What I understood in The Matrix Trilogy

Nathanael Boehm - UI/UX designer & developer, Canberra

Nathanael Boehm - UI/UX designer & developer, Canberra — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:49:22 GMT

Pingback from Nathanael Boehm - UI/UX designer & developer, Canberra

re: What I understood in The Matrix Trilogy

Bertrand Le Roy — Fri, 04 May 2007 18:01:31 GMT

Pynner: I don't know about that, I guess the authors are the only ones who really know what they had in mind, but I don't remember seeing any references to God. But the HD-DVDs are out at the end of the month. Perfect excuse to re-watch the trilogy.

re: What I understood in The Matrix Trilogy

Pynner — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:07:37 GMT

Interesting ideas here. I always thought the "Machine World" and the "Real World" were two different places. I imagined the Matrix as a section of a huge network that was partitioned off to seperate the humans from the programs. The train station is the only link accross the partition. As for the "real world" I always thought was just that. The fact that Neo could control objects with his mind and see while he was blind I thought was the writers trying to open the audience's minds into metaphysical philosophies. And to alos point out that in a story where computer programs are Gods, even God can't know everything. Or perhaps God himself is watching over the whole war and is helping Neo resolve everything for the fate of Earth.

Musings about the Matrix

Kelly White — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:11:38 GMT

Betrand Le Roy of Atlas fame has an interesting writeup on what he understood from the Matrix Trilogy.

re: What I understood in The Matrix Trilogy

InfinitiesLoop — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:24:00 GMT

The crew actually being programs in a supermatrix is what I always suspected. The whole notion of "the body cannot live without the mind" is kind of a stretch -- I mean, you fall in the matrix and it makes your lip bleed? The mind is tricky and powerful but it's not THAT accurate! But if you think of them as programs in a supermatrix you can attribute this behavior to the rules programmed in the supermatrix. Also, their program is transfered into the sub-matrix while they are plugged in (or at least interfacing with it at some level), and not disconnecting it properly (pulling the plug out of their heads) causes it to enter an unsupported state. I guess they dont implement IDisposable, pitty.

re: What I understood in The Matrix Trilogy

Bertrand Le Roy — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:01:26 GMT

Zois: wow, I wonder where they got that from, but that certainly wasn't a scientific show ;)

re: What I understood in The Matrix Trilogy

zois — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:00:52 GMT

i was watching a sientific show on tv long time ago , about going back to the past and forword in to the future , they sead the only way to acive that task is to use computer emulation,also that will be possible in to the future,with the atvancment of our computer technology. Then one ask the guestion"if we are in a program that simulate the past,how we know who is real and who is not (The Matrix)? Dream on , we still sleeping.

re: What I understood in The Matrix Trilogy

Carlos — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:33:28 GMT

No, no, no... the Oracle is just error-handling and Neo is exception. :O

re: What I understood in The Matrix Trilogy

Bertrand Le Roy — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:46:04 GMT

Suneil: ooooh, do you mean that all the comments about this not being about Atlas are really wondering how Atlas is being *used* by/in this blog?

Well, writing a blogging engine is serious business (it's so much more than Post 1 * n Comments) that I leave to others who do it much better than I would. Me, I have enough work developing Atlas itself, and working on my own private projects.

In the same way that I did not write the word processor or the OS I use everyday, I did not write this blog engine (if you have to know it's Community Server which is built by the smart people at Telligent on top of ASP.NET 2.0).

I hope this clarifies.

re: What I understood in The Matrix Trilogy

Paul — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:37:58 GMT

I've had similar thoughts, although yours I think are better formed. The best I'd come up with was that Zion was exception handling like a try...catch block. Rogue 'programs' (in my concept still of human origin, but I like your take that nothing was human) would be 'handled' by getting sent to the error trap of zion and then later cleaned up by garbage collection. . . To this day my Exception object names are all called 'zion'. :D try { //something } catch (Exception zion) { //handle zion } :D