It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hard Evidence for Simulation Hypothesis Uncovered! COMPUTER CODE Discovered Hidden in Superstring Eq

page: 14
208
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Right now I think TPTB have already broken the rules of the universe. That's why they so assiduously hide their secrets from the rest of us.




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Ajax84
 

This reminds me of a theory I once read about. A Universe is a closed system, meaning that information can't be passed in or out of it. If you had the power to create a universe, the only way you would be able to communicate with the conscious entities of that universe would be through the fundamental laws of math and physics. In other words, you can't send in any new info in, the message has to be embedded in the system at the moment of creation. Does string theory contain or allow us to read the message from the creator? If I were the coder, I would program in an easter egg to execute when the message was decoded

edit on 23-3-2012 by SeanU because: Fixed last line



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


I think you make a vary vaild point, if there is something that is like computer code exists and it is how the universe is structured, then it could be instinct to create code like that. Natures way of making sure all of our technology is built on a similar foundation? Regradless what planet you evolve on?

Just a thought!



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Perfect! The mystery of life just got a bit more mysterious. Funny story, before I was a conspiracy nut I watched the movie the matrix and was blown away, not because of the special effects or anything but something which I could not explain at that point in time. There was something very real about it, almost like seeing reality through a different light from that point on. I've since read up about the philosophy behind it which then turned me towards the direction of trying to find out the truth about life and existence.

Thanks for the video, I am pretty sure that if we don't destroy ourselves in the next 50 years that things such as being able to "hack" reality will become a real possibility. This IMO helps explain ghosts, esp and other phenomenon, or at least helps us come closer to piecing things together.
edit on 23-3-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I'm more interested in knowing where the devil comes from.

Is he a programmer or a self-aware computer?


The one who has convinced you the simulation is Reality is satan.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
It seems all they are talking about are error correction codes, which really arent all that complex when dealing with a binary system. I dont see why people wouldnt think theres some type of error correction processes going on at the fundamental levels of nature?


Like when you watch futurama, they frequently talk about correcting time paradoxes where if you have two versions of the same person in the same time, the copy gets destroyed so as not to create a paradox. It seems that a universe that succeeded instead of failed would have some type of error control mechanism.

Hamming code is probably the simplest type of error correction and can be explained simply.

When transmitting data over networks, they do it in segments. and then attached to that data you have metadata, or data about data. Think of metadata as the page number and data being the words in a book. The metadata tells you where this other data belongs in relation to other data.

so, say we want to transmit a small message in binary across a network.
Here is the data we want to transmit= 01010101
we then attach metadata to the data= *1*01010101 (the one between the asteriks is the metadata)
this extra 1 signifies whether the receiving computer should expect an odd or even number of 1's.
1 metadata = even number of ones
0 metadata = odd number of ones

if the receiving computer got a message like this *0*01010101 it would know an error occurred in the transmission as the metadata(0) says there should be an odd number of 1's, but instead it received an even number. Of course true hamming code allows for error correction of 1 bit and error detection of 2 bits. but lets not get into that now as it may be harder for people to understand what im saying.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
what in the hell would the "real" universe look like. The one that created the simulations in the first place. ????



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
At the risk of being totally ignored (as usual) I will state that the suggestion that the universe is a simulation is nonsense and unsupportable.

The laws of physics (according to my expert understanding as a real-life physicist) intrinsically involve (as in, require) the use of real numbers--the laws of physics depend crucially on properties such as continuity and differentiability (even--in fact, especially--quantum mechanics).

It is a simple fact that such structure cannot be adequately implemented on a digital computer of any kind (basically, because there are more real numbers than integers: en.wikipedia.org...) .



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Do any of you people work in telecom and recognize the significance of an All Ones Signal? AIS? 111111111?

Yellow Alarm ?
edit on 3/24/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Note to programmer of our simulation:

Stop being lazy. Do you think we can't tell you have been cutting and pasting Wal-marts, Starbucks, McDonalds, etc... all over the place? Stop being lazy and do some programming. More ma and pa shops, please.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
1999


1999



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


You are correct that digital computers cannot represent all real numbers. But why do you assume that the simulation is running on a purely digit computer?

