The sequel to The Matrix will be unleashed upon us soon enough, and so if I'm to attempt any prognostication about it, I'd better do it sooner rather than later. I've discussed The Oracle from The Matrix before; I'll now address the questions I raised in that particular article.

Fatalism is the idea that all outcomes are inevitable. Neo rejects fatalism because he doesn't like the idea that he's not in control of his own destiny. To put it another way, he likes the idea of free will. Fate and free will would appear to be mutually exclusive: in what sense can one be considered free if there are no alternatives? Free will implies free choice, and free choice implies at least two options. Fate allows no options and no alternatives; just one predetermined outcome.

If we take a character like The Oracle, who seems to have complete and perfect foreknowledge of everything, then fate becomes hard to fathom. Those of us who do not have perfect foreknowledge can at least operate under the illusion that we have free will; The Oracle can have no such illusions. If The Oracle knows what she is going to do next, on the basis of her perfect foreknowledge, then she can test her own free will by choosing to do it or not.

One could argue that the ability to falsify her own precognitions would make her foreknowledge imperfect by definition. That being so, the truth of fatalism would imply that she is either a slave to her own foreknowledge, or she does not actually have perfect foreknowledge. Perfect foreknowledge is a hard thing to fake, and she does indeed seem to have it, so that leaves us with the idea that she's a slave of fate, and fully aware of that fact — a bizarre state in which to exist, in my view.

I prefer to take the view that fatalism is false, and that she has perfect foreknowledge of all possible futures. She uses her own free will and foreknowledge to bring about favourable outcomes, within the limits of her own ability to influence events — she may be omniscient, but she certainly doesn't appear to be omnipotent. As an aside, I believe that she avoids trouble from the Agents precisely because she knows in advance whether any particular action will alert them to her status as a threat. Navigating a minefield is much easier if you can see the mines, but her lack of omnipotence could still result in a situation where she becomes cornered. She may even choose to sacrifice herself if she knows that it will ultimately precipitate victory for the humans.

These ideas answer, in part, the question I posed in my previous article. Foreknowledge can coexist with free will; indeed, I'm inclined to think that The Oracle's foreknowledge is much easier to comprehend if we also assume that she has free will. If free will is an illusion under which we operate, then to lose that illusion by acquiring complete and perfect foreknowledge would be to lose one's humanity. It would result in the stark understanding that you are essentially a mindless automaton, running a deterministic program, and yet compelled to act as though this is not the case — a bizarre state, as I have already said.

So, granted that The Oracle has free will, then what of our other protagonists? Do they have free will also, or merely the illusion of free will? Unlike The Oracle, they can't know their own true state for sure. But if The Oracle knows all their actions in advance, then do they really have free will? The question is all the more serious given that The Oracle can manipulate events by choosing what to tell them: are our protagonists merely puppets of The Oracle?

Let us imagine a confrontation between Neo and The Oracle — the omnipotent and the omniscient respectively. Neo wants to know if he has free will, so, taking a coin from his pocket, he asks The Oracle, "tell me the truth: I am about to put this coin on the table; will it be heads-up or tails-up?" If The Oracle reveals this answer to Neo before he actually places the coin, then he can choose to falsify the prediction if he has free will. If he does not have free will, then he will be mysteriously compelled to fulfil his predicted fate.

If we assume that Neo does have free will, and The Oracle knows all this in advance, then what would she say? What can she say that Neo could not contradict? Nothing, so far as I'm aware. She'd have to avoid answering the question, or confess, "it will be whatever you choose it to be." On the one hand it seems entirely possible that The Oracle knows every possible future resulting from every possible answer; on the other hand, it seems that Neo's free will and potential contrariness in the matter makes it such that she can't reveal this knowledge without also falsifying it. She could know the future, and know that there is no possible future in which her prediction holds true. She would still be omniscient, but unable to meet the challenge.

Granted that a party with perfect foreknowledge can still land in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, it appears that Neo and his associates may also have free will, even if The Oracle knows all in advance. But what of the fact that The Oracle appears to be manipulating events on a grand scale with her foreknowledge? Doesn't that have an impact on the free will of others?

I submit that The Oracle is, in fact, manipulative, and that this does, in fact, impact on the free will of others. It does not rob them of their free will entirely; merely diminishes it by the careful crafting of circumstances. The Oracle gets her way primarily because she can know how much and what kind of prompting is necessary to cause people to ultimately make free will decisions suitable to her agenda. It's possible that there exists no action which she can take to craft her ideal future, but she can certainly choose from a broad range of options.

This kind of manipulation, however, is not special to those with perfect foreknowledge. Manipulative people are everywhere, and The Oracle's only real advantage over other manipulative people is that she can be more subtle about it, given that she knows exactly how much of any technique is required to gain the desired result. The rest of us have to take a more intuitive and heavy-handed approach to our manipulative games, using guilt-trips, appeal to greed, and so on.

It would be terribly hard to be The Oracle and not be manipulative every time you opened your mouth or intervened in some way. Given such terrible clarity about the consequences of one's actions, what is one to do? How would you behave, given perfect foreknowledge of this kind? The Oracle herself seems to be comfortable with the idea of being a manipulator, and our protagonists who see her as a friend and ally are probably appreciative of that. It's odd that Morpheus, who apparently dislikes the idea that he's not master of his own destiny, would actively solicit intervention from The Oracle; intervention which will certainly have a manipulating influence on his life.

Or is it so odd after all? How many times have you heard people ask (or have yourself asked) "why doesn't God do something?" Ascribing Him not only omniscience, but also omnipotence, we demand that he Intervene, that he take control of some situation or other, whilst at the same time we supposedly covet our right to be masters of our own destiny.

Oh, the irony! The double-think! Our treacherous hearts love freedom, yet secretly lust after the security of fate. Perhaps total freedom is just as fearful as total fatalism. That which is totally free is also devoid of direction and guidance. Where the fatalist is drawn hopelessly to a foregone conclusion, the totally free drift hopelessly towards a random and meaningless terminus.

Or perhaps I've gone too far and confused an increase in freedom with the removal of all frames of reference. We're not completely free in a physical sense: we're bound by gravity, for example, and we would be lost without it. Why should it be any different in the abstract realm?

Noodle-baking stuff, that.