Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
It seems as if war/death/etc is just as common in the Matrix as it is in real life outside of the movie. When someone dies in the Matrix, they die in their pod, do they not? = Loss of a battery. That is a whole lot of wasted batteries. Why do the machines allow a world with so much death?
the-matrix
New contributor
|
show 3 more comments
It seems as if war/death/etc is just as common in the Matrix as it is in real life outside of the movie. When someone dies in the Matrix, they die in their pod, do they not? = Loss of a battery. That is a whole lot of wasted batteries. Why do the machines allow a world with so much death?
the-matrix
New contributor
7
There is no war inside the Matrix, as far as I'm aware. There are certainly a vanishingly small number of terrorists, but that's not the same thing
– Valorum
2 days ago
5
then why the military helicopter and military complex? this means there is war. the world in the matrix (1990's) looks just like the real 1990's. Guns and gangs and drugs to boot. Why would the machines allow this?
– user113769
2 days ago
3
user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.
– Misha R
2 days ago
4
Death is "allowed" in the Matrix because, simply, the Matrix is meant to be like the real world. It has gravity, sound, pain, heat, light, etc etc just like the real world. Obviously if there was a massive change ("all of a sudden, nobody's dying!") it would be obvious something weird is going on.
– Fattie
yesterday
2
"It seems as if war/death/etc is just as common in the Matrix as it is in real life outside", what do you mean "outside"? When have you been outside?
– akostadinov
19 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
It seems as if war/death/etc is just as common in the Matrix as it is in real life outside of the movie. When someone dies in the Matrix, they die in their pod, do they not? = Loss of a battery. That is a whole lot of wasted batteries. Why do the machines allow a world with so much death?
the-matrix
New contributor
It seems as if war/death/etc is just as common in the Matrix as it is in real life outside of the movie. When someone dies in the Matrix, they die in their pod, do they not? = Loss of a battery. That is a whole lot of wasted batteries. Why do the machines allow a world with so much death?
the-matrix
the-matrix
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
Rebel-Scum
4,55042449
4,55042449
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
user113769user113769
15025
15025
New contributor
New contributor
7
There is no war inside the Matrix, as far as I'm aware. There are certainly a vanishingly small number of terrorists, but that's not the same thing
– Valorum
2 days ago
5
then why the military helicopter and military complex? this means there is war. the world in the matrix (1990's) looks just like the real 1990's. Guns and gangs and drugs to boot. Why would the machines allow this?
– user113769
2 days ago
3
user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.
– Misha R
2 days ago
4
Death is "allowed" in the Matrix because, simply, the Matrix is meant to be like the real world. It has gravity, sound, pain, heat, light, etc etc just like the real world. Obviously if there was a massive change ("all of a sudden, nobody's dying!") it would be obvious something weird is going on.
– Fattie
yesterday
2
"It seems as if war/death/etc is just as common in the Matrix as it is in real life outside", what do you mean "outside"? When have you been outside?
– akostadinov
19 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
7
There is no war inside the Matrix, as far as I'm aware. There are certainly a vanishingly small number of terrorists, but that's not the same thing
– Valorum
2 days ago
5
then why the military helicopter and military complex? this means there is war. the world in the matrix (1990's) looks just like the real 1990's. Guns and gangs and drugs to boot. Why would the machines allow this?
– user113769
2 days ago
3
user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.
– Misha R
2 days ago
4
Death is "allowed" in the Matrix because, simply, the Matrix is meant to be like the real world. It has gravity, sound, pain, heat, light, etc etc just like the real world. Obviously if there was a massive change ("all of a sudden, nobody's dying!") it would be obvious something weird is going on.
– Fattie
yesterday
2
"It seems as if war/death/etc is just as common in the Matrix as it is in real life outside", what do you mean "outside"? When have you been outside?
– akostadinov
19 hours ago
7
7
There is no war inside the Matrix, as far as I'm aware. There are certainly a vanishingly small number of terrorists, but that's not the same thing
– Valorum
2 days ago
There is no war inside the Matrix, as far as I'm aware. There are certainly a vanishingly small number of terrorists, but that's not the same thing
– Valorum
2 days ago
5
5
then why the military helicopter and military complex? this means there is war. the world in the matrix (1990's) looks just like the real 1990's. Guns and gangs and drugs to boot. Why would the machines allow this?
– user113769
2 days ago
then why the military helicopter and military complex? this means there is war. the world in the matrix (1990's) looks just like the real 1990's. Guns and gangs and drugs to boot. Why would the machines allow this?
– user113769
2 days ago
3
3
user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.
– Misha R
2 days ago
user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.
– Misha R
2 days ago
4
4
Death is "allowed" in the Matrix because, simply, the Matrix is meant to be like the real world. It has gravity, sound, pain, heat, light, etc etc just like the real world. Obviously if there was a massive change ("all of a sudden, nobody's dying!") it would be obvious something weird is going on.
– Fattie
yesterday
Death is "allowed" in the Matrix because, simply, the Matrix is meant to be like the real world. It has gravity, sound, pain, heat, light, etc etc just like the real world. Obviously if there was a massive change ("all of a sudden, nobody's dying!") it would be obvious something weird is going on.
– Fattie
yesterday
2
2
"It seems as if war/death/etc is just as common in the Matrix as it is in real life outside", what do you mean "outside"? When have you been outside?
