.

No. Logic is, by definition, "the study of the principles of reasoning", and
a scientific study in that none of its conclusions can prove absolutely that
reason is the governing principle of the universe. Logic, like everything
else, is based founding assumptions that must be assumed true in order for
logic to function. And then logic must be assumed applicable for everything
else to work...

So, you see, it's not correct by definition... unless you say that with the
understanding that human definitions are derivations of assumptions based on
consistent correlations (and agreement on the definition).

Post by Sandman
Logic has mathematical origin. It's a calculated probability.
Mathematicians apply logic all the time when there is no easy way to
otherwise calculate something (chaos theory again). Logic is a very
precise science.

But like all sciences, it stands to prove nothing. It merely provides a
mental means for understanding and reproducing correlations.

Post by Sandman
That said - some people (including myself at times) will claim that they
have applied logic to their reasoning even though the process hasn't been
as scientifical as it should have been. But if you begin with logic, and
then form a conclusion with that base, you are often very close at being
right, even though you might be missing something.

I wouldn't dare say that logic is flawed, but it isn't absolute, and in that
regard flaws may result from one's utilization of logic.

[Sandman]

Post by Sandman
Logic is the art of exact reasoning (chaos theory aside). "Logic" is by
definition the correct thing. Nothing ever defyes logic, because logic is
formed by everything.

No.

I am sorry, you are wrong. I snipped your incorrect theory and I am declaring
this a dead horse.

[Bootstrap Bill]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to point
to this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

Exactly. Nothing more than a gift to close observers, and I also think
it's a answer to the question "Did Neo actually die?".

I think there is a difference between Neo and his former self, Thomas
Anderson. Anderson died shortly after given the red pill.

What happened when Neo left the Matrix? Was a "body" found, or did he simply
disappear?

[JPM III]

Post by Bootstrap Bill

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to
point to this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

Exactly. Nothing more than a gift to close observers, and I also
think it's a answer to the question "Did Neo actually die?".

I think there is a difference between Neo and his former self, Thomas
Anderson. Anderson died shortly after given the red pill.

What happened when Neo left the Matrix? Was a "body" found, or did he
simply disappear?

The same that happened when the Kid left the Matrix ... the virtual body in
the Matrix died, and the real body in the real world woke up.

[JPM III]

Post by Simon Robbins

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to point
to this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

I think my point is that someone has been responsible for putting that
plaque there. The implication is it's someone with an emotional
attachment to him that appreciates the nature of loss, i.e. the Oracle.
But the Oracle never refered to him as Thomas. She knew he was
no-longer that person, right from the point he chose the red pill. So it
doesn't make sense that if she did put it there it's in memory of him
following his death at the end of Revolutions. She recognises as well as
he does that "Thomas" died long ago.
In my opinion, the only person who would place a plaque there in memory
of Thomas is Neo himself. But that suggestion provides more questions
than it does answers. It may simply be a visual easter-egg for those
who're paying close attention, without any further implication.

Maybe it was Thomas A. Anderson's father.

Maybe it was Mr. Anderson's co-workers.

Maybe it was Mr. Anderson's ex-wife, child, or someone like that.

Maybe... it was Smith!

[Profil1]

Post by JPM III

Post by Simon Robbins

Post by Sandman
Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to point
to this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

I think my point is that someone has been responsible for putting that
plaque there. The implication is it's someone with an emotional
attachment to him that appreciates the nature of loss, i.e. the Oracle.
But the Oracle never refered to him as Thomas. She knew he was
no-longer that person, right from the point he chose the red pill. So it
doesn't make sense that if she did put it there it's in memory of him
following his death at the end of Revolutions. She recognises as well as
he does that "Thomas" died long ago.
In my opinion, the only person who would place a plaque there in memory
of Thomas is Neo himself. But that suggestion provides more questions
than it does answers. It may simply be a visual easter-egg for those
who're paying close attention, without any further implication.

Maybe it was Thomas A. Anderson's father.
Maybe it was Mr. Anderson's co-workers.
Maybe it was Mr. Anderson's ex-wife, child, or someone like that.
Maybe... it was Smith!

Or the Architect...
If it appeared,it did so after the reload...it was programmed to do this...
Or the Oracle...
Same reasons...

One of the Matrix Parents might have done this...

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman

Post by Simon Robbins

Post by Sandman
I think it was on the park bench at the end of revolutions that it
says "In memory of Thomas Andersson", so he is quite dead.

Ah, I noticed the plaque, but too late to read an inscription, though I
suspected it might say something like that.
Thing is: Thomas Andersson was dead the moment he took the red pill.
Thomas Andersson was an illusion all along. "My name is Neo!" he says
to Smith at the end of M1. He knows that he is not and never again
will be the person he had always believed himself to be.

Do you think the plaque at the end of the trilogy was meant to point to
this "death" in the beginning of the trilogy?

That is my interpretation, at present.

[Simon Robbins]

Post by JPM III
I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I shall

Umm... I don't think we need to see Neo after he's carted off. (Looking very
much like Arthur being carried off to Avalon, legend prophecising his return
in the future when he will be needed again.) Neo's journey is about promise
and optimism. I think it's important that we're left to speculate. A
spiritual message should provoke questions, not seek to provide answers.

