Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Checksum discovered in DNA: More evidence of Simulation Theory?

page: 5
111
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
What a cool thread! This has been my sorta "belief" as to how the universe was created or why. I didn't know there were such theory's out there though. Guess i didn't look very good.

I've also wondered how many generations we are in to this simulation. Every generation creates there own simulation like looking at a mirror through another mirror. awesome

S+F
edit on 21-4-2012 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You're not thinking out of the box enough. Where did 1+1 come from? If everything was just randomness then 1+1 wouldn't explain anything. Sometimes it would be 3, or 11. It's a rule and must apply to the cosmos. Therefore, the cosmos must be a rule.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Thanks for the response, I am no expert in such matters but I do subscribe to the idea that all information has some effect on how you form accurate information, so in essence no information is useless or

nonsense
I like your approach on backing your opinion but it only backed your example and didn't really address my statement. Thanks



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
so much order, and so many patterns...all supposedly from random chance. bah, i say.

fools will continue to deny a creator(s) because of the philosophical ramifications.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

If a baby bear gets born with 3 legs, it dies...nature is self correcting. That's the same thing you say DNA does. It checks for errors and weeds them out. No magic required for that.


The magic is in the Fibonacci.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mosthated718bx
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Thanks for the response, I am no expert in such matters but I do subscribe to the idea that all information has some effect on how you form accurate information, so in essence no information is useless or

nonsense
I like your approach on backing your opinion but it only backed your example and didn't really address my statement. Thanks


I just used this as one example. They don't properly source their claims, and they have very obvious mistakes in their article...mistakes that I doubt a true scientist would make.






Only 10% of our DNA is being used for building proteins. It is this subset of DNA that is of interest to western researchers and is being examined and categorized. The other 90% are considered "junk DNA." The Russian researchers, however, convinced that nature was not dumb, joined linguists and geneticists in a venture to explore those 90% of "junk DNA". Their results, findings and conclusions are simply revolutionary!


Their percentages are off by a lot, and secondly scientists aren't really calling it junk DNA in the first place...they call it non-coding DNA. Recent research suggests that this non-coding DNA might have actual functions, we just haven't figured all of them out yet. More info here: LINK




According to them, our DNA is not only responsible for the construction of our body but also serves as data storage and communication. The Russian linguists found that the genetic code, especially in the apparently useless 90%, follows the same rules as all our human languages. To this end they compared the rules of syntax (the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences), semantics (the study of meaning in language forms) and the basic rules of grammar.


The mere fact that animals have DNA as well (often closely matching our own) with a similar amount of non-coding DNA should make it clear that the above claim is nonsense. Either way, they never provide any proof of their claims in the first place. I spent a bit of time sifting through a couple of research paper databases (Emerald, etc.), and nothing even remotely connected to their claims pops up.

The biggest indication that they're FOS is that they misinterpret what scientists say. They aren't saying non-coding DNA is useless...here's what they say:




Many noncoding DNA sequences have important biological functions...


Oh, and the article also uses fun made-up words like this one:




endogenous DNA laser radiation


A laser is bundled light...and has NOTHING to do with DNA


They try to sound knowledgeable by making up words that sound scientific or fancy
edit on 21-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by MrXYZ

If a baby bear gets born with 3 legs, it dies...nature is self correcting. That's the same thing you say DNA does. It checks for errors and weeds them out. No magic required for that.


The magic is in the Fibonacci.


Fibonacci isn't "magic". In finance and investing for example it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. A ton of investors use it to analyze charts, and since so many people use it to determine levels of support/resistance, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Proof of that is that charts started matching Fibonacci more once more people started using it


A large chunk of my income comes from investing in currencies...all through chart analysis. I use Fibonacci every single day...but I don't use it because it magically predicts where price will end up, I use it because so many investors use it to base their entry/exits levels on.
edit on 21-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by MichaelYoung
Sorry, but checksums in DNA are hardly evidence that the whole universe is a simulation.

It's far more likely that we were genetically engineered by aliens, IMO.


That's the sequel. Considering checksums aren't a natural occurrence, perhaps everything has been engineered
edit on 20-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)


What's your objective evidence that checksums aren't natural?


Computer code


It's a chemical process we humans DECIDE to express as a code. You can express pretty much everything you want with math


That's not evidence of a creator...



It's a chemical process performing mathematical calculations. Albeit, not expressed in numbers, but logically the same. Identical even. When did 1+1 = 2 ?. How can these two numbers 'evolve' How can the logic 'evolve'?


Simple, if you are to denote something as 1, it must have a mass or charge. This mass or charge directly correlates with time. Time and mass are to be considered a marriage. Then to consider that nothing is in true equilibrium, nothing is 'frozen' or at absolute zero, this then implies spin or movement, which is also a prerequisite to charge and time. This movement then gives the premise of volume, for you can not 'move' in a space that does not exist.
If the universe expands, over time, and the separation of mass... then to include such ideas of entropy, then includes an idea for numbers evolving from one another.

Like cellular division, if God is the first and a second evolves that is to 'rival the light', you now have a basis for duality. As to the trinity, all things triune are an expression of communication. Hence N,P,E in an atom, 3d, triple alpha, and such.