– akostadinov
19 hours ago
"It seems as if war/death/etc is just as common in the Matrix as it is in real life outside", what do you mean "outside"? When have you been outside?
– akostadinov
19 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
People wear out
Bodies are bodies; they decline after a certain age and eventually fail for some reason or another. The machines can't change that, and given humans' relatively fecund nature, they have no driving reason to.
Maybe being sealed into a support coffin slightly lowers life expectancy. Maybe is increases it. But the humans are going to die eventually no matter what.
To run with the battery analogy, batteries wear out. After some number of recharges, their ability to hold a charge gets less, and your four-year-old cell phone has half the battery life that it had when new. Time to recycle!
People would notice, and be bothered by, the lack of death
The architect describes the Paradise Matrix:
[it] simulated a perfect world with no suffering to try to pacify
their minds, but the human minds did not accept this version. Many of
those connected died, and a Nightmare Matrix was designed in its place
that tried to correct its flaws.
Accordingly, even if there was no need for War, the Nightmare Matrix that we see must have War, and Famine, and Conquest, and especially Death. Humans would notice. Humans would be uneasy. Humans would fail.
Men... Men are weak.
The analogy to batteries doesn't fit that well, because a) the machines do feed the humans with nutritients (which of course doesn't make sense), so they act more like a fuel cell than a battery b) biological systems are in principle able to self-repair almost indefinitely, only, most lifeforms don't do that because it's actually an evolutionary advantage if you die at some point.
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
1
@leftaroundabout true, but the machines have zero reason to correct that evolutionary advantage. But I like the fuel cell analogy... And I've seen estimates that fuel cells last 5k-10k hours before wearing out :)
– gowenfawr
yesterday
@leftaroundabout Biological systems are awful at self-repair. We have no code for e.g. "growing a new arm", and even developing one artificially would be an incredible feat (which is why our current efforts try to grow ready limbs on other animals, rather than "fixing" our own code). Even for cell-level damage (which is much better handled, thanks to our evolutionary ancestry), any large damage simply means the cell dies. Biological systems lose function over time rather quickly. The exceptions are just that - exceptions. In some niches, self-repair is a huge advantage.
– Luaan
22 hours ago
1
@Luaan how would you lose an arm whilst strapped in a sheltering hive? Biological systems self-repair all the time on the micro-level – yes, in part by simply killing off and replacing damaged cells, about which the human doesn't notice anything. As I said, whether or not a system actually does that depends on whether it's evolutionary advantageous. My point was that the wearing out of humans isn't at all analogous to the wearing out of batteries.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
1
@leftaroundabout well, it suggests more affinity of human==battery. It extends the batteries life, just as good nutrition and avoiding smoking prolongs the average human's life. But both of them degrade over time, despite self-repair, and so must be decommissioned and replaced.
– gowenfawr
18 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
The first matrix did not allow that.
First quote is from Smith, second from Architect.
Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.
The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect; it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equalled only by its monumental failure.
However, since large number of batteries rejected the program, it was redesigned not to be perfect.
The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus I redesigned it, based on your history, to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature.
Human nature, according to the architect, has grotesqueries that includes war and loss. Even though this design failed as well. The Oracle was created to better understand human nature. However, even the Oracle did not remove war and loss. While there is no direct quotation to support it, it is immediately deducible that Oracle find these aspects useful as well.
Long story short, Matrix was redesigned in a way that most of the batteries accepted the program. Loss of a few crops was acceptable as long as the majority did not revolt against it.
add a comment |
While the other two answers correctly address the point about the need for an "imperfect" world stated in the movies, I think there might be a different approach related to your question: you say that dying in the Matrix means dying in the real world...
It's true the other way around, too
The machines need to consume humans to live; this means disconnecting them from the Matrix and swallowing them whole (as shown in one scene in the first movie I believe); this means killing them both in the real world AND inside the Matrix.
So, when the machines need energy, they need to disconnect as much humans as needed. They just "translate" it to the Matrix as those humans dying by whatever means neccesary.
Having a perfect world where no one suffers doesn't necessarily means no one dies. It might just mean everybody gets whatever they want whenever they want it, or maybe when someone died they were just replaced by somenone else. With an imperfect world, you have just more normal, natural ways of dying. Need a battery? Make someone sick or have an accident or just old. Need thousands of batteries? Cause a war or a terrorist attack here and there and cover your real worlds needs inside the simulation.
New contributor
18
I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.
– Valorum
2 days ago
add a comment |
They do not die
This is a concept I've been thinking about regarding a sequel to the series.
In the Matrix, Neo learns how to manipulate the matrix around him because it is not actually real, now in one specific scene..
In one specific scene, Neo uses the power of the matrix while he is outside the matrix, He stops a robot from exploding and killing the 3 of them.
When he stops the Scentinal or whatever they're called, He collapses to the ground and the scene ends, In the next scene he wakes up in a hospital type bed.. However nothing is ever said about the fact that he can use the power outside the matrix.
This only has one conclusion in my opinion,
They never made it out of the matrix in the first place, They're still in the matrix, A matrix inside a matrix..
The fact that this is never addressed in the movie again, and he never uses the power outside the matrix ever again tells me that maybe the writer left an opening for a script that was never written.
This means, the battery's and pod's ( people ) are actually inside a matrix, The people and battery's are also in another matrix !
It is a quarantine for the matrix, therefore i don't believe they ever do die at all !