Si

[James Williams]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:15:18 -0000, "Simon Robbins"

Post by Simon Robbins
Umm... I don't think we need to see Neo after he's carted off. (Looking very
much like Arthur being carried off to Avalon, legend prophecising his return
in the future when he will be needed again.) Neo's journey is about promise
and optimism. I think it's important that we're left to speculate. A
spiritual message should provoke questions, not seek to provide answers.
Si

As I have mentioned a number of times. :)


James.Williams

[SwissCheese]

Post by JPM III
I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I shall
*** What happened to Neo at the end of Revolutions?
We see both Neo's and Smith's avatars inside the Matrix mutually annihilate,
so they're gone. Also, white light emanating from Neo's organic being can't
be good for him, so I believe it is safe to assume that Neo's real-world
body is toast (perhaps literally). Of course, if there is only one thing
I've learned about Wachowski brothers movies, it's that no assumption is
safe!

I don't think he's dead. This isn't the first time Neo has been 'inside'
Agent Smith and destroyed him.

[JPM III]

Post by SwissCheese

Post by JPM III
I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I
*** What happened to Neo at the end of Revolutions?
We see both Neo's and Smith's avatars inside the Matrix mutually
annihilate, so they're gone. Also, white light emanating from Neo's
organic being can't be good for him, so I believe it is safe to assume
that Neo's real-world body is toast (perhaps literally). Of course, if
there is only one thing I've learned about Wachowski brothers movies,
it's that no assumption is safe!

I don't think he's dead. This isn't the first time Neo has been
'inside' Agent Smith and destroyed him.

Nor was it the second time, since Neo only did it that one time. This time,
Smith took over Neo, then the machines (from the Source) destroyed both Neo
and Smith.

[SwissCheese]

Post by JPM III

Post by SwissCheese

Post by JPM III
I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I
*** What happened to Neo at the end of Revolutions?
We see both Neo's and Smith's avatars inside the Matrix mutually
annihilate, so they're gone. Also, white light emanating from Neo's
organic being can't be good for him, so I believe it is safe to assume
that Neo's real-world body is toast (perhaps literally). Of course, if
there is only one thing I've learned about Wachowski brothers movies,
it's that no assumption is safe!

I don't think he's dead. This isn't the first time Neo has been
'inside' Agent Smith and destroyed him.

Nor was it the second time, since Neo only did it that one time. This time,
Smith took over Neo, then the machines (from the Source) destroyed both Neo
and Smith.

I would have to say that 'both being destroyed' is an assumption... we
all assumed Agent Smith was destroyed in the first installment. How did he
come back?, _the Source- obviously did it with what little it learned to
'balance the equation' and now learn more. The bottom line -I think- is
this... Agent Smith is pure 'code' which can be created, altered, and
destroyed at will by the Source. That is until Smith learned how to resist.
Neo on the other hand is human and has special abilities within him. Neo
when 'jacked in' is in a virtual world (whereas Smith is in his native
environment) and has to learn that in the Matrix (virtual world) there are
no/little rules and needs to learn how to bend them to achieve things. The
thought that if you die in the Matrix (dream) you die for real is soley
controlled by the mind in question. (I often dream of falling from planes or
high altitudes - and hit the ground every time- but I know it's a dream and
I just get up a brush myself off and think -man that was messed up!). Smith
in the Matrix is very powerful, even to Morpheus, etc. Notice Smith doesn't
bleed while in the Matrix even though Neo is beating the crap out of him.
While in Bane (outside the Matrix), Smith is now very human in the sence
that he has taken control of a human mind. He is now vulnerable to all the
rules of humanity -notice the 'normal' fight sequence-. Also he has
no-where to run... the only way back for Smith would be to 'jack in'
somewhere. Neo, who has now learned to open his mind can 'see' Smith/Bane
for what he really is (which Smith does'nt realize and is killed). Of course
it had to be an 'extra' Smith that was in Bane to begin with. Fortunately
for Neo, he is connected to both worlds in some manner. Now at the end as
they are fighting they are equal. Neither can defeat the other. Neo only
bleeds/appears hurt in the Matrix when his mind is telling him -hey that was
alot of hits to the body, you should be bleeding-. Neo must re-affirm
himself that he is truly not hurt and brush it off. ie, getting back up and
pissing Smith off again, again, again. Smith is 'locked in' on destroying
Neo, only he thinks that the only way to do it is to beat/kill him in a
fight (as would any other human die), there is no other choice. Smith has
only made choices on how to get to Neo, never on how to destroy him (hence
the multitudes of Smiths -gang up on Neo-). Smith thinks that one cannot
possibly defeat two, but he does, so one cannot possbly defeat more, but he
does, etc. Neo on the other hand has to defend himself against Smith while
figuring out 'how' to destroy him. That's when it comes to him that he must
destroy Smith from the inside. Once again Smith thinks he is in control, but
Neo is not 'normal' and he is jacked in at the Source. It is quite possible
that the Source did not feed more energy/???/power into Neo but that Neo
himself 'was drawing upon the Source. Much like getting a vaccination, Neo
allowed Smith into him and then dealt with him on a level Smith had no
clue/control over.

