Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
"nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice"
How could the humans have rejected the program if they had no choice? Isn't that a paradox? You cannot reject something if you have no choice, otherwise you would have a choice.
It's important to note that the Matrix isn't actually that convincing a simulation of reality. It glitches regularly, the physics is weird, it requires periodic rebooting (including regular brain-wipes for the occupants) and is, for those that are aware that they're inside a simulation, immediately apparent to be a fake. In short, people are prone to noticing that they're in a sim and keep trying to find ways to get out of it, initially on a subconscious level, but eventually by actively trying to subvert the Matrix and find ways out. As Smith says,
... The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from.
The problem, as defined by the Architect is that all the glitches in the Matrix eventually become so apparent to the subject that they eventually realise, on a conscious level, that they're in unreality and reject the system. They end up mad, dead, suicidal or actively trying to subvert the system and eventually tell more people that the system is fake which creates a cascade of problems.
The Oracle came up with a solution, namely the Choice (with a big c). If people are periodically polled on a subconscious level to see whether they're happy with their reality, even despite the fact that it's obviously a dud, the vast majority will accept their reality. Conversely, a small number will choose otherwise and they can be safely ejected from the program and subsequently murdered.
The entire quote from the scene, which is Neo's discussion with the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded.
ARCHITECT: Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.
Everyone is given choice, but most are not aware of it, and this is obviously flawed. Both logically and as a method of actual control, as the Architect points out. And leads to the rise of the anomaly "The One" who left unchecked would make the choice conscious by exposing the Matrix to everyone inside.
Per my comment on the answer, I started to wonder if the question is actually more like: how can people attached to the previous versions reject the program if they have no choice? Adding this answer just in case, since the other answers don't address that interpretation.
I suspect this just comes down to the use of language/terminology that has different meanings in different contexts.
Both Smith and The Architect use the word "accept" here. I think it's fair to read "reject" as the correct antonym, but I don't think they mean accept/reject in the sense that you might choose to accept/reject a gift or job offer.
I think they're using accept/reject in roughly the same way medical discourse describes whether a body accepts or rejects transplanted tissue.