New contributor
2
Even if we accept your hypothesis, I'm not sure how it answers the question, since it just changes it to why people are allowed to die in this second matrix instead.
– John Montgomery
yesterday
It is not a hypothesis, it happens in the second film.... The matrix that you are referring to is just a matrix inside the matrix, therefore you can not say that the machine actually consumes them, they're just a digital representation...
– Zillinium
yesterday
-1 People do get sick and can die in the Matrix. Also, your Matrix-within-a-Matrix hypothesis is wrong, and Neo's ability to destroy the Sentinels in the Real World actually is explained by the Oracle. Even if your hypothesis was correct it wouldn't answer the question.
– Null♦
17 hours ago
How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?
– Zillinium
16 hours ago
add a comment |
"The problem is choice..."
The occurrance of death, or even the choice of death gives the human batteries the impression that they do not have to live in the Matrix if they wish to leave. If they jumped off of skyscrapers and bounced back up from the ground, unable to pass, they would reject the program, knowing they are trapped in some immutable prison beyond their control or will.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "186"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
user113769 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f208599%2fwhy-is-death-allowed-in-the-matrix%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
People wear out
Bodies are bodies; they decline after a certain age and eventually fail for some reason or another. The machines can't change that, and given humans' relatively fecund nature, they have no driving reason to.
Maybe being sealed into a support coffin slightly lowers life expectancy. Maybe is increases it. But the humans are going to die eventually no matter what.
To run with the battery analogy, batteries wear out. After some number of recharges, their ability to hold a charge gets less, and your four-year-old cell phone has half the battery life that it had when new. Time to recycle!
People would notice, and be bothered by, the lack of death
The architect describes the Paradise Matrix:
[it] simulated a perfect world with no suffering to try to pacify
their minds, but the human minds did not accept this version. Many of
those connected died, and a Nightmare Matrix was designed in its place
that tried to correct its flaws.
Accordingly, even if there was no need for War, the Nightmare Matrix that we see must have War, and Famine, and Conquest, and especially Death. Humans would notice. Humans would be uneasy. Humans would fail.
Men... Men are weak.
The analogy to batteries doesn't fit that well, because a) the machines do feed the humans with nutritients (which of course doesn't make sense), so they act more like a fuel cell than a battery b) biological systems are in principle able to self-repair almost indefinitely, only, most lifeforms don't do that because it's actually an evolutionary advantage if you die at some point.
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
1
@leftaroundabout true, but the machines have zero reason to correct that evolutionary advantage. But I like the fuel cell analogy... And I've seen estimates that fuel cells last 5k-10k hours before wearing out :)
– gowenfawr
yesterday
@leftaroundabout Biological systems are awful at self-repair. We have no code for e.g. "growing a new arm", and even developing one artificially would be an incredible feat (which is why our current efforts try to grow ready limbs on other animals, rather than "fixing" our own code). Even for cell-level damage (which is much better handled, thanks to our evolutionary ancestry), any large damage simply means the cell dies. Biological systems lose function over time rather quickly. The exceptions are just that - exceptions. In some niches, self-repair is a huge advantage.
– Luaan
22 hours ago
1
@Luaan how would you lose an arm whilst strapped in a sheltering hive? Biological systems self-repair all the time on the micro-level – yes, in part by simply killing off and replacing damaged cells, about which the human doesn't notice anything. As I said, whether or not a system actually does that depends on whether it's evolutionary advantageous. My point was that the wearing out of humans isn't at all analogous to the wearing out of batteries.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
1
@leftaroundabout well, it suggests more affinity of human==battery. It extends the batteries life, just as good nutrition and avoiding smoking prolongs the average human's life. But both of them degrade over time, despite self-repair, and so must be decommissioned and replaced.
– gowenfawr
18 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
People wear out
Bodies are bodies; they decline after a certain age and eventually fail for some reason or another. The machines can't change that, and given humans' relatively fecund nature, they have no driving reason to.
Maybe being sealed into a support coffin slightly lowers life expectancy. Maybe is increases it. But the humans are going to die eventually no matter what.
To run with the battery analogy, batteries wear out. After some number of recharges, their ability to hold a charge gets less, and your four-year-old cell phone has half the battery life that it had when new. Time to recycle!
People would notice, and be bothered by, the lack of death
The architect describes the Paradise Matrix:
[it] simulated a perfect world with no suffering to try to pacify
their minds, but the human minds did not accept this version. Many of
those connected died, and a Nightmare Matrix was designed in its place
that tried to correct its flaws.
Accordingly, even if there was no need for War, the Nightmare Matrix that we see must have War, and Famine, and Conquest, and especially Death. Humans would notice. Humans would be uneasy. Humans would fail.
Men... Men are weak.
The analogy to batteries doesn't fit that well, because a) the machines do feed the humans with nutritients (which of course doesn't make sense), so they act more like a fuel cell than a battery b) biological systems are in principle able to self-repair almost indefinitely, only, most lifeforms don't do that because it's actually an evolutionary advantage if you die at some point.
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
1
@leftaroundabout true, but the machines have zero reason to correct that evolutionary advantage. But I like the fuel cell analogy... And I've seen estimates that fuel cells last 5k-10k hours before wearing out :)
– gowenfawr
yesterday
@leftaroundabout Biological systems are awful at self-repair. We have no code for e.g. "growing a new arm", and even developing one artificially would be an incredible feat (which is why our current efforts try to grow ready limbs on other animals, rather than "fixing" our own code). Even for cell-level damage (which is much better handled, thanks to our evolutionary ancestry), any large damage simply means the cell dies. Biological systems lose function over time rather quickly. The exceptions are just that - exceptions. In some niches, self-repair is a huge advantage.