Now, as a side note... everyone knows that there can be no peace without
war, no good without evil... I say they make smart move to a TV series where
the plots can be more involved.

...P.S. If Zion had fallen 5/6 times before why wouldn't there be
indications of it? Lots of holes in the ceiling or damage in general. If 23
people started Zion all over again each time they would have to start from
scratch each time? Or would they build upon what was left of previous
Zion's? Maybe Zion was in a different place each time? There are lots of
questions to be answered...

[James Williams]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, "SwissCheese"

Post by SwissCheese
...P.S. If Zion had fallen 5/6 times before why wouldn't there be
indications of it? Lots of holes in the ceiling or damage in general. If 23
people started Zion all over again each time they would have to start from
scratch each time? Or would they build upon what was left of previous
Zion's? Maybe Zion was in a different place each time? There are lots of
questions to be answered...

What makes you think Zion was always located in the same place?

Also for future reference, could you hit enter occasionally to break
up your paragraphs. It is hard to read and respond to a long run on
series of paragraphs.


James.Williams

[JPM III]

Post by James Williams

Post by SwissCheese
...P.S. If Zion had fallen 5/6 times before why wouldn't there be
indications of it? Lots of holes in the ceiling or damage in general.
If 23 people started Zion all over again each time they would have to
start from scratch each time? Or would they build upon what was left
of previous Zion's? Maybe Zion was in a different place each time?
There are lots of questions to be answered...

What makes you think Zion was always located in the same place?
Also for future reference, could you hit enter occasionally to break
up your paragraphs. It is hard to read and respond to a long run on
series of paragraphs.

I second that.

[SwissCheese]

Post by James Williams
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, "SwissCheese"

Post by SwissCheese
...P.S. If Zion had fallen 5/6 times before why wouldn't there be
indications of it? Lots of holes in the ceiling or damage in general. If 23
people started Zion all over again each time they would have to start from
scratch each time? Or would they build upon what was left of previous
Zion's? Maybe Zion was in a different place each time? There are lots of
questions to be answered...

What makes you think Zion was always located in the same place?
Also for future reference, could you hit enter occasionally to break
up your paragraphs. It is hard to read and respond to a long run on
series of paragraphs.
James.Williams

My bad, sorry about that...

[Profil1]

Post by SwissCheese

Post by JPM III

Post by SwissCheese

Post by JPM III
I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I
*** What happened to Neo at the end of Revolutions?
We see both Neo's and Smith's avatars inside the Matrix mutually
annihilate, so they're gone. Also, white light emanating from Neo's
organic being can't be good for him, so I believe it is safe to assume
that Neo's real-world body is toast (perhaps literally). Of course, if
there is only one thing I've learned about Wachowski brothers movies,
it's that no assumption is safe!

I don't think he's dead. This isn't the first time Neo has been
'inside' Agent Smith and destroyed him.

Nor was it the second time, since Neo only did it that one time. This

time,

Post by JPM III
Smith took over Neo, then the machines (from the Source) destroyed both

Neo

Post by JPM III
and Smith.

I would have to say that 'both being destroyed' is an assumption... we
all assumed Agent Smith was destroyed in the first installment. How did he
come back?

When Neo destroyed him from the inside,something from the One's code has
encripted into him...
And the prophecy says that The One cannot die(or smobody else says so)...
So when Smith is destroted he is dying - in this case going to be deleted.
But he holds some of Neo's code and cannot be destroyed
He later says:
"I was compelled to stay" and he didn't know why...
And now when Smith and Neo were in "one body",the code was whole again,the
Matrix could be reloaded and Smith is no longer needed...
He has been deleted