In addition the Berkenstein Bound shows the amount of information required to perfectly describe a finite system to the quantum level. And in finite systems this bound is finite, hence computable.
edit on 24-3-2012 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
reply to post by Moduli
 


You are correct that digital computers cannot represent all real numbers. But why do you assume that the simulation is running on a purely digit computer?



Because arguing otherwise leads to a nonsensical ill-defined argument of assuming of "well maybe there's something else" that you assume can simulate us, which, by the assumption that it can simulate us, can simulate us. The only way to have a good, meaningful discussion about this is to have technically precise definitions, which don't exist, because there are no notions of what other required kinds of computability would mean.

It is also the case that classical deterministic computers based off of continuous numbers cannot represent reality either (which is easy to understand when you think about quantum mechanics).

You can see this clearly leads to the discussion "does reality simulate reality" which is clearly meaningless, or "is there something else better than reality which simulates reality," which is also meaningless.



In addition the Berkenstein Bound shows the amount of information required to perfectly describe a finite system to the quantum level. And in finite systems this bound is finite, hence computable.
edit on 24-3-2012 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)


This is a misunderstanding of what the Bekenstein bound is. An infinite universe (or a multiverse of universes) can still have an infinite amount of information in it. The correct interpretation is that regions (as technically defined) have entropy related to the boundaries (technically defined) of the regions. But you cannot use this to argue anything about the total amount of information, or anything about "computability" because it is not sufficiently strong (and, as a theorem, cannot be sufficiently strong) to do so.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
but the universe isnt infinite.. unless i missed a meeting ??



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
Okay I've watched the interview .. or whatever you might want to call it .. from beginning to end.

Can someone - in his own words - explain to me what precisely these theoretically constructed formulas and equations are and where precisely the "self correcting code elements" have been discovered ?

I seriously tried to grasp what he is saying but it's all very vague and I fail to get the full picture. In my understanding these equations have been theoretically introduced - by human beings - in order to explain abstract theories about even more abstract and theoretical filaments that the universe is SUPPOSED to me made of ( There has never been any evidence for the existence of strings or superstrings as of 2012 ).

So now he claims these equations - that have been introduced by said theoretical scientists - do contain self correcting source code that is exactly the same code as you would find in modern browsers. That doesn't make the slightest sense. Duh.


I'm no expert but I believe it is a bit more complex than that. My (very limited understanding) is that in math there are theorems - these are mathematical statements that get proven based on other proven statements. I believe the basic concept is that statements get proven and thus they hold true much like 2+2=4. Similarly, 2+3=4 can be proven to be a false statement. I'm guessing when a new statement is proven, it amounts to a new 'discovery'. On a very basic level you could say that string theory is used to prove complex properties of our universe. If I'm not mistaken, he is claiming that code has been 'discovered' akin to that in browsers and that code is part of a logically proven statement that holds 'true' for some unrelated aspect of our universe ... Although the proven statements have been theoretical so far - unable to be verified via experiment... Hope I didn't lie anywhere in there ...
edit on 24-3-2012 by phalanx001 because: Clarity



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I keep running it to people that say an earth worm has more brains than our best computers !

Yes i ask them the time, whats 2+2 and they all know the answer


Chances are we exsist inside a computer type simulation, our DNA is base four (not binnary, thats too bulky) and is the machine code required to create objects, thats you and me.

Anything can be programed into a program like Quake and if the game writter wants the world to turn upside down each night to make the game more interesing then that will be something we call day and night.

Our laws of physic are all just rules programed in and we don't have the brains or ability to understand whats going on no more than a lab rat can understand the big picture even if one rat works out they allways get feed on a frinday by someone wearing pink.

simulations within simulations well second life is proof of that and computers have only been around (electronic type) for about 40 years so what will we be doing in just 20 years time now we have computers to help us advance faster.