– Luaan
22 hours ago
1
@Luaan how would you lose an arm whilst strapped in a sheltering hive? Biological systems self-repair all the time on the micro-level – yes, in part by simply killing off and replacing damaged cells, about which the human doesn't notice anything. As I said, whether or not a system actually does that depends on whether it's evolutionary advantageous. My point was that the wearing out of humans isn't at all analogous to the wearing out of batteries.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
1
@leftaroundabout well, it suggests more affinity of human==battery. It extends the batteries life, just as good nutrition and avoiding smoking prolongs the average human's life. But both of them degrade over time, despite self-repair, and so must be decommissioned and replaced.
– gowenfawr
18 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
People wear out
Bodies are bodies; they decline after a certain age and eventually fail for some reason or another. The machines can't change that, and given humans' relatively fecund nature, they have no driving reason to.
Maybe being sealed into a support coffin slightly lowers life expectancy. Maybe is increases it. But the humans are going to die eventually no matter what.
To run with the battery analogy, batteries wear out. After some number of recharges, their ability to hold a charge gets less, and your four-year-old cell phone has half the battery life that it had when new. Time to recycle!
People would notice, and be bothered by, the lack of death
The architect describes the Paradise Matrix:
[it] simulated a perfect world with no suffering to try to pacify
their minds, but the human minds did not accept this version. Many of
those connected died, and a Nightmare Matrix was designed in its place
that tried to correct its flaws.
Accordingly, even if there was no need for War, the Nightmare Matrix that we see must have War, and Famine, and Conquest, and especially Death. Humans would notice. Humans would be uneasy. Humans would fail.
Men... Men are weak.
People wear out
Bodies are bodies; they decline after a certain age and eventually fail for some reason or another. The machines can't change that, and given humans' relatively fecund nature, they have no driving reason to.
Maybe being sealed into a support coffin slightly lowers life expectancy. Maybe is increases it. But the humans are going to die eventually no matter what.
To run with the battery analogy, batteries wear out. After some number of recharges, their ability to hold a charge gets less, and your four-year-old cell phone has half the battery life that it had when new. Time to recycle!
People would notice, and be bothered by, the lack of death
The architect describes the Paradise Matrix:
[it] simulated a perfect world with no suffering to try to pacify
their minds, but the human minds did not accept this version. Many of
those connected died, and a Nightmare Matrix was designed in its place
that tried to correct its flaws.
Accordingly, even if there was no need for War, the Nightmare Matrix that we see must have War, and Famine, and Conquest, and especially Death. Humans would notice. Humans would be uneasy. Humans would fail.
Men... Men are weak.
answered 2 days ago
gowenfawrgowenfawr
17.5k65174
17.5k65174
The analogy to batteries doesn't fit that well, because a) the machines do feed the humans with nutritients (which of course doesn't make sense), so they act more like a fuel cell than a battery b) biological systems are in principle able to self-repair almost indefinitely, only, most lifeforms don't do that because it's actually an evolutionary advantage if you die at some point.
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
1
@leftaroundabout true, but the machines have zero reason to correct that evolutionary advantage. But I like the fuel cell analogy... And I've seen estimates that fuel cells last 5k-10k hours before wearing out :)
– gowenfawr
yesterday
@leftaroundabout Biological systems are awful at self-repair. We have no code for e.g. "growing a new arm", and even developing one artificially would be an incredible feat (which is why our current efforts try to grow ready limbs on other animals, rather than "fixing" our own code). Even for cell-level damage (which is much better handled, thanks to our evolutionary ancestry), any large damage simply means the cell dies. Biological systems lose function over time rather quickly. The exceptions are just that - exceptions. In some niches, self-repair is a huge advantage.
– Luaan
22 hours ago
1
@Luaan how would you lose an arm whilst strapped in a sheltering hive? Biological systems self-repair all the time on the micro-level – yes, in part by simply killing off and replacing damaged cells, about which the human doesn't notice anything. As I said, whether or not a system actually does that depends on whether it's evolutionary advantageous. My point was that the wearing out of humans isn't at all analogous to the wearing out of batteries.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
1
@leftaroundabout well, it suggests more affinity of human==battery. It extends the batteries life, just as good nutrition and avoiding smoking prolongs the average human's life. But both of them degrade over time, despite self-repair, and so must be decommissioned and replaced.
– gowenfawr
18 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
The analogy to batteries doesn't fit that well, because a) the machines do feed the humans with nutritients (which of course doesn't make sense), so they act more like a fuel cell than a battery b) biological systems are in principle able to self-repair almost indefinitely, only, most lifeforms don't do that because it's actually an evolutionary advantage if you die at some point.
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
1
@leftaroundabout true, but the machines have zero reason to correct that evolutionary advantage. But I like the fuel cell analogy... And I've seen estimates that fuel cells last 5k-10k hours before wearing out :)
– gowenfawr
yesterday
@leftaroundabout Biological systems are awful at self-repair. We have no code for e.g. "growing a new arm", and even developing one artificially would be an incredible feat (which is why our current efforts try to grow ready limbs on other animals, rather than "fixing" our own code). Even for cell-level damage (which is much better handled, thanks to our evolutionary ancestry), any large damage simply means the cell dies. Biological systems lose function over time rather quickly. The exceptions are just that - exceptions. In some niches, self-repair is a huge advantage.
