Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?In “The Matrix Revolutions” How Does Neo Stop the Machine Weapons in the Real World?Relationship of illness outside the Matrix to illness inside the MatrixCan the “mind” make injuries real like in the Matrix?Other than Neo Stopping the Machine Weapons, Are There Clues the Real World is Another Matrix?What did Zion think would happen to the blue pills if they succeeded in destroying the Matrix?If the Agents wanted Morpheus over Neo then why only use three agents?Relationship of illness outside the Matrix to illness inside the MatrixHow can they hack the Matrix, wirelessly?What happens to a person after they die in the Matrix?Why do the Matrix machines not implement a backup system?Are there signs that the Matrix holds any technological resemblance to out-of-universe computers?

How can the Githyanki Commander Supreme move while insubstantial?

All ASCII characters with a given bit count

Pre-plastic human skin alternative

Difference between did and does

Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)

How can Republicans who favour free markets, consistently express anger when they don't like the outcome of that choice?

Multiple options vs single option UI

How did Captain America manage to do this?

Does tea made with boiling water cool faster than tea made with boiled (but still hot) water?

How exactly does Hawking radiation decrease the mass of black holes?

Pulling the rope with one hand is as heavy as with two hands?

I preordered a game on my Xbox while on the home screen of my friend's account. Which of us owns the game?

Check if a string is entirely made of the same substring

What happened to Captain America in Endgame?

How does Captain America channel this power?

How come there are so many candidates for the 2020 Democratic party presidential nomination?

Is there really no use for MD5 anymore?

Does any yogic siddhi let a human to be simultaneously present at two different places physically?

"Whatever a Russian does, they end up making the Kalashnikov gun"? Are there any similar proverbs in English?

Which big number is bigger?

Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP?

If a planet has 3 moons, is it possible to have triple Full/New Moons at once?

Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?

Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?



Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?


In “The Matrix Revolutions” How Does Neo Stop the Machine Weapons in the Real World?Relationship of illness outside the Matrix to illness inside the MatrixCan the “mind” make injuries real like in the Matrix?Other than Neo Stopping the Machine Weapons, Are There Clues the Real World is Another Matrix?What did Zion think would happen to the blue pills if they succeeded in destroying the Matrix?If the Agents wanted Morpheus over Neo then why only use three agents?Relationship of illness outside the Matrix to illness inside the MatrixHow can they hack the Matrix, wirelessly?What happens to a person after they die in the Matrix?Why do the Matrix machines not implement a backup system?Are there signs that the Matrix holds any technological resemblance to out-of-universe computers?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








29















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?










share|improve this question



















  • 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
    Apr 6 at 8:17






  • 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
    Apr 6 at 8:25







  • 3





    user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.

    – Misha R
    Apr 6 at 14:55






  • 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
    Apr 7 at 16:16






  • 3





    "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
    Apr 8 at 10:28

















29















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?










share|improve this question



















  • 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
    Apr 6 at 8:17






  • 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
    Apr 6 at 8:25







  • 3





    user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.

    – Misha R
    Apr 6 at 14:55






  • 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
    Apr 7 at 16:16






  • 3





    "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
    Apr 8 at 10:28













29












29








29


2






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?










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 6 at 8:24









Rebel-Scum

4,55642450




4,55642450










asked Apr 6 at 8:16









user113769user113769

15525




15525







  • 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
    Apr 6 at 8:17






  • 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
    Apr 6 at 8:25







  • 3





    user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.

    – Misha R
    Apr 6 at 14:55






  • 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
    Apr 7 at 16:16






  • 3





    "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
    Apr 8 at 10:28












  • 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
    Apr 6 at 8:17






  • 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
    Apr 6 at 8:25







  • 3





    user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.

    – Misha R
    Apr 6 at 14:55






  • 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
    Apr 7 at 16:16






  • 3





    "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
    Apr 8 at 10:28







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
Apr 6 at 8:17





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
Apr 6 at 8:17




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
Apr 6 at 8:25






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
Apr 6 at 8:25





3




3





user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.

– Misha R
Apr 6 at 14:55





user113769 Because active military defense is one of the ways you prevent wars.

– Misha R
Apr 6 at 14:55




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
Apr 7 at 16:16





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
Apr 7 at 16:16




3




3





"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
Apr 8 at 10:28





"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
Apr 8 at 10:28










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















44














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.






share|improve this answer























  • 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
    Apr 7 at 12:55







  • 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
    Apr 7 at 13:45











  • @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
    Apr 8 at 7:03






  • 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
    Apr 8 at 7:59







  • 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
    Apr 8 at 11:55


















37














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.






share|improve this answer
































    4














    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.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 18





      I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.

