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

If you consider what "WE" are, then you can consider we come with automatic Programing.

Ours body's are made up of Elements, those Elements are Universal.
The "Frequency" that the Atoms in our body vibrate, are exactly the same, whether they are on Earth, Mars, Rigel4, Glese 121, Andromeda etc etc. Hydrogen is Hydrogen, Oxygen is Oxygen etc.
The Atomic structure of the Universe, is the same everywhere.
We are not Part of the Program...We Are the program.
Every life form in the Universe, has to comply with the exact same Atomic structure rules we do.
When our bodies no longer function, we return to that Atomic level, to be reborn again in to a new structure.
But as an organism...we were probably genetically engineered by someone, future Humans? Aliens? The Almighty?, who knows?.

The brain is wired for electronic receipt and transmission.

Ok first point.
Equations are merely combinations of variables, constants, mathematical relationships and algorithms. Another word for this in the computing world is a "program". In order for humans to understand these they are usual converted into tokens, which we perceive visually as digits and symbols. These are arbritary conventions that have been agreed upon. In order to have a computer understand this, they are translated into a digital form that is also arbritary and based on conventions agreed upon by hardware designers. There are different conventions used by different manufacturers. It is therefore completely illogical to say that an equation as represented by proponents of string theory can possibily be in any way related to computer code- which conventions were used in the translations? It's a bit like saying "when I remember the colors in the spectrum I use the acronym roygbiv, which in Croatian translates to the English equivalent of 'my mother eats beef at midnight', therefore when I look at the colours of the US flag, it proves all Americans have mothers". That statement is meaningless unless you speak both languages and agree that the appropriate thing to do when looking at a flag is attempt to find a hidden meaning.

Second point. Why was "error correction code" chosen in this little scam? Why not choose 3d graphics rendering - surely thats just as impressive? Answer: To create a philosophical straw man, to argue against the intelligent design argument. Then it's easy to say - see the designer needs error correction, not so intelligent after all. Unfortunately a few people fell into that trap.

Finally, whilst string theorists are working hard to make sense of some enormously complicated issues, they are far from understanding everything - those equations may be wrong or at best grossly incomplete. Sure parellel universes and altered timelines seem plausible IF you take a number of things "on faith", as dictated by these theorists. Let's not forget it is called string THEORY for a reason.

What you are looking at is not real. It really only exists as minute static charges in a bit of silicone or on a hard drive platter. If you ever do have any trouble distinguishing between whether this is true or not, then turn the damn thing off and go outside.

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by mr10k

 

Whether God is perfect, I don't know. Keep in mind that even if this theory is proven, it would only prove that he's a "low-level god or designer," who may be within someone else's simulation. Nobody knows much about The "Ultimate Creator" or Designer.

Now if you ask me what I think of this low-level god or designer, then assuming that I've understood all of his actions correctly(and not me trying to rationalize his actions), then I would say that he's very logical and pragmatic. I would say that he seems to have put a lot of thought into this "simulation."

What's scary is that it also appears that he DOES have the characteristics of a "video-gamer."

It's not that God would be a lower level designer, it's that you are on a low level design.
You need to go to a higher level of existance, this is one of the lower , cause and effect, "The Gross Physical"

I see no hard evidence. Hard evidence i getting the paper showing the math needed to get the bionary code from super string math equations. What I see is a picture of a man and picture off ovals with 0's and 1's in them with lines connecting. I dont have the math skills to reverse engineer bionary code to the original super string theory equations and if you don't, the no math to back up what you claim or the "professor" is claiming then I see no proof.

Thats like me saying that the human body is made up of billions of cells with no way view these cells.

I sure do hope we are not running on Windows Vista... come to think of it i have not seen any blue-screen's of death.

But please, with no disrespect to anybody an application of occam's razor surely tells us that this is not the most likely of scenario's.

Still i must admit, that the code they found is intriguing.

So is the code in our DNA




Just like a computer program.

Is this idea/theory going to be yet another Religion people will choose to believe in down the road. A Religion that came from a computer code.