I might be missing the direction of your questioning... as to how logico be may evolve.

If 1 is to be considered as a singularity, and the father of all there is to be.
Then 2, is to be a representation of all dualities expressed in a universe of dualism
Then 3 is to represent the communication between the 2, the 3rd is the expression of such.
Then 4 is to bring justice to said expressed communication between the dualities. For its very being is derived from such.
Then 5 is to represent the marriage, and adoption of said justice.

This is where 1+2+3+4=10, and pythagoras defense for

The order of all this, is to self 'checksum' and can be defined as cosmological justice, for the relationships of said numbers must follow a set path or storyline. When they stray, the will be corrected so that all is coherent. I would eve dare to suggest that this 'Checksum' is the fall towards equilibrium.

I'm not sure if any of that answers your question, or even addresses it. But it shows how logic can come from numbers, a story line can evolve. Also, if you are to get all 'creator' and intelligent design about it... well, it's a conscious universe, if everything can be said to have derived from a singularity, then this singularity can be called God!



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


Again: Math is simply what we humans use to express things in an ordered manor. Just because we use the same approach to build computers doesn't mean nature or the universe is somehow automatically designed by some creator. Math is a tool we humans use, nothing more...



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


In short. Wow! Good job explaining that. I'm going to have to read it a couple of times but it is evident you know what you're talking about.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

math is a language. math doesn't create order, it describes what exists, as language doesn't create things. believe what you will, though i honestly pity you for it.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


No doubt. The Fibonacci, when applied to other things can result in substantial advantages.
Like the boy who designed a solar tree
Link

I just can't see randomness in that. Much too profound



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

math is a language. math doesn't create order, it describes what exists, as language doesn't create things. believe what you will, though i honestly pity you for it.




That's exactly my point, we are expressing things with math...as opposed to words. It's a tool, and yes, it doesn't create things. It's also a human invention. That's exactly the reason why it's not suitable as evidence for a creator.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I personally have never denied a creator; I just deny the creators everyone here venerate.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

math is a language. math doesn't create order, it describes what exists, as language doesn't create things. believe what you will, though i honestly pity you for it.




That's exactly my point, we are expressing things with math...as opposed to words. It's a tool, and yes, it doesn't create things. It's also a human invention. That's exactly the reason why it's not suitable as evidence for a creator.


I can see where you're going with this but language and math have one major difference. Math needs to work in a cohesive and logical manor to derive the next step. Whereas, a new word to join a new constructive thought can be arbitrarily made up. Much like naming race horses Mother: Eastern Fly Father: Sundance Kid: Offspring: Eastern Kid
edit on 21-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


Again: Math is simply what we humans use to express things in an ordered manor. Just because we use the same approach to build computers doesn't mean nature or the universe is somehow automatically designed by some creator. Math is a tool we humans use, nothing more...


Hmm... classic debate: ARE NUMBERS REAL?

If you are to identify any object, you are able to denote it as one. Being that things have an ability to appear separate, you can now denote them a value as to their abundance.

If you were to jump outside the universe and look at it, you could then denote it as 1 universe.

If you were to go inside, you would see balls of light... they are all collectively to be considered one conglomerate. But then to realize that they are separate from one another, gives premise for there being multiple. Well to identify 1 as a singularity in it's own right, and then to identify another star in it's own right is now another 1. Together( 1+1=2), you have 2 stars.

Numbers may be a device in which man has used to interpret our reality, but it is the construct of said reality. This can not be escaped. It's all a matter of perspective, hence frame of reference. Our frame of reference, and scope, only allows us to see a table, but we can not see the 'number' of atoms that compose it. But, we can look up into the sky and see that there are multiple stars, that are the construct of the universe, in which we may then apply numbers to.

And that is, my friend, the MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS...

shut up Charlie! I know I'm winning!



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Now we are talking!, Thanks for your input. Your statements do have a lot of logic that I can relate too. Ill keep your words and thoughts in mind while forming my opinions. Thank you



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

math is a language. math doesn't create order, it describes what exists, as language doesn't create things. believe what you will, though i honestly pity you for it.




That's exactly my point, we are expressing things with math...as opposed to words. It's a tool, and yes, it doesn't create things. It's also a human invention. That's exactly the reason why it's not suitable as evidence for a creator.


I 100% agree!

I don't personally put much weight behind the notion that there is an individual named God. And obviously numbers are a cognitive means of addressing the universe. But that does not then go to imply that numbers as to amount and relation are not a construct of the universe. If we weren't even to have ever created numbers, the universe would still be a construct of separate bodies. Just because we give them funny names, and squiggly lines, doesn't mean that the underlying premise of numbers is not real.

But...

I do however believe that everything can be boiled down as to stemming from a singularity. That consciousness is not only confined to intelligent beings, but also may be applied to inanimate objects, such as the universe as a whole. Then comes in the question of manifestation, and the possible fractal representation of said God or Jesus or any other divine beings, being represented through self-similarity into the human form.

It's a hard call to make, that's why it all boils down to faith I suppose.
edit on 21-4-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: clarification



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Does this mean I can defrag my brain sometime soon?!



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
What if uncovering we are in a simulation crashes the program?





new topics

top topics



 
111
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join