– Luaan
22 hours ago
1
@Luaan how would you lose an arm whilst strapped in a sheltering hive? Biological systems self-repair all the time on the micro-level – yes, in part by simply killing off and replacing damaged cells, about which the human doesn't notice anything. As I said, whether or not a system actually does that depends on whether it's evolutionary advantageous. My point was that the wearing out of humans isn't at all analogous to the wearing out of batteries.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
1
@leftaroundabout well, it suggests more affinity of human==battery. It extends the batteries life, just as good nutrition and avoiding smoking prolongs the average human's life. But both of them degrade over time, despite self-repair, and so must be decommissioned and replaced.
– gowenfawr
18 hours ago
The analogy to batteries doesn't fit that well, because a) the machines do feed the humans with nutritients (which of course doesn't make sense), so they act more like a fuel cell than a battery b) biological systems are in principle able to self-repair almost indefinitely, only, most lifeforms don't do that because it's actually an evolutionary advantage if you die at some point.
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
The analogy to batteries doesn't fit that well, because a) the machines do feed the humans with nutritients (which of course doesn't make sense), so they act more like a fuel cell than a battery b) biological systems are in principle able to self-repair almost indefinitely, only, most lifeforms don't do that because it's actually an evolutionary advantage if you die at some point.
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
1
1
@leftaroundabout true, but the machines have zero reason to correct that evolutionary advantage. But I like the fuel cell analogy... And I've seen estimates that fuel cells last 5k-10k hours before wearing out :)
– gowenfawr
yesterday
@leftaroundabout true, but the machines have zero reason to correct that evolutionary advantage. But I like the fuel cell analogy... And I've seen estimates that fuel cells last 5k-10k hours before wearing out :)
– gowenfawr
yesterday
@leftaroundabout Biological systems are awful at self-repair. We have no code for e.g. "growing a new arm", and even developing one artificially would be an incredible feat (which is why our current efforts try to grow ready limbs on other animals, rather than "fixing" our own code). Even for cell-level damage (which is much better handled, thanks to our evolutionary ancestry), any large damage simply means the cell dies. Biological systems lose function over time rather quickly. The exceptions are just that - exceptions. In some niches, self-repair is a huge advantage.
– Luaan
22 hours ago
@leftaroundabout Biological systems are awful at self-repair. We have no code for e.g. "growing a new arm", and even developing one artificially would be an incredible feat (which is why our current efforts try to grow ready limbs on other animals, rather than "fixing" our own code). Even for cell-level damage (which is much better handled, thanks to our evolutionary ancestry), any large damage simply means the cell dies. Biological systems lose function over time rather quickly. The exceptions are just that - exceptions. In some niches, self-repair is a huge advantage.
– Luaan
22 hours ago
1
1
@Luaan how would you lose an arm whilst strapped in a sheltering hive? Biological systems self-repair all the time on the micro-level – yes, in part by simply killing off and replacing damaged cells, about which the human doesn't notice anything. As I said, whether or not a system actually does that depends on whether it's evolutionary advantageous. My point was that the wearing out of humans isn't at all analogous to the wearing out of batteries.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
@Luaan how would you lose an arm whilst strapped in a sheltering hive? Biological systems self-repair all the time on the micro-level – yes, in part by simply killing off and replacing damaged cells, about which the human doesn't notice anything. As I said, whether or not a system actually does that depends on whether it's evolutionary advantageous. My point was that the wearing out of humans isn't at all analogous to the wearing out of batteries.
– leftaroundabout
22 hours ago
1
1
@leftaroundabout well, it suggests more affinity of human==battery. It extends the batteries life, just as good nutrition and avoiding smoking prolongs the average human's life. But both of them degrade over time, despite self-repair, and so must be decommissioned and replaced.
– gowenfawr
18 hours ago
@leftaroundabout well, it suggests more affinity of human==battery. It extends the batteries life, just as good nutrition and avoiding smoking prolongs the average human's life. But both of them degrade over time, despite self-repair, and so must be decommissioned and replaced.
– gowenfawr
18 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
The first matrix did not allow that.
First quote is from Smith, second from Architect.
Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.
The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect; it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equalled only by its monumental failure.
However, since large number of batteries rejected the program, it was redesigned not to be perfect.
The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus I redesigned it, based on your history, to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature.
Human nature, according to the architect, has grotesqueries that includes war and loss. Even though this design failed as well. The Oracle was created to better understand human nature. However, even the Oracle did not remove war and loss. While there is no direct quotation to support it, it is immediately deducible that Oracle find these aspects useful as well.
Long story short, Matrix was redesigned in a way that most of the batteries accepted the program. Loss of a few crops was acceptable as long as the majority did not revolt against it.
add a comment |
The first matrix did not allow that.
First quote is from Smith, second from Architect.
Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.
The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect; it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equalled only by its monumental failure.
However, since large number of batteries rejected the program, it was redesigned not to be perfect.
The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus I redesigned it, based on your history, to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature.
Human nature, according to the architect, has grotesqueries that includes war and loss. Even though this design failed as well. The Oracle was created to better understand human nature. However, even the Oracle did not remove war and loss. While there is no direct quotation to support it, it is immediately deducible that Oracle find these aspects useful as well.