And he asked"Is this the end?"
And Neos Smith nods

the Source- obviously did it with what little it learned to

Post by SwissCheese
'balance the equation' and now learn more. The bottom line -I think- is
this... Agent Smith is pure 'code' which can be created, altered, and
destroyed at will by the Source. That is until Smith learned how to resist.
Neo on the other hand is human and has special abilities within him. Neo
when 'jacked in' is in a virtual world (whereas Smith is in his native
environment) and has to learn that in the Matrix (virtual world) there are
no/little rules and needs to learn how to bend them to achieve things. The
thought that if you die in the Matrix (dream) you die for real is soley
controlled by the mind in question. (I often dream of falling from planes or
high altitudes - and hit the ground every time- but I know it's a dream and
I just get up a brush myself off and think -man that was messed up!). Smith
in the Matrix is very powerful, even to Morpheus, etc. Notice Smith doesn't
bleed while in the Matrix even though Neo is beating the crap out of him.
While in Bane (outside the Matrix), Smith is now very human in the sence
that he has taken control of a human mind. He is now vulnerable to all the
rules of humanity -notice the 'normal' fight sequence-. Also he has
no-where to run... the only way back for Smith would be to 'jack in'
somewhere. Neo, who has now learned to open his mind can 'see' Smith/Bane
for what he really is (which Smith does'nt realize and is killed). Of course
it had to be an 'extra' Smith that was in Bane to begin with. Fortunately
for Neo, he is connected to both worlds in some manner. Now at the end as
they are fighting they are equal. Neither can defeat the other. Neo only
bleeds/appears hurt in the Matrix when his mind is telling him -hey that was
alot of hits to the body, you should be bleeding-. Neo must re-affirm
himself that he is truly not hurt and brush it off. ie, getting back up and
pissing Smith off again, again, again. Smith is 'locked in' on destroying
Neo, only he thinks that the only way to do it is to beat/kill him in a
fight (as would any other human die), there is no other choice. Smith has
only made choices on how to get to Neo, never on how to destroy him (hence
the multitudes of Smiths -gang up on Neo-). Smith thinks that one cannot
possibly defeat two, but he does, so one cannot possbly defeat more, but he
does, etc. Neo on the other hand has to defend himself against Smith while
figuring out 'how' to destroy him. That's when it comes to him that he must
destroy Smith from the inside. Once again Smith thinks he is in control, but
Neo is not 'normal' and he is jacked in at the Source. It is quite possible
that the Source did not feed more energy/???/power into Neo but that Neo
himself 'was drawing upon the Source. Much like getting a vaccination, Neo
allowed Smith into him and then dealt with him on a level Smith had no
clue/control over.
Now, as a side note... everyone knows that there can be no peace without
war, no good without evil... I say they make smart move to a TV series where
the plots can be more involved.
...P.S. If Zion had fallen 5/6 times before why wouldn't there be
indications of it? Lots of holes in the ceiling or damage in general. If 23
people started Zion all over again each time they would have to start from
scratch each time? Or would they build upon what was left of previous
Zion's? Maybe Zion was in a different place each time? There are lots of
questions to be answered...

[SwissCheese]

Post by Profil1

Post by SwissCheese
I would have to say that 'both being destroyed' is an assumption... we
all assumed Agent Smith was destroyed in the first installment. How did he
come back?

When Neo destroyed him from the inside,something from the One's code has
encripted into him...
And the prophecy says that The One cannot die(or smobody else says so)...
So when Smith is destroted he is dying - in this case going to be deleted.
But he holds some of Neo's code and cannot be destroyed
"I was compelled to stay" and he didn't know why...
And now when Smith and Neo were in "one body",the code was whole again,the
Matrix could be reloaded and Smith is no longer needed...
He has been deleted

Actually my question was about how Neo came back... Smith is code, and can
be re-inserted at any time. I'm sure the Source use a good backup system.
Personally I think he needs some Norton tools.

[James Williams]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:59:40 GMT, "SwissCheese"

Post by SwissCheese
Actually my question was about how Neo came back... Smith is code, and can
be re-inserted at any time. I'm sure the Source use a good backup system.
Personally I think he needs some Norton tools.

I think from a medical view point it's not hard to understand. People
go into cardiac arrest and back to stable all the time. Usually they
have help recovering.

For cinematic purposes directly attributable to this series. Neo began
to believe, and understand. There were no bullets.


James.Williams

[JPM III]

Post by SwissCheese

Post by SwissCheese
I would have to say that 'both being destroyed' is an
assumption... we all assumed Agent Smith was destroyed in the first
installment. How did he come back?

Actually my question was about how Neo came back... Smith is code, and
can be re-inserted at any time. I'm sure the Source use a good backup
system. Personally I think he needs some Norton tools.

Norton tools aren't everything. Last night I picked up a worm on my laptop
that was slowly eroding my Norton software, deleting all the files it could
until, finally, it deleted something that the Norton startup stuff needed,
so none of the files that were previously in use and therefore undeletable
were in use any more, so it deleted half my Norton directory.

The fix? Was painful. Norton didn't clean it for me since it was disabled,
so I had to manually delete a few dozen references from the registry and
selective startup, and then I had to delete a directory of downloaded and
copied files from who knows where!

The moral of the story: if there is a folder called "Myshares" in your
"C:/Windows" directory, you're in trouble.

[JPM III]

Post by JPM III

Post by SwissCheese

Post by SwissCheese
I would have to say that 'both being destroyed' is an
assumption... we all assumed Agent Smith was destroyed in the first
installment. How did he come back?

Actually my question was about how Neo came back... Smith is code, and
can be re-inserted at any time. I'm sure the Source use a good backup
system. Personally I think he needs some Norton tools.

Norton tools aren't everything. Last night I picked up a worm on my laptop
that was slowly eroding my Norton software, deleting all the files it
could until, finally, it deleted something that the Norton startup stuff
needed, so none of the files that were previously in use and therefore
undeletable were in use any more, so it deleted half my Norton directory.
The fix? Was painful. Norton didn't clean it for me since it was disabled,
so I had to manually delete a few dozen references from the registry and
selective startup, and then I had to delete a directory of downloaded and
copied files from who knows where!
The moral of the story: if there is a folder called "Myshares" in your
"C:/Windows" directory, you're in trouble.

