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: 8
208
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rtyfx
 


What "rules"?

He's saying that to better understand their theory they developed mathematical objects (much like the objects programmers use - bear that in mind) and that these objects used binary data in the same way as programmers do... there's no proof that's it's more than a coincidence or a parallel created by human minds using math to understand two things things (i.e. using objects in programming and using objects in string theory)

but it's fun to think about...

nothing about hidden code proving we're in a matrix created by an external force...

he compares the code to DNA, and in fact says DNA is also matrix-y

So if you think DNA is proof of a Matrix then sure... this is too.




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Anyhow...here 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 created...no, the universe isn't synthetic..rather, or computers are organic


I'm in the same boat. Computers perform their computations based on the laws of physics that already exist. The standard computer is a computer as the universe is a computer. They are not "separate" entities. The "fact" that there is an error-correcting code in string theory, or even error correcting mechanisms in living beings does not make the universe any less natural. If the universe did not have any form of error correction in the first place, one could safely assume that errors would be the norm - and that implies no fixed laws.

Contrast the simulation to a cell in your body performs various metabolic functions - energy processing, garbage collection, nuclear traffic, etc... but it would be demonstrably ridiculous for a cell to have a peak outside of your body, spot a city infrastructure and say, "OH MY WORD, WE ARE A SIMULATED CITY!"

In fact, one could easily argue that the universe is governed by similar mechanisms being discovered in information theory. The fact that we have the ability to theoretically model the universe and describe in in a way similar to a information processor only shows that the universe does indeed have fixed laws just as a computer does and that information vector states are processed in time.

Besides, the simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


I think it natural for us to think of a Creator.

Our life experience has been that everything has a beginning and an end.


See I think there has always been something. I do think that every 'thing' is finite....but that there has always been something, some sort of existence/being.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sylvie
 


Maybe ghosts and magnetic anomalies are problems with the hard drive.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


I think it natural for us to think of a Creator.

Our life experience has been that everything has a beginning and an end and there is always someone or something responsible for it.
edit on 22-3-2012 by rtyfx because: (no reason given)



Ahhh ok you added something there I missed before. Yes, we do always seem to have someone or something being responsible for it....I guess which is why we naturally gave credits to gods for the rains, thunder, earth, sun ect....and who is to say someone is not responsible...but I go more with we are a natural occurrence but with purpose lol


I do believe in a god of sorts but I stopped using the god term and the term creator when my beliefs started being more understood in natural evolving design of life, connection, expression...life is always being, and to always be, is to always express.....we are of this expression of what is always being.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatAreThey
 


If we have error-correcting code in our DNA wouldn't we be perfect by now? Wouldn't it have corrected all genetic anomalies?

Maybe the parameters don't specify perfection. If we were perfect we'd be God.
edit on 22-3-2012 by rtyfx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bonkrh
thanks op. MIND = BLOWN

would a simulated world mean that everything is true about "put your mind to it and anything is possible"? i would assume if we are playing this like a video game we would infact control everything unless it was placed as a story mode...


I imagine that these corrector codes are there to make sure that stuff CAN'T happen if you put your mind to it. Interesting stuff.

I've always had this belief that everything in the universe is bound by the laws of the universe. hence, we can't just float two feet off the ground; squirrels can't carry on a conversation with a human... BUT, what if these corrector codes can be bypassed?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Very good post very thought provoking...

I once heard this " we are the universe manifesting to the point where it is able to view and interact with itself"



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
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.



In science, though, the word "theory" is used differently than in everyday language. Whereas, when I say "I have a theory," it's clear it's nothing but conjecture, theory in science means there's a lot of good evidence for it and it's generally accepted as fact. (Which of course doesn't always mean it's true.) It's not just string theory, it's also the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the relativity theory, quantum theory.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enemyc0mbatant
Very good post very thought provoking...

I once heard this " we are the universe manifesting to the point where it is able to view and interact with itself"

Thanks for posting this. It kicked my thinking to a whole new level.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I love this thread, and I believe that we, the observer's, have an effect on the outcome on a quantum level.

Thus interjecting our own contamination.