Long story short, Matrix was redesigned in a way that most of the batteries accepted the program. Loss of a few crops was acceptable as long as the majority did not revolt against it.
add a comment |
The first matrix did not allow that.
First quote is from Smith, second from Architect.
Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.
The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect; it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equalled only by its monumental failure.
However, since large number of batteries rejected the program, it was redesigned not to be perfect.
The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus I redesigned it, based on your history, to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature.
Human nature, according to the architect, has grotesqueries that includes war and loss. Even though this design failed as well. The Oracle was created to better understand human nature. However, even the Oracle did not remove war and loss. While there is no direct quotation to support it, it is immediately deducible that Oracle find these aspects useful as well.
Long story short, Matrix was redesigned in a way that most of the batteries accepted the program. Loss of a few crops was acceptable as long as the majority did not revolt against it.
The first matrix did not allow that.
First quote is from Smith, second from Architect.
Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.
The first Matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect; it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equalled only by its monumental failure.
However, since large number of batteries rejected the program, it was redesigned not to be perfect.
The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus I redesigned it, based on your history, to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature.
Human nature, according to the architect, has grotesqueries that includes war and loss. Even though this design failed as well. The Oracle was created to better understand human nature. However, even the Oracle did not remove war and loss. While there is no direct quotation to support it, it is immediately deducible that Oracle find these aspects useful as well.
Long story short, Matrix was redesigned in a way that most of the batteries accepted the program. Loss of a few crops was acceptable as long as the majority did not revolt against it.
edited yesterday
Joshua Taylor
1114
1114
answered 2 days ago
C.KocaC.Koca
5,0082055
5,0082055
add a comment |
add a comment |
While the other two answers correctly address the point about the need for an "imperfect" world stated in the movies, I think there might be a different approach related to your question: you say that dying in the Matrix means dying in the real world...
It's true the other way around, too
The machines need to consume humans to live; this means disconnecting them from the Matrix and swallowing them whole (as shown in one scene in the first movie I believe); this means killing them both in the real world AND inside the Matrix.
So, when the machines need energy, they need to disconnect as much humans as needed. They just "translate" it to the Matrix as those humans dying by whatever means neccesary.
Having a perfect world where no one suffers doesn't necessarily means no one dies. It might just mean everybody gets whatever they want whenever they want it, or maybe when someone died they were just replaced by somenone else. With an imperfect world, you have just more normal, natural ways of dying. Need a battery? Make someone sick or have an accident or just old. Need thousands of batteries? Cause a war or a terrorist attack here and there and cover your real worlds needs inside the simulation.
New contributor
18
I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.
– Valorum
2 days ago
add a comment |
While the other two answers correctly address the point about the need for an "imperfect" world stated in the movies, I think there might be a different approach related to your question: you say that dying in the Matrix means dying in the real world...
It's true the other way around, too
The machines need to consume humans to live; this means disconnecting them from the Matrix and swallowing them whole (as shown in one scene in the first movie I believe); this means killing them both in the real world AND inside the Matrix.
So, when the machines need energy, they need to disconnect as much humans as needed. They just "translate" it to the Matrix as those humans dying by whatever means neccesary.
Having a perfect world where no one suffers doesn't necessarily means no one dies. It might just mean everybody gets whatever they want whenever they want it, or maybe when someone died they were just replaced by somenone else. With an imperfect world, you have just more normal, natural ways of dying. Need a battery? Make someone sick or have an accident or just old. Need thousands of batteries? Cause a war or a terrorist attack here and there and cover your real worlds needs inside the simulation.
New contributor
18
I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.
– Valorum
2 days ago
add a comment |
While the other two answers correctly address the point about the need for an "imperfect" world stated in the movies, I think there might be a different approach related to your question: you say that dying in the Matrix means dying in the real world...
It's true the other way around, too
The machines need to consume humans to live; this means disconnecting them from the Matrix and swallowing them whole (as shown in one scene in the first movie I believe); this means killing them both in the real world AND inside the Matrix.
So, when the machines need energy, they need to disconnect as much humans as needed. They just "translate" it to the Matrix as those humans dying by whatever means neccesary.
Having a perfect world where no one suffers doesn't necessarily means no one dies. It might just mean everybody gets whatever they want whenever they want it, or maybe when someone died they were just replaced by somenone else. With an imperfect world, you have just more normal, natural ways of dying. Need a battery? Make someone sick or have an accident or just old. Need thousands of batteries? Cause a war or a terrorist attack here and there and cover your real worlds needs inside the simulation.
New contributor
While the other two answers correctly address the point about the need for an "imperfect" world stated in the movies, I think there might be a different approach related to your question: you say that dying in the Matrix means dying in the real world...
It's true the other way around, too
The machines need to consume humans to live; this means disconnecting them from the Matrix and swallowing them whole (as shown in one scene in the first movie I believe); this means killing them both in the real world AND inside the Matrix.
So, when the machines need energy, they need to disconnect as much humans as needed. They just "translate" it to the Matrix as those humans dying by whatever means neccesary.
Having a perfect world where no one suffers doesn't necessarily means no one dies. It might just mean everybody gets whatever they want whenever they want it, or maybe when someone died they were just replaced by somenone else. With an imperfect world, you have just more normal, natural ways of dying. Need a battery? Make someone sick or have an accident or just old. Need thousands of batteries? Cause a war or a terrorist attack here and there and cover your real worlds needs inside the simulation.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
Josh PartJosh Part
1491
1491
New contributor
New contributor
18
I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.
