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

Originally posted by amongus

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.

Disease, plagues, war, natural disaster... would you like to play a video game where nothing happens at all? Where there are only happy couples and families, everyone's well fed and content -- no conflict, no drama, no action? I think not. And you don't know that there are planets that have no life; that's what you've been told, but you haven't seen it for yourself. In fact, there may not even be planets; it could all be part of the "fringe simulation," i.e., a blurry framework in which the simulation takes place.

reply to post by sylvie

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.

The reason that such powers are never demonstrated and proven is they are not real. Whenever a person claiming powers is confronted with a simple test of their powers, they run away, or make an excuse.

I think the longing for special powers some exhibit is more to do with a person being unhappy in their own skin. It's a kind of self-medication to deal with their unhappiness by imagining that that some day they can snap their fingers and it will all go away. But then the same could be said of religion and I'm a Christian; an honest one.

Originally posted by CaLyps0
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 was
Even Einstein believed there's something bigger that keeps everything in order
If there was no Creator the universe would be chaotic

Keel doubting. It only pushes us to find more proof of our God to show all you ignorant children

I love how you group yourself with other believers....funny, you dont recognize that I am a person of many faiths and beliefs...

I did not know though that those that knew of the nature of God, the true manifestor of all things, called people children and ignorant. Goes to show, cant judge a book by its cover.

I actually do believe in a higher power, I dont call it god anymore. Again, would you like to kick me for this too?

I know the experiences I had with what I would call the Holy Spirit would of never led me to the character and nature that you are portraying here.


I know people want to believe that a creator desired to create them for this gives them purpose of being....if they only knew, in spirit they are already divine, what you think you are here, is not really what you are anyways.

But again....a pattern in nature does not prove what some or us or you others may 'believe'. I am big enough to say that just because I do have beliefs, does not mean this proves them to be so.

Professor Gates and the other who wrote this paper admit that this is all theoretical. String theory is completely theoretical. So what they are claiming is they've found some fundamental algorithmic patterns in their human created code. That doesn't seem particularly surprising to me.

If you're looking for mathematical Easter Eggs, hidden in the fundamental structure of nature, I think I can do a bit better:

This is row 13 on the left, and row 14 on the right of Euler's number triangle, rendered in base 2 (binary):


You don't need a degree in quantum physics to create these numbers, all you need is the numbers 1,1,1 and a very simple number relationship which looks very similar to this algorithm:



If you add up the binary values using the pixels from figure on the left you get the number 6,22,020,800 which = 13! (factorial)

13! = 13 x 12 x 11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1

If you add up the binary values of the figure on the right you get 14 factorial.

These are other images, the rows can go on forever:



mathworld.wolfram.com...

ok, this is all very cool and intriguing. I wonder these things, however: if we are a simulation, how would we explain NDE's? Or that we have souls, or conscious, subconscious? The reason I say we have souls, for example, how we can say the eyes our windows to our souls, right? And, how we can look at a person and know a bit of their charchter just from this window. What about things like freak accidents? People having dreams or feeling of this accidents, how would we beging to explain this? I think, that a precentage of this could be truth, but I am having a hard time explaining all of it. If a precentage of this is true, I think it is more like "we" have gained some of the control over this simulation?
And what if the "awakening" some have been saying that many of us will experience, is this awakening?
What if we are ripping the Earth as we "awaken"? Ok, I don't know, I am just rolling with it..asking the who, what, where, why, when questions.

reply to post by yampa



Can you explain in terms the lay person can understand? I think I know what you are saying, but am not there yet.




Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

reply to post by amongus


I wonder if he is saying, we will find math and patterns in everything, no matter how small or large....everything holds a key of what seems to be infinite information, or the whole or the all, in everything...not sure how to explain that. But still, why would there not be a design, a formed pattern, a working system, cycles, orders, I dont know why so many are so surprised at this idea.

reply to post by yampa

That was neat, they look like totem poles.

reply to post by LeoVirgo


Fair enough
I apologize for judging quickly

It amazes me how many different ways mankind thinks of ways of belittling itself to explain everything. And how each one of these twisted little theorys and ideas are as equally believable as the next 360 degree leap of faith.