      – Valorum
      Apr 6 at 17:47


















    2














    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 !






    share|improve this answer


















    • 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
      Apr 7 at 6:41











    • 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
      Apr 7 at 7:05











    • -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
      Apr 8 at 12:10











    • How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?

      – Zillinium
      Apr 8 at 13:27


















    2














    "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.






    share|improve this answer























      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
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      44














      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.






      share|improve this answer























      • 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
        Apr 7 at 12:55







      • 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
        Apr 7 at 13:45











      • @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
        Apr 8 at 7:03






      • 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
        Apr 8 at 7:59







      • 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
        Apr 8 at 11:55















      44














      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.






      share|improve this answer























      • 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
        Apr 7 at 12:55







      • 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
        Apr 7 at 13:45











      • @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
        Apr 8 at 7:03






      • 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
        Apr 8 at 7:59







      • 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
        Apr 8 at 11:55













      44












      44








      44







      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.






      share|improve this answer













      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.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Apr 6 at 10:11









      gowenfawrgowenfawr

      17.8k65176




      17.8k65176












      • 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
        Apr 7 at 12:55







      • 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
        Apr 7 at 13:45











      • @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
        Apr 8 at 7:03






      • 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
        Apr 8 at 7:59







      • 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
        Apr 8 at 11:55

















      • 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
        Apr 7 at 12:55







      • 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
        Apr 7 at 13:45











      • @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
        Apr 8 at 7:03






      • 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
        Apr 8 at 7:59







      • 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
        Apr 8 at 11:55
















      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
      Apr 7 at 12:55






      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
      Apr 7 at 12:55





      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
      Apr 7 at 13:45





      @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
      Apr 7 at 13:45













      @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
      Apr 8 at 7:03





      @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
      Apr 8 at 7:03




      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
      Apr 8 at 7:59






      @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
      Apr 8 at 7:59





      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
      Apr 8 at 11:55





      @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
      Apr 8 at 11:55













      37














      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.






      share|improve this answer





























        37














        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.






        share|improve this answer



























          37












          37








          37







          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.






          share|improve this answer















          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.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Apr 7 at 14:41









          Joshua Taylor

          1114




          1114










          answered Apr 6 at 10:20









          C.KocaC.Koca

          5,0962058




          5,0962058





















              4














              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.






              share|improve this answer


















              • 18





                I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.

                – Valorum
                Apr 6 at 17:47















              4














              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.






              share|improve this answer


















              • 18





                I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.

                – Valorum
                Apr 6 at 17:47













              4












              4








              4







              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.






              share|improve this answer













              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Apr 6 at 17:37









              Josh PartJosh Part

              1491




              1491







              • 18





                I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.

                – Valorum
                Apr 6 at 17:47












              • 18





                I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.

                – Valorum
                Apr 6 at 17:47







              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
              Apr 6 at 17:47





              I think you've misunderstood. The machines don't "eat" the human dead, they liquify them to make food for other humans.

              – Valorum
              Apr 6 at 17:47











              2














              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 !






              share|improve this answer


















              • 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
                Apr 7 at 6:41











              • 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
                Apr 7 at 7:05











              • -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
                Apr 8 at 12:10











              • How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?

                – Zillinium
                Apr 8 at 13:27















              2














              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 !






              share|improve this answer


















              • 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
                Apr 7 at 6:41











              • 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
                Apr 7 at 7:05











              • -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
                Apr 8 at 12:10











              • How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?

                – Zillinium
                Apr 8 at 13:27













              2












              2








              2







              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 !






              share|improve this answer













              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 !







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Apr 7 at 3:41









              ZilliniumZillinium

              1292




              1292







              • 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
                Apr 7 at 6:41











              • 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
                Apr 7 at 7:05











              • -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
                Apr 8 at 12:10











              • How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?

                – Zillinium
                Apr 8 at 13:27












              • 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
                Apr 7 at 6:41











              • 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
                Apr 7 at 7:05











              • -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
                Apr 8 at 12:10











              • How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?

                – Zillinium
                Apr 8 at 13:27







              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
              Apr 7 at 6:41





              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
              Apr 7 at 6:41













              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
              Apr 7 at 7:05





              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
              Apr 7 at 7:05













              -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
              Apr 8 at 12:10





              -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
              Apr 8 at 12:10













              How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?

              – Zillinium
              Apr 8 at 13:27





              How is it explained by the Oracle ? ... What did she say ?

              – Zillinium
              Apr 8 at 13:27











              2














              "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.






              share|improve this answer



























                2














                "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.






                share|improve this answer

























                  2












                  2








                  2







                  "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.






                  share|improve this answer













                  "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.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 7 at 15:27









                  user113862user113862

                  211




                  211



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

                      Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

                      Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?