– Valorum
2 days ago
add a comment |
18
I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.
– Valorum
2 days ago
18
18
I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.
– Valorum
2 days ago
I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.
– Valorum
2 days ago
add a comment |
They do not die
This is a concept I've been thinking about regarding a sequel to the series.
In the Matrix, Neo learns how to manipulate the matrix around him because it is not actually real, now in one specific scene..
In one specific scene, Neo uses the power of the matrix while he is outside the matrix, He stops a robot from exploding and killing the 3 of them.
When he stops the Scentinal or whatever they're called, He collapses to the ground and the scene ends, In the next scene he wakes up in a hospital type bed.. However nothing is ever said about the fact that he can use the power outside the matrix.
This only has one conclusion in my opinion,
They never made it out of the matrix in the first place, They're still in the matrix, A matrix inside a matrix..
The fact that this is never addressed in the movie again, and he never uses the power outside the matrix ever again tells me that maybe the writer left an opening for a script that was never written.
This means, the battery's and pod's ( people ) are actually inside a matrix, The people and battery's are also in another matrix !
It is a quarantine for the matrix, therefore i don't believe they ever do die at all !
New contributor
2
Even if we accept your hypothesis, I'm not sure how it answers the question, since it just changes it to why people are allowed to die in this second matrix instead.
– John Montgomery
yesterday
It is not a hypothesis, it happens in the second film.... The matrix that you are referring to is just a matrix inside the matrix, therefore you can not say that the machine actually consumes them, they're just a digital representation...
– Zillinium
yesterday
-1 People do get sick and can die in the Matrix. Also, your Matrix-within-a-Matrix hypothesis is wrong, and Neo's ability to destroy the Sentinels in the Real World actually is explained by the Oracle. Even if your hypothesis was correct it wouldn't answer the question.
– Null♦
17 hours ago
How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?
– Zillinium
16 hours ago
add a comment |
They do not die
This is a concept I've been thinking about regarding a sequel to the series.
In the Matrix, Neo learns how to manipulate the matrix around him because it is not actually real, now in one specific scene..
In one specific scene, Neo uses the power of the matrix while he is outside the matrix, He stops a robot from exploding and killing the 3 of them.
When he stops the Scentinal or whatever they're called, He collapses to the ground and the scene ends, In the next scene he wakes up in a hospital type bed.. However nothing is ever said about the fact that he can use the power outside the matrix.
This only has one conclusion in my opinion,
They never made it out of the matrix in the first place, They're still in the matrix, A matrix inside a matrix..
The fact that this is never addressed in the movie again, and he never uses the power outside the matrix ever again tells me that maybe the writer left an opening for a script that was never written.
This means, the battery's and pod's ( people ) are actually inside a matrix, The people and battery's are also in another matrix !
It is a quarantine for the matrix, therefore i don't believe they ever do die at all !
New contributor
2
Even if we accept your hypothesis, I'm not sure how it answers the question, since it just changes it to why people are allowed to die in this second matrix instead.
– John Montgomery
yesterday
It is not a hypothesis, it happens in the second film.... The matrix that you are referring to is just a matrix inside the matrix, therefore you can not say that the machine actually consumes them, they're just a digital representation...
– Zillinium
yesterday
-1 People do get sick and can die in the Matrix. Also, your Matrix-within-a-Matrix hypothesis is wrong, and Neo's ability to destroy the Sentinels in the Real World actually is explained by the Oracle. Even if your hypothesis was correct it wouldn't answer the question.
– Null♦
17 hours ago
How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?
– Zillinium
16 hours ago
add a comment |
They do not die
This is a concept I've been thinking about regarding a sequel to the series.
In the Matrix, Neo learns how to manipulate the matrix around him because it is not actually real, now in one specific scene..
In one specific scene, Neo uses the power of the matrix while he is outside the matrix, He stops a robot from exploding and killing the 3 of them.
When he stops the Scentinal or whatever they're called, He collapses to the ground and the scene ends, In the next scene he wakes up in a hospital type bed.. However nothing is ever said about the fact that he can use the power outside the matrix.
This only has one conclusion in my opinion,
They never made it out of the matrix in the first place, They're still in the matrix, A matrix inside a matrix..
The fact that this is never addressed in the movie again, and he never uses the power outside the matrix ever again tells me that maybe the writer left an opening for a script that was never written.
This means, the battery's and pod's ( people ) are actually inside a matrix, The people and battery's are also in another matrix !
It is a quarantine for the matrix, therefore i don't believe they ever do die at all !
New contributor
They do not die
This is a concept I've been thinking about regarding a sequel to the series.
In the Matrix, Neo learns how to manipulate the matrix around him because it is not actually real, now in one specific scene..
In one specific scene, Neo uses the power of the matrix while he is outside the matrix, He stops a robot from exploding and killing the 3 of them.
When he stops the Scentinal or whatever they're called, He collapses to the ground and the scene ends, In the next scene he wakes up in a hospital type bed.. However nothing is ever said about the fact that he can use the power outside the matrix.
This only has one conclusion in my opinion,
They never made it out of the matrix in the first place, They're still in the matrix, A matrix inside a matrix..
The fact that this is never addressed in the movie again, and he never uses the power outside the matrix ever again tells me that maybe the writer left an opening for a script that was never written.