I forgot to mention that it moves through some file-sharing apps (Kazaa,
Imesh, Grokster) unless you directly operate a file that infects your
computer, and I'm all clean now. It doesn't do anything vicious, but it
copies stuff onto your computer and tries to delete your antivirus software
(and is eventually successful).

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by SwissCheese

Post by SwissCheese
I would have to say that 'both being destroyed' is an
assumption... we all assumed Agent Smith was destroyed in the first
installment. How did he come back?

Actually my question was about how Neo came back... Smith is code, and
can be re-inserted at any time. I'm sure the Source use a good backup
system. Personally I think he needs some Norton tools.

Norton tools aren't everything. Last night I picked up a worm on my laptop
that was slowly eroding my Norton software, deleting all the files it could
until, finally, it deleted something that the Norton startup stuff needed,
so none of the files that were previously in use and therefore undeletable
were in use any more, so it deleted half my Norton directory.
The fix? Was painful. Norton didn't clean it for me since it was disabled,
so I had to manually delete a few dozen references from the registry and
selective startup, and then I had to delete a directory of downloaded and
copied files from who knows where!
The moral of the story: if there is a folder called "Myshares" in your
"C:/Windows" directory, you're in trouble.

Get a Mac. :)

[SwissCheese]

Post by JPM III

Post by SwissCheese

Post by SwissCheese
I would have to say that 'both being destroyed' is an
assumption... we all assumed Agent Smith was destroyed in the first
installment. How did he come back?

Actually my question was about how Neo came back... Smith is code, and
can be re-inserted at any time. I'm sure the Source use a good backup
system. Personally I think he needs some Norton tools.

Norton tools aren't everything. Last night I picked up a worm on my laptop
that was slowly eroding my Norton software, deleting all the files it could
until, finally, it deleted something that the Norton startup stuff needed,
so none of the files that were previously in use and therefore undeletable
were in use any more, so it deleted half my Norton directory.

So how do you think Neo came back from 'inside' Smith?

[Jared]

Post by SwissCheese
...P.S. If Zion had fallen 5/6 times before why wouldn't there be
indications of it? Lots of holes in the ceiling or damage in general. If 23
people started Zion all over again each time they would have to start from
scratch each time? Or would they build upon what was left of previous
Zion's? Maybe Zion was in a different place each time? There are lots of
questions to be answered...

I was under the impression that the machines were actually a part of
this process. Remember the engineering room? Counselor Hahmon
comments that "hardly anyone comes down here" and that "no one cares
how they work as long as they work". Perhaps Zion is destroyed, every
man, woman and child, and then is rebuilt by the machines and prepared
for the One and his new chosen society. Then by "rebuild" the
Architect actually meant "repopulate". The newbies would be totally
ignorant of Zion's previous incarnations, and wouldn't know any
different. Neo could have told them whatever he wanted them to
believe. Just a thought.

[JPM III]

Post by Jared

Post by SwissCheese
...P.S. If Zion had fallen 5/6 times before why wouldn't there be
indications of it? Lots of holes in the ceiling or damage in general.
If 23 people started Zion all over again each time they would have to
start from scratch each time? Or would they build upon what was left
of previous Zion's? Maybe Zion was in a different place each time?
There are lots of questions to be answered...

I was under the impression that the machines were actually a part of
this process. Remember the engineering room? Counselor Hahmon
comments that "hardly anyone comes down here" and that "no one cares
how they work as long as they work". Perhaps Zion is destroyed, every
man, woman and child, and then is rebuilt by the machines and prepared
for the One and his new chosen society. Then by "rebuild" the
Architect actually meant "repopulate". The newbies would be totally
ignorant of Zion's previous incarnations, and wouldn't know any
different. Neo could have told them whatever he wanted them to
believe. Just a thought.

I like that. Very interesting.

[Profil1]

Post by Jared

Post by SwissCheese
...P.S. If Zion had fallen 5/6 times before why wouldn't there be
indications of it? Lots of holes in the ceiling or damage in general. If 23
people started Zion all over again each time they would have to start from
scratch each time? Or would they build upon what was left of previous
Zion's? Maybe Zion was in a different place each time? There are lots of
questions to be answered...

I was under the impression that the machines were actually a part of
this process. Remember the engineering room? Counselor Hahmon
comments that "hardly anyone comes down here" and that "no one cares
how they work as long as they work". Perhaps Zion is destroyed, every
man, woman and child, and then is rebuilt by the machines and prepared
for the One and his new chosen society.

I don't think that Zion goes on with the One that chose those 23 people...
As some had said here:Purose of The One is to be disseminated in order to
patch the system...


Then by "rebuild" the

Post by Jared
Architect actually meant "repopulate". The newbies would be totally
ignorant of Zion's previous incarnations, and wouldn't know any
different. Neo could have told them whatever he wanted them to
believe. Just a thought.

[JPM III]

Post by Profil1

Post by Jared
I was under the impression that the machines were actually a part of
this process. Remember the engineering room? Counselor Hahmon
comments that "hardly anyone comes down here" and that "no one cares
how they work as long as they work". Perhaps Zion is destroyed, every
man, woman and child, and then is rebuilt by the machines and prepared
for the One and his new chosen society.

