I know that their roles were defined in-universe but I remember it didn't make much sense to me.

I was thinking about parallels in IT and characters in the movies. For example, the Agents were more or less a type of network intrusion prevention/detection system, Seriph was an authentication and encryption protocol, and the Keymaker was a password crack program.

Another parallel is that the reason why the Machines needed Neo to return to the Source was so they could analyze the manifestation of his existence, patch the Matrix, and attempt to prevent him from happening again. (It's my understanding that Neo is an artifact of something wrong with the operational programming that is running, hence why he can easily work outside of control protocols that others adhere to. It also explains how Smith could leave his role and "break free"--he obtained the code from Neo that keeps him from working correctly and communicating with the Machine network.)

It got me wondering what exactly the Oracle and the Architect did. A possible explanation is that the Architect operates the proportional leg of a PID control. He always talks about balance and concerns himself with making an opposite response to a given input. The Oracle has the ability to predict and appears to perform the derivative function of the PID control. It's been mentioned that the two work in tandem so that plays right into the idea. I'm not sure who the integral part would be. The Merovingian maybe?

I wonder if anyone has mentioned this or if anyone agrees. I think it's a neat concept and I think it holds water. What do you all think?

| improve this question | | | | |
  • Per the FAQ; "avoid asking subjective questions where …there is no actual problem to be solved: “I’m curious if other people feel like I do.” – Valorum Aug 7 '17 at 10:40
  • Cross-refrencing analysis isn't subjective. Confirming a hypothesis among peers is central to formulating a theory, accepted or otherwise, when one doesn't exist for a given situation. The facts are there, I'm just offering an interpretation. Besides, this particular SE forum is science fiction and fantasy--the discussions are usually based in fictitious works. If you can't ask a question about interpretation, why does this forum exist at all? – Rincewind Aug 7 '17 at 11:20
  • @Rincewind the scope of the site is laid out in the help section and in the various dicussions on the meta site. If you were interested in knowing if the writers/directors/producers of the films have discussed any such interpretation, that would be on-topic. But any question that is likely to lead to a debate or back-and-forth discussion would not be. – KutuluMike Aug 8 '17 at 2:24
  • So, if my question can be answered in an on-topic kind of way, what's the issue? I shouldn't have to defend the validity of my question on here. It adds an entirely pointless step and hinders users from getting answers. It also pushes others out from using these sites. It's comes down to tyranny of the majority and it's working against the users that define it's existence. – Rincewind Aug 8 '17 at 3:18
  • The whole point is it can't be answered in one post. You end your question opening up to interpretations from the house What do you all think?. In the comments you call this a forum which it is not. Forum's have back and forth discussion. This is a Q&A site. A user asks a question, the user gets an answer or several answers. the discussions are usually based in fictitious works. You seem to misunderstand the site's scope. We don't have discussions. But the questions asked and answers provided are based in works of Sci-fi and Fantasy. – Edlothiad Aug 8 '17 at 8:08

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.