Bio-Tec will be used to connect sockets to our brains so we can all "plug in" and this is not something that will happen in 200 years time, it will happen within about 20 years if not already used on black projects.

Man is so smart he still can not workout why we sleep no more than a pig knows why he farts and if you think you know the answer then where am i whilst i'm alseep and not dreaming and if i can not be fooled by a simulation then how come i'm fooled everytime i dream.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
what in the hell would the "real" universe look like. The one that created the simulations in the first place. ????


There is no real or fake. It's just a way to get readers' attention. Suppose we were seeing this one color all the time, never seeing another color, what people are saying when there is no physical they are just saying this color isn't what we thought it was. So the color we thought we saw wasn't purple at all but yellow. And then everyone buys books about this yellow color, watches shows about it and listens to people bringing the joyful message about this color we are looking at and how true our assumptions about it are in an effort to make ourselves believe we actually know something. And knowing something implies control over the subject and we all love control. I mean, what would anyone rather have, a car that is out of control and just drives all over the place possibly ending up a tree or a cliff or a car that listens to your every command, never hitting anything but just peacefully transporting you all the way over life's road.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli
Because arguing otherwise leads to a nonsensical ill-defined argument of assuming of "well maybe there's something else" that you assume can simulate us, which, by the assumption that it can simulate us, can simulate us. The only way to have a good, meaningful discussion about this is to have technically precise definitions, which don't exist, because there are no notions of what other required kinds of computability would mean.

It is also the case that classical deterministic computers based off of continuous numbers cannot represent reality either (which is easy to understand when you think about quantum mechanics).

You can see this clearly leads to the discussion "does reality simulate reality" which is clearly meaningless, or "is there something else better than reality which simulates reality," which is also meaningless.


That took more than one read
I was basically saying that to say that our universe isn't a simulation because a digital computer can't represent all real numbers isn't a strong argument.

I'm still not sure why a digital computer couldn't simulate our universe despite its failings with real numbers either. Perhaps we are being simulated with a digital computer and its precision limits lead to the Planck length, quanta etc.


Originally posted by Moduli
This is a misunderstanding of what the Bekenstein bound is. An infinite universe (or a multiverse of universes) can still have an infinite amount of information in it. The correct interpretation is that regions (as technically defined) have entropy related to the boundaries (technically defined) of the regions. But you cannot use this to argue anything about the total amount of information, or anything about "computability" because it is not sufficiently strong (and, as a theorem, cannot be sufficiently strong) to do so.


Are you saying that the Berkenstein bound doesn't apply to a single, finite universe?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Do any of you people work in telecom and recognize the significance of an All Ones Signal? AIS? 111111111?

Yellow Alarm ?
edit on 3/24/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

Could you please explain your post?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Okay...let me preface this by admiting that I haven't read more than a page of this thread. I simply don't have time to read it all, but I get the point of the OP.

It's at times like this that really makes me wonder about the intelligence of the people who are considered to be geniuses or incredibly smart. So they believe they have found a repeating code in nature......similar to a computer string (or code) that is used in our own computer 'world'. They have then drawn a conclusion that this means our reality is not real, but simulated.

WHY? How can they possibly reach this conclusion with any form of certainty? Does anyone know what reality is? Does anyone know the true definition of reality and life? No. Therefore, no one could possibly draw a conclusion based on this limited info.

I find it fascinating and thought provoking and I believe it may take us a step closer to realizing our place in the scope of reality........but certainly NOT that we are 'programs' in a computer or simulation. That is just so....small minded. It is basing a conclusion on our limited knowledge, on something that WE have created AFTER the fact. So we can write computer programs. Yay, good for us. So now this means that anything similar to what we have done suggests that it MUST be the same? Again...what small-minded creatures we are.

We already know that everything can be broken down into a mathematical equation...that in itself is already a code. But this is simply how our brains process it. There is so much more to this life than what can be seen. BUT...we need to stop trying to wrap it all up in a nice little box with a bow (and an owners manual)....that is too limiting.



new topics

top topics



 
208
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join