I don't think that Zion goes on with the One that chose those 23
people... As some had said here:Purose of The One is to be disseminated
in order to patch the system...

I agree with that. The more important point is that the machines build Zion
and then put people there, convincing them that their ancestors built it...?

[Profil1]

Post by JPM III

Post by Profil1

Post by Jared
I was under the impression that the machines were actually a part of
this process. Remember the engineering room? Counselor Hahmon
comments that "hardly anyone comes down here" and that "no one cares
how they work as long as they work". Perhaps Zion is destroyed, every
man, woman and child, and then is rebuilt by the machines and prepared
for the One and his new chosen society.

I don't think that Zion goes on with the One that chose those 23
people... As some had said here:Purose of The One is to be disseminated
in order to patch the system...

I agree with that. The more important point is that the machines build Zion
and then put people there, convincing them that their ancestors built it...?

Maybe Machines do something what Bane did...They put programs in theese 23
peoples minds,control them,load memories into them and after some time they
"expire"...

[JPM III]

Post by Profil1

Post by JPM III

Post by Profil1

Post by Jared
I was under the impression that the machines were actually a part
of this process. Remember the engineering room? Counselor Hahmon
comments that "hardly anyone comes down here" and that "no one
cares how they work as long as they work". Perhaps Zion is
destroyed, every man, woman and child, and then is rebuilt by the
machines and prepared for the One and his new chosen society.

I don't think that Zion goes on with the One that chose those 23
people... As some had said here:Purose of The One is to be
disseminated in order to patch the system...

I agree with that. The more important point is that the machines build
Zion and then put people there, convincing them that their ancestors
built it...?

Maybe Machines do something what Bane did...They put programs in theese
23 peoples minds,control them,load memories into them and after some
time they "expire"...

Exactly.

And going with that, what do we do if Smith is still occupying someone's
mind somewhere in Zion? What if he gets back to the Matrix, or worse, into
Zion Control?

[Profil1]

Post by Sandman

Post by Profil1

Post by JPM III

Post by Profil1

Post by Jared
I was under the impression that the machines were actually a part
of this process. Remember the engineering room? Counselor Hahmon
comments that "hardly anyone comes down here" and that "no one
cares how they work as long as they work". Perhaps Zion is
destroyed, every man, woman and child, and then is rebuilt by the
machines and prepared for the One and his new chosen society.

I don't think that Zion goes on with the One that chose those 23
people... As some had said here:Purose of The One is to be
disseminated in order to patch the system...

I agree with that. The more important point is that the machines build
Zion and then put people there, convincing them that their ancestors
built it...?

Maybe Machines do something what Bane did...They put programs in theese
23 peoples minds,control them,load memories into them and after some
time they "expire"...

Exactly.
And going with that, what do we do if Smith is still occupying someone's
mind somewhere in Zion? What if he gets back to the Matrix, or worse, into
Zion Control?

I don't think so...
If there was somebody Smithized he would be on one of those ships which had
been destroyed...
Only the crews could be overtaken by Smith.And there are little crews left
alive...
Wait...There is no ship left in Zion?If there would it would be in the
dock,right?
If yes there is almost 100% that Smith could be in Zion...

[Mario Di Giacomo]

Post by JPM III
I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I shall
*** What happened to Neo at the end of Revolutions?

Consider this...when Neo is being "taken to Avalon", we see a quick
bit of "flame-world-vision". But every other time we've seen it, it's
from Neo's POV. Wouldn't that imply that Neo was actually conscious
at that point?

Best/Mario

[JPM III]

Post by Mario Di Giacomo

Post by JPM III
I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I
*** What happened to Neo at the end of Revolutions?

Consider this...when Neo is being "taken to Avalon", we see a quick
bit of "flame-world-vision". But every other time we've seen it, it's
from Neo's POV. Wouldn't that imply that Neo was actually conscious
at that point?

It was from the Source's point of view.

[SwissCheese]

Post by JPM III
I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I shall
*** What happened to Neo at the end of Revolutions?
We see both Neo's and Smith's avatars inside the Matrix mutually annihilate,
so they're gone. Also, white light emanating from Neo's organic being can't
be good for him, so I believe it is safe to assume that Neo's real-world
body is toast (perhaps literally). Of course, if there is only one thing
I've learned about Wachowski brothers movies, it's that no assumption is
safe!

Another question is how did Neo get out of 'Smith' in the first movie?

[JPM III]

Post by SwissCheese

Post by JPM III
I hope you like my story. I'll begin with a popular question that I
*** What happened to Neo at the end of Revolutions?
We see both Neo's and Smith's avatars inside the Matrix mutually
annihilate, so they're gone. Also, white light emanating from Neo's
organic being can't be good for him, so I believe it is safe to assume
that Neo's real-world body is toast (perhaps literally). Of course, if
there is only one thing I've learned about Wachowski brothers movies,
it's that no assumption is safe!

Another question is how did Neo get out of 'Smith' in the first movie?

He didn't. He exploded Smith from the inside. He was hacking a program in a
computer system. Rules don't apply...