Peace. The Rev



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by reverandrandy
 


I don't see us as the observers. I think we are the specks in the petri dish.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


I love how nonbelievers keep coming up with silly excuses after being slapped in the face with scientific mathematical proof evidence of a Creator


Every design has a creator
Nature was programmed to work the way it is
Even Einstein believed there's something bigger that keeps everything in order
If there was no Creator the universe would be chaotic
Continue doubting. It only pushes us to find more proof of our God to show all you ignorant children
edit on 22-3-2012 by CaLyps0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by CaLyps0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sylvie
 


Sadly however, with the advent of science grubbing for research money and even jumping in bed with politicians, theory does not mean what it used to. Science is far from pure these days. I'm sure many in science now would play to the absurd if it brings in the money.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by rigel4
does it really matter
if we are a simulation anyway, It's real to us


Actually it does not. Your right. It would change nothing for us.



I disagree. It would put us into the position of Neo in "The Matrix." If we not just believed but KNEW without a doubt that all this is not real, we could walk on water and through walls. I've had amazing, amazing results with manifestation, but one thing is, you really have to believe in it for it to work perfectly. KNOWING that we're truly in the matrix would be manifestation capability to the tenth power.
edit on 22-3-2012 by sylvie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CaLyps0
 


I don't think name calling and critical comments about others beliefs helps at all. You try to force it on people, you drive them further away.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


You're right, of course. Anyone who doubts should turn on the History Channel.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I have a simpler explanation;

IN order to make the "MATH" fit the Observation, the physicists unwittingly created a calculation that FITS the data.

Superstring and a lot of quantum mechanics math FITS observation -- but there is no more proof that there are gluons, heavy quarks, and leptons than there is proof that these aren't just tiny, quick angels making sure every particle is behaving correctly.

The MATH is statistically useful, but the MODEL used doesn't really describe the Universe. So the "code" found here, is completely man-made.

It seems to me, having read this quantum physics stuff, that it is intentional obtuse. I was able to follow what they were saying, because basically, I'm pretty ADHD about a lot of things, but I'm a genetic mutant when it comes to spatial visualization or thinking in more than the normal 4 dimensions. They've fudged modern physics with Dark Matter and Gravitons and saying light is both a particle and a wave -- because since Einstein took the stage, everybody threw out the idea of an "aether" -- and they've tried to explain every force or phenomena with a particle.

However, if everything was constructed of WAVES and vortices -- their interactions would resemble particles, and "quantum" -- areas of no interaction and then complete interactions, because wave's ignore each other unless meeting at peaks or at opposites (interference patterns).

>> Since the MATH WORKS, and ONLY the people who can get through the tedious math get allowed to speak about Quantum Physics and String Theory -- they've preselected for people who can't visualize what is going on, and who just nod their heads that these are vibrating strings -- on the other hand, my "vortex" idea, would of course, look like a wiggling string in 4 dimensions if it was occurring in 12. But the non-matheticians, like me, who MIGHT stumble upon how this invisible elephant might LOOK LIKE, are not part of the discussion, because imagination is not a repeatable skill


So it's not that any model is WRONG -- it's just that we CANNOT SEE what we are theorizing -- and basically, we are all blind men describing an elephant. Depending on what perspective you take -- you "visualize" an elephant as different things that seem to contradict. But if nobody has a coherent image of an entire elephant -- then the process of describing how the "tree like legs" fit on the "large bat-like wings" of the ears, connects to a giant boulder of a tummy, or the snake-like tail can be complete garbage. AS long as nobody knows what this thing looks like -- you can have any number of complex spheres and strings holding together the described bits -- and as long as the known bits do elephant-like things, nobody is the wiser.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by WhatAreThey
 


If we have error-correcting code in our DNA wouldn't we be perfect by now? Wouldn't it have corrected all genetic anomalies?

Maybe the parameters don't specify perfection. If we were perfect we'd be God.
edit on 22-3-2012 by rtyfx because: (no reason given)


Exactly...if we are a computer sim, what is the point of disease, suicide, the common cold, diabetes? As well as, what is the point of star systems with planets that have NO life?

I want to believe this theory, but I can't make sense of it.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by sylvie
 


Sadly however, with the advent of science grubbing for research money and even jumping in bed with politicians, theory does not mean what it used to. Science is far from pure these days. I'm sure many in science now would play to the absurd if it brings in the money.


Very true. Unfortunately there are too many bought-and-paid-for scientists these days, whether it's by corporate America or dot-gov. Thank God, though, that people haven't figured out yet how to become immortal... otherwise the old guard with their calcified mindsets would never die out and make space for new ideas.



new topics

top topics



 
208
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join