This means, the battery's and pod's ( people ) are actually inside a matrix, The people and battery's are also in another matrix !
It is a quarantine for the matrix, therefore i don't believe they ever do die at all !
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
ZilliniumZillinium
1292
1292
New contributor
New contributor
2
Even if we accept your hypothesis, I'm not sure how it answers the question, since it just changes it to why people are allowed to die in this second matrix instead.
– John Montgomery
yesterday
It is not a hypothesis, it happens in the second film.... The matrix that you are referring to is just a matrix inside the matrix, therefore you can not say that the machine actually consumes them, they're just a digital representation...
– Zillinium
yesterday
-1 People do get sick and can die in the Matrix. Also, your Matrix-within-a-Matrix hypothesis is wrong, and Neo's ability to destroy the Sentinels in the Real World actually is explained by the Oracle. Even if your hypothesis was correct it wouldn't answer the question.
– Null♦
17 hours ago
How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?
– Zillinium
16 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Even if we accept your hypothesis, I'm not sure how it answers the question, since it just changes it to why people are allowed to die in this second matrix instead.
– John Montgomery
yesterday
It is not a hypothesis, it happens in the second film.... The matrix that you are referring to is just a matrix inside the matrix, therefore you can not say that the machine actually consumes them, they're just a digital representation...
– Zillinium
yesterday
-1 People do get sick and can die in the Matrix. Also, your Matrix-within-a-Matrix hypothesis is wrong, and Neo's ability to destroy the Sentinels in the Real World actually is explained by the Oracle. Even if your hypothesis was correct it wouldn't answer the question.
– Null♦
17 hours ago
How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?
– Zillinium
16 hours ago
2
2
Even if we accept your hypothesis, I'm not sure how it answers the question, since it just changes it to why people are allowed to die in this second matrix instead.
– John Montgomery
yesterday
Even if we accept your hypothesis, I'm not sure how it answers the question, since it just changes it to why people are allowed to die in this second matrix instead.
– John Montgomery
yesterday
It is not a hypothesis, it happens in the second film.... The matrix that you are referring to is just a matrix inside the matrix, therefore you can not say that the machine actually consumes them, they're just a digital representation...
– Zillinium
yesterday
It is not a hypothesis, it happens in the second film.... The matrix that you are referring to is just a matrix inside the matrix, therefore you can not say that the machine actually consumes them, they're just a digital representation...
– Zillinium
yesterday
-1 People do get sick and can die in the Matrix. Also, your Matrix-within-a-Matrix hypothesis is wrong, and Neo's ability to destroy the Sentinels in the Real World actually is explained by the Oracle. Even if your hypothesis was correct it wouldn't answer the question.
– Null♦
17 hours ago
-1 People do get sick and can die in the Matrix. Also, your Matrix-within-a-Matrix hypothesis is wrong, and Neo's ability to destroy the Sentinels in the Real World actually is explained by the Oracle. Even if your hypothesis was correct it wouldn't answer the question.
– Null♦
17 hours ago
How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?
– Zillinium
16 hours ago
How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?
– Zillinium
16 hours ago
add a comment |
"The problem is choice..."
The occurrance of death, or even the choice of death gives the human batteries the impression that they do not have to live in the Matrix if they wish to leave. If they jumped off of skyscrapers and bounced back up from the ground, unable to pass, they would reject the program, knowing they are trapped in some immutable prison beyond their control or will.
New contributor
add a comment |
"The problem is choice..."
The occurrance of death, or even the choice of death gives the human batteries the impression that they do not have to live in the Matrix if they wish to leave. If they jumped off of skyscrapers and bounced back up from the ground, unable to pass, they would reject the program, knowing they are trapped in some immutable prison beyond their control or will.
New contributor
add a comment |
"The problem is choice..."
The occurrance of death, or even the choice of death gives the human batteries the impression that they do not have to live in the Matrix if they wish to leave. If they jumped off of skyscrapers and bounced back up from the ground, unable to pass, they would reject the program, knowing they are trapped in some immutable prison beyond their control or will.
New contributor
"The problem is choice..."
The occurrance of death, or even the choice of death gives the human batteries the impression that they do not have to live in the Matrix if they wish to leave. If they jumped off of skyscrapers and bounced back up from the ground, unable to pass, they would reject the program, knowing they are trapped in some immutable prison beyond their control or will.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
user113862user113862
211
211
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
user113769 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user113769 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user113769 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user113769 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f208599%2fwhy-is-death-allowed-in-the-matrix%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
7
There is no war inside the Matrix, as far as I'm aware. There are certainly a vanishingly small number of terrorists, but that's not the same thing
– Valorum
2 days ago
5
then why the military helicopter and military complex? this means there is war. the world in the matrix (1990's) looks just like the real 1990's. Guns and gangs and drugs to boot. Why would the machines allow this?
– user113769
2 days ago
3
user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.
– Misha R
2 days ago
4
Death is "allowed" in the Matrix because, simply, the Matrix is meant to be like the real world. It has gravity, sound, pain, heat, light, etc etc just like the real world. Obviously if there was a massive change ("all of a sudden, nobody's dying!") it would be obvious something weird is going on.
– Fattie
yesterday
2
"It seems as if war/death/etc is just as common in the Matrix as it is in real life outside", what do you mean "outside"? When have you been outside?
– akostadinov
19 hours ago