[Kokolums]

No, that wouldn't make sense at all. The Matrix story is patterned
after the Bible. Neo is Jesus. The machine-collective is God. Smith
is the devil.

Neo (Jesus) sacrificed himself to give the people a second chance.

The difference between the two stories:

Revolutions ends right there. There is ambiguity as to who has really
won. As a result, there is no PAYOFF. That's a pretty big mistake to
make. Without a payoff, the audience usually turns on you.

The Bible doesn't end with the story of Jesus' death and resurrection.
It concludes with the book of Revelation, where Jesus returns, the
people are given final judgement, evil is finally defeated, and the
good souls meet their ultimate reward in paradise. Christians view
their lives as being lived in the middle of this story, but they know
the ending and they know the payoff.

The Bible story ends with a massive payoff that the Matrix lacks.

The only way the Matrix franchise should have ended would have been to
pattern itself after the book of Revelation.

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman
I am sorry, you are wrong. I snipped your incorrect theory and I am
declaring this a dead horse.

That nothing ever defies logic is an improvable assertion. It requires
itself to prove itself, and circular references do not constitute proof.
Either that, or it requires an illogical assumption to prove itself, and
that in itself is illogical.

My theory was not theory. It was definition...

[JPM III]

I don't know why it put my reply here, but... I'll chalk that one up to
either OE or my server. :-P

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
I am sorry, you are wrong. I snipped your incorrect theory and I am
declaring this a dead horse.

That nothing ever defies logic is an improvable assertion. It requires
itself to prove itself, and circular references do not constitute proof.
Either that, or it requires an illogical assumption to prove itself, and
that in itself is illogical.
My theory was not theory. It was definition...

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
I am sorry, you are wrong. I snipped your incorrect theory and I am
declaring this a dead horse.

That nothing ever defies logic is an improvable assertion. It requires
itself to prove itself, and circular references do not constitute proof.
Either that, or it requires an illogical assumption to prove itself, and
that in itself is illogical.
My theory was not theory. It was definition...

I have already said you are wrong, why are you beating a dead horse? It
is quite clear that I will not invest further resources in trying to
explain it to you since A, you don't seem to want to understand and B,
it doesn't really matter to me anyway.

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
I am sorry, you are wrong. I snipped your incorrect theory and I am
declaring this a dead horse.

That nothing ever defies logic is an improvable assertion. It requires
itself to prove itself, and circular references do not constitute proof.
Either that, or it requires an illogical assumption to prove itself, and
that in itself is illogical.
My theory was not theory. It was definition...

I have already said you are wrong, why are you beating a dead horse? It
is quite clear that I will not invest further resources in trying to
explain it to you since A, you don't seem to want to understand and B,
it doesn't really matter to me anyway.

Because I am no longer arguing the previous point. I am now arguing your
false accusation of anyone being wrong here. We are arguing matters of
opinion and interpretation, of which there are no rights and wrongs.

You need to understand (or at least pretend to understand) as John Stuart
Mill did that a clash of opposing opinions is not meant to prove either of
them wrong, but instead to shed light on alternative suggestions and bring
both sides to a greater understanding of the whole.

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
I am sorry, you are wrong. I snipped your incorrect theory and I am
declaring this a dead horse.

That nothing ever defies logic is an improvable assertion. It requires
itself to prove itself, and circular references do not constitute proof.
Either that, or it requires an illogical assumption to prove itself, and
that in itself is illogical.
My theory was not theory. It was definition...

I have already said you are wrong, why are you beating a dead horse? It
is quite clear that I will not invest further resources in trying to
explain it to you since A, you don't seem to want to understand and B,
it doesn't really matter to me anyway.

Because I am no longer arguing the previous point. I am now arguing your
false accusation of anyone being wrong here. We are arguing matters of
opinion and interpretation, of which there are no rights and wrongs.
You need to understand (or at least pretend to understand) as John Stuart
Mill did that a clash of opposing opinions is not meant to prove either of
them wrong, but instead to shed light on alternative suggestions and bring
both sides to a greater understanding of the whole.

Yes, I found that you weren't receptible for such "greater understandning",
which is why I declared the issue a "dead horse".

I have found that people that doesn't understand logic aren't likely to
understand an explanation of logic.

[mikah]

From: Sandman (Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:54:15 +0100)
Yes, I found that you weren't receptible for such "greater understandning",
which is why I declared the issue a "dead horse".
I have found that people that doesn't understand logic aren't likely to
understand an explanation of logic.

So if we don't already know, you can't explain it to us? What did JPM say
earlier about circuitous logic? ;-) The problem with positions like this is
I don't understand how those theories provide for people learning anything.

OK, so having said that, and actually knowing where you're coming from,
would it be more accurate (representative of your experience) to say that
people who reject logic usually can't have logic explained to them? The
difference being... people CAN learn, but only if they want to. I can teach
you, but I can't learn you.

[Sandman]

Post by mikah

Post by Sandman
Yes, I found that you weren't receptible for such "greater understandning",
which is why I declared the issue a "dead horse".
I have found that people that doesn't understand logic aren't likely to
understand an explanation of logic.