Don't get me wrong, I like this thread and I will keep an open mind on this topic for something to think about ontop of everything else I think about and I'm very skepitic of a lot of things which is why I consider myself an antagonistic because I value certian claims and yes, I do believe in a God.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Even in the almost impossible case there were anything to this, it would not change physics overall. It would not give us special powers. You walk into a wall it hurts and the wall remains. You jump off a cliff, you die. Even the demonstrable stuff like walking on fire is not so impressive after you know how the illusion of danger is accomplished and realize there is nothing remarkable about it.

Yes but the question remains, If you jump off a cliff and die, who cares? The scientists looking through the data in the simulation? If you're a simulation which I am really REALLY starting to believe we are, then our lives really don't matter, have no real purpose, and if my life ends then that is possibly the end of it all, unless there is (which i also believe there possibly is), a SIMULATION AFTERLIFE, where we still, don't end our existance...

Reincarnation would be possible with an afterlife simulation also...

Ultimately could we end our existance? I believe it's doubtful and the only one who could end it would be the actual real reality not the simulated reality.

Originally posted by FlutterByte
Finally, whilst string theorists are working hard to make sense of some enormously complicated issues, they are far from understanding everything - those equations may be wrong or at best grossly incomplete. Sure parellel universes and altered timelines seem plausible IF you take a number of things "on faith", as dictated by these theorists. Let's not forget it is called string THEORY for a reason.

The things about everything is that basically the simulated theory hold up the best argument compared to all these other theory's. It Fits the data, best.

'hard evidence" may be a misnomer for what appears to be theoretical 'soft theory'. *shrugs*

Physics and philosophy mix so well that they shouldn't. LOL.

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)

We DO have it, and no. This error correction only occurs during newly synthesized DNA as far as I'm aware.

So, I have actually been having cyber sex? What about when I'm having actual cyber sex? Is it really like, super cyber sex?

Originally posted by WhatAreThey

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)

We DO have it, and no. This error correction only occurs during newly synthesized DNA as far as I'm aware.

It goes on any time the strand is unrolled for access. There are some that repair on replication but others can do so when the thing's not unzipped. For example, if you have three or more pyrimidine pairs in sequence, UV can cause the crosslink to let go and stick between the pairs instead of across the strand. There's a repair enzyme that fixes that in real time.

Error correction doesn't imply that the data is corrected at the content level. If I transmit the message "All dogs are blue" and it comes out "Sll d8gs are bl^e", the code can restore the original message. But it doesn't fix the content error - all dogs are NOT blue. But that's not the point of error correction.

Keep in mind who has to be fooled into believing whatever it is you believe in.
See Allegory of the Cave

Does this mean I still have to go to work today?

I guess few mathematicians recognize this type of code; it's not error checking - just rhythm and harmony...

Now, I'm gonna watch hi-speed animated rendering of fractals, meditating on Banach fixed-point theorem; while eating chicken-noodles...
(-and listening to Hawkwind)

Just think following this theory to its eventual conclusion God could be a spotty teenager in the year 2100!! how dissapointing!!

Since 'String Theory' is what's known as an 'ad hoc' theory, the equations ruling them are arbitrary and not relevant to the real world.

String theory is borne from the massive difference in the force of gravity at classical scales compared to quantum scales. Our theories governing gravity break down at that scale. Coincidentally it also breaks down at large scales. Extra spatial dimensions were conjured to allow QM gravity to leak. It's kind of a joke. Look up what 'ad hoc hypothesis' means, please.

The theories and mathematical equations that scientists use to model our world are just approximations. if you extrapolate the theories beyond their applicable observations, or simply augment them when observations fail to match predictions (instead of trashing them), then the margin of error skyrockets and you're going to be left with wildly wrong data.

If you watch the video again, you'll notice that the scientist makes this distinction - it's the layman who is misinterpreting, and thinking these 'computer codes' were found literally in the fabric of the universe itself. It's a UNIVERSE of difference.