It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:48 AM
Im assuming the world we know it isnt real. Like "the truman show" or "the adjustment bureau" like life we live know everything is already pre-planned out in our head and as we "think" about it we do it.. does this prove deja vu is real? like if we think we lived the event before we really did?

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:49 AM
I'm not smart enough to make heads or tails of this.

Waiting until this works it's way through the scientific community and we get more experiments and data based on this finding.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:09 AM
If you look in a mirror you are going to see a reflection. That's what theoretical physics is. Simulations, theories, equations. Reality is not really part of the equation except for what is modeled into the simulations. So you shouldn't be surprised if someone finds some code or math nomenclature in their models. What is surprising is that no one directly addresses it.. probably because it the extremely obvious, awe deflating elephant in the room. If you model something with math, the results are interpreted with math. WOW.. incredible.

Not that there isn't some amazing revelation going on.. but more for the guy actually doing the work and MUCH MUCH less for those following along in popular science magazines. The people doing the work can have some amazing awakenings. But those awakenings aren't necessarily communicated to other people by talking about them or writing/reading a high-level pop-science article about them.

I will acknowledge that science is at an interesting point.. THEORETICAL science. Where some of those on the very edges of the practice will have some profound realization of who and what they are. But do not expect this to positively flow into the general population. You need to practice this stuff yourself at the same level to experience the realization. Don't rely on PRIESTS for your salvation.

Saying this non-reality is a simulation is NOT new. Go read about Buddha.. (gnostic)Jesus.. Hinduism. What have they all said? This world is not real. Each one of these parables/histories are pre-existing with a RICH nomenclature and a specific practice of meditation whereby the "scientist" or practitioner realizes themselves INTO REALITY. It's been done and PROVEN already with 100% certainty. Yes it's a simulation IE NOT REALITY.

Don't get hung up on the symbolism and nomenclature. that is the fallacy of science. that it is somehow more relevant because of the words and symbols they are using. REALITY exists and NEVER was and NEVER will be less REAL than the nomenclature and symbols used to describe or communicate it.

The goal is realization of REALITY. Upon realization one understands themselves as REAL. It is an experience outside the simulation. Not an explanation or words etc. It is beyond manifestation. Before manifestation. So experiencing it has NOTHING to do with science or religious symbolism etc. And all the nomenclature and symbols are part of the manifestation but NOT the source of it.

Don't wait for others to show you or give you an explanation of Reality. Because an explanation is not and can never be Reality. You need to wake up to Reality. Just like this particular theoretical scientist is. Don't be confused by what he is claiming he is seeing because he is DEFINITELY explaining things he is seeing in the simulation. Not things outside of it.

edit on 22-3-2012 by rwfresh because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by unityemissions
I'm not smart enough to make heads or tails of this.

Waiting until this works it's way through the scientific community and we get more experiments and data based on this finding.

Don't wait. Go meditate. Much faster and already a proven method.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:17 AM
This is one of the most thought-provoking threads ever posted on this site.

Bravo, submitter.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Shirak
Peace written on container and projected on solution during formation.


Very similar to plant life actually

Hate (Very similar to Maseru Emoto's hate results.

My conclusion is that we are all co creating influencing this reality matrix on a daily basis.
edit on 21-3-2012 by Shirak because: add pics

You need controls
Do the same experiment...but have like 3 growths with the same "love" and one with nothing.
Theoretically, if it matters, the three with the love underneath should be very similar, the one with nothing should look very different.

try to replicate the environment for all 4 exact so there is no "well, this one got more sunlight, or I wrote this love with a heart shaped O, etc..."

Would be fascinating to see the results and either fully debunk this, or put it in the holy crap what is going on category if confirmed.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:18 AM
So just how did they arrive at the super string equation? The answer is they used computers and the software within them. Thus it should be no suprise that the equation has characteristics of software.

Had they first discovered the superstring equation and then found software code that could be copied from it, then you may have something to talk about.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:20 AM
The possibilities involved with this are limitless, and if it proves to be valid there will no longer be any unexplained mysteries. I just hope that if it proves to be real they never figure out how to reinsert modified code, because that would mean that any one entity could have complete control of this "simulation". Real mind bender this one.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:24 AM
Yet another interesting video rendered unwatchable by a way-overbearing crappy music track. Why do these morons ruin videos in this way? Seems like everyone who has a copy of movie maker thinks they are Scorsese.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by Ajax84

Thank you so much for posting this!

I'm trying very hard to wrap my mind around this and understand it, but it did remind me of Fritz Springmeier delving into codes and this type of theory as well. It's not exactly in line with this, but I feel it is one of the puzzle pieces to understanding what we're dealing with.