So if we don't already know, you can't explain it to us?

Well, wanting to learn would help also. :)

Post by mikah
OK, so having said that, and actually knowing where you're coming from,
would it be more accurate (representative of your experience) to say that
people who reject logic usually can't have logic explained to them? The
difference being... people CAN learn, but only if they want to. I can teach
you, but I can't learn you.

Yes, that's what I meant - sorry for the confusion.

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman

Post by mikah

Post by Sandman
Yes, I found that you weren't receptible for such "greater
understandning", which is why I declared the issue a "dead horse".
I have found that people that doesn't understand logic aren't likely
to understand an explanation of logic.

So if we don't already know, you can't explain it to us?

Well, wanting to learn would help also. :)

I've studied logic for years now -- the philosophical roots of "logic" in my
spare time for as long as I have read philosophy (about four years), and the
technological roots of computer logic for as long as I've been programming
(about eight years).

I'm certainly no expert, but I think I know more than my fair share about
it. And sorry, but you haven't appealed to any definition of logic with
which I am familiar yet, so I will keep waiting until you approach something
that makes sense to me... and then see where that leads.

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman

Post by mikah

Post by Sandman
Yes, I found that you weren't receptible for such "greater
understandning", which is why I declared the issue a "dead horse".
I have found that people that doesn't understand logic aren't likely
to understand an explanation of logic.

So if we don't already know, you can't explain it to us?

Well, wanting to learn would help also. :)

I've studied logic for years now -- the philosophical roots of "logic" in my
spare time for as long as I have read philosophy (about four years), and the
technological roots of computer logic for as long as I've been programming
(about eight years).
I'm certainly no expert, but I think I know more than my fair share about
it. And sorry, but you haven't appealed to any definition of logic with
which I am familiar yet, so I will keep waiting until you approach something
that makes sense to me... and then see where that leads.

I don't know what you're trying to say. You are clearly stating here that logic
"makes no sense" to you. I'm sorry, but that doesn't help me help you. It has
become clear to me that you do not seek to know more about logic, but have your
mind set that you already know what logic is, even though you have shown quite
aptly that that isn't the case.

I'm not going to be able to prove it to you, since you'll claim I'm wrong since
it doesn't "make sense" to you.

This is obviously why I have declared it a dead horse.

[JPM III]

Post by Sandman

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
Well, wanting to learn would help also. :)

I've studied logic for years now -- the philosophical roots of "logic"
in my spare time for as long as I have read philosophy (about four
years), and the technological roots of computer logic for as long as
I've been programming (about eight years).
I'm certainly no expert, but I think I know more than my fair share
about it. And sorry, but you haven't appealed to any definition of
logic with which I am familiar yet, so I will keep waiting until you
approach something that makes sense to me... and then see where that
leads.

I don't know what you're trying to say. You are clearly stating here that
logic "makes no sense" to you.

If that is what is "clear" to you then you, heh, your logic is faulty...
which is actually what I was saying in the first place. My point is that
your definition of logic doesn't function; it isn't how logic works.

Post by Sandman
I'm sorry, but that doesn't help me help
you. It has become clear to me that you do not seek to know more about
logic, but have your mind set that you already know what logic is, even
though you have shown quite aptly that that isn't the case.

You're describing you, not me. (See where this goes?)

Post by Sandman
I'm not going to be able to prove it to you, since you'll claim I'm wrong
since it doesn't "make sense" to you.

Same with you. So the end.

Post by Sandman
This is obviously why I have declared it a dead horse.

If you're going to declare something a dead horse, then end it on an
objective note. By attaching an insult or assumption, you are declaring it a
dead horse and then re-opening the argument.

[Sandman]

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
I don't know what you're trying to say. You are clearly stating here that
logic "makes no sense" to you.

If that is what is "clear" to you then you, heh, your logic is faulty...
which is actually what I was saying in the first place. My point is that
your definition of logic doesn't function; it isn't how logic works.

Yes, you have made it clear that "my" logic is "faulty". I have already
accepted that you don't understand logic, so it's no surprising that you
would callit faulty.

Post by JPM III

Post by Sandman
This is obviously why I have declared it a dead horse.

If you're going to declare something a dead horse, then end it on an
objective note. By attaching an insult or assumption, you are declaring it a
dead horse and then re-opening the argument.

Where is the insult?

[Gavin Smith]

Arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a fully charged icing

Post by JPM III
I believe it is safe to assume that Neo's real-world
body is toast (perhaps literally)

... are you suggesting that as well as feeding us the liquefied remains
of our fellow humans, the machines are now providing us with Toasted
One? Is this a special edible treat in the new happy blue-sky Matrix?

What's next? A Trinity Kebab?

[JPM III]

Post by Gavin Smith
Arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a fully charged icing

Post by JPM III
I believe it is safe to assume that Neo's real-world
body is toast (perhaps literally)

... are you suggesting that as well as feeding us the liquefied remains
of our fellow humans, the machines are now providing us with Toasted
One? Is this a special edible treat in the new happy blue-sky Matrix?
What's next? A Trinity Kebab?

How deliciously twisted! :-)