My Dad was an engineer and I have looked over a lot of drafting projects. I worked for the Federal Highway Administration for a while so I know the type of engineering work that would go into building a highway, and I am just amazed at the technical detail, engineering, graphics and everything that goes into these technical manuals for something that is a "fiction", a movie ... we are not talking about something that is real life.

Then there is the Ambassador coding (sub-codes include setting fires; suicide; doing an act of violence against somebody). Emperor coding. Morse coding.

They have maps of the universe. Where a map of the Milky Way could be used is when you are splintering the mind of a victim and you are looking for some kind of a pattern to restructure it, you would use something like a galaxy map to recreate their mind. You have star clusters, planets.

The technical manuals will have section indexes and when they structure the mind controlled slaves they build sections and those sections are coded and you will find the technical manuals have number codes, color codes which is another aspect of the mind control all the way through.

"Videodrome", "Labyrinth." I go into explaining how "Labyrinth" is a programming script in the Volume 2 book. "Transfer 2", "Attack of the Robots", "Attack of the Puppet People" ... we could go on and on.

These computers are built by taking dissociated parts of the mind and making them into a computer - computers that control each section - and then those computers are in turn controlled by deeper computers. heeler/illuminati-mind-control-chapter-11/#ixzz1prZTca31

Everything guards the BEAST computer including deaf alters who have to be communicated with using a hand number code system. Such a code might resemble finger signing 1,2,3,4,5,10 = 15 & following this with a shutdown code which simply reverses the access equation.

I'm not surprised that this scientist believes he has found a code within nature. Seeing that we are now understanding how there are cycles within cycles, finding a number code within it all makes perfect sense.

Codes and symbols are ancient languages more people should learn. I believe it's our ignorance towards this that's causing to keep us down. After all, the elite talk to each other all the time via symbols.

Of course, the code(s) within nature could be used for bad I'm sure, so I hope this information remains in good hands.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:25 AM
whats to say that the people that invented binary code didnt copy of this superstring code???

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:25 AM
If this theory is true, I think our hard drive is getting fragmented. Pretty messed up reality right now.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:26 AM
Laz comments:

It's about String Theory, that is, a theory, not yet physical law.

At this point, the theory is not falsify-able, so it is not science by definition. Note that the speaker on the first video waffled when asked about experiments. No, he is a theoretical physicist - no experiments here, folks.

This all may be a modern repeat of the cycles and epicycles of the Old Astronomy.

Laz may be totally wrong.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link is my thought.

We seem to be amazed that the universe is made up of simply bits of information...

But why are we amazed at this? Simple..because we are trained to think of a computer and the way we designed it to "think" is artificial...therefore as we start to understand the universe, we think this also is artificial.

I disagree.

I think the universe is as natural as it always has been...and our computers is also a natural evolution that we have, the universe isn't synthetic..rather, or computers are organic

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:37 AM
I have to laugh at the proof of god people. Why?

If he was a real god that created this universe - why did 'he' need error correcting software if everything he made was perfect?

Plus it would also make 'him' a scientist (and a nerd).
Hopefully not Sheldon Cooper!

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:37 AM
reply to post by Ajax84

Sounds very interesting.

Unfortunately, I cannot view the video just now, but I would like to see it.

Til then..

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:39 AM
reply to post by SaturnFX

You have to ask yourself this:
Which came first?
Programming the mind or programming a computer?
The mind was the first crack at man's ability to program things.

The nazis and Mengele, just to mention one, were hard at work perfecting the art of programming way before the first computer was even prototyped (unless our ancients had computers, but this hasn't been declared a fact).
Their experiments and successes proves that there are codes within nature that can even be manipulated. I'm certainly not for manipulating anything that is functioning as it should naturally.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:55 AM
This is an interesting mix of the

Laws of Physics with the
The Nature of Philosophy.

That is why your logical mind leaves you with a question at the end
of the video, yes there is a giant leap between the two.

At the end the fellow says "One short move" ....
he says it seems a little crazy, well what would be more
truthful is that it is a leap from logic to philosophy.

I must admit, the Code is fascinating.

ETA: The code is provable, however, it it is a supreme exaggeration
(being very generous) to think this is "hard evidence" of the Simulation Hypothesis.
edit on 22-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:00 PM
IF we are all simulated programs in a hard drive of a future super computer....and that is a big IF.. then would this not mean that we are without souls or free will?

edit on 22-3-2012 by Lapislazuli because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:02 PM
Hmmm i wonder if future humans can delete my wife from the rest of this simulation?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in