Originally posted by amongus

Can you explain in terms the lay person can understand? I think I know what you are saying, but am not there yet.

I'm saying I think some of those images are remarkable, and that they appear very quickly in the fundamental structure of numbers. The OP is about finding 'computer code' inside models of physics, I'm saying I've found 'picture code' inside the fundamental structure of numbers. That's a pretty good Easter Egg, if you ask me.

I've done a thread about this already, but this is the first time I've explicitly labelled what I believe are the naturalistic (even humanoid) features from couple of the rows of Euler's number triangle.

I'm not trying to sell you a theory, I'm just pointing out what I see.

Originally posted by Huggiesunrise
It amazes me how many different ways mankind thinks of ways of belittling itself to explain everything. And how each one of these twisted little theorys and ideas are as equally believable as the next 360 degree leap of faith.

What the hell else do we have?

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?

He died. Had to be deleted, was causing too many problems. Home planet was probably imploded. Better anyway that we're "judged" under the law and cycles of karma (however paradoxical), than sent to hell forever, something unmanagable for a loving God to begin with.

Originally posted by rtyfx
The real question is what is the point of running such a simulation? What is the Creator looking for?

Looking for himself, and on re-discovery, probably just wanting to share in the enjoyment of having a varied experience.

Originally posted by CaLyps0
reply to post by LeoVirgo

 

Fair enough
I apologize for judging quickly

I appreciate that, but no worries

I have always said, the word of God is within life itself, in the design, the blueprint, in a place that it would always remain untainted, pure, without the biases of man to taint it. When a true heart seeks Thee, they find they are filled and surrounded by Thee....in life.

But anywhos....like I said, Im trying to not mix my belief here. Im trying to stay in logic because for a person that is seeking....this is not proof, Im not sure proof will ever be found with our two eyes...but a wise man once spoke about seeing with 'one eye of light'....

But again, this is not about beliefs....

I can also stand on this other side because I have traveled down a less traveled path of a path of faith in where this 'god' thing, is very impersonal to us, not something that becomes personal until we as a conscious being, becomes aware of ourselves, our interconnected self, the spirit we all share and are of. God could simply be the holder of information, God does not have to be a personal being that loves, desires, and needs like us humans. But like I said, that is a less traveled path of thought that threatens many believers that desire the personal God relation.

reply to post by LeoVirgo

God is nothing if not personal. And that too can be discovered from having gone down the road less travelled.

God is self aware, and we are children of God, begotten from God as source as a first/last cause (first father of creation), who is spirit, truth and life, then well, that's a pretty direct and personal relationship defined by sharing aka koinonia (communion of intimate participation).

Here is HARD evidence for superstring theory encoded in the Kabbalistic Tree of Life (Otz Chiim). I will give the link to the particular webpage providing the proof even though none of you will understand the research unless you have spent several weeks absorbing some of the background concepts and work assembled at this website:
smphillips.8m.com...

The amount of irrefutable evidence that this website demonstrates for the encoding in sacred geometries of superstring structure and its interactions is absolutely overwhelming. The 54 research articles are profoundly illuminating, but you will need some mathematical skills to understand this body of work.

Here you will find revealed the basic mathematical pattern embodied in all sacred geometries that manifests in superstrings, in the seven musical octave species and in human DNA. Forget all the posers and internet scam artists who claim to have insight into sacred geometry. The original and rigorous research in this website contains the seed for another revolution in physics and makes explicit the mathematical nature of the interface between ancient religions and science.

reply to post by yampa

People tend to see faces everywhere. Remember the face on mars ?

Its mess of random pixels, your brain fills up the empty spaces to resemble something and make sense of what you're seeing.

Read this. en.wikipedia.org...

I can make out thousands of faces there. You can see more figures on the ones with more pixels.
You're just interpreting a few pixels. And there can be infinite number of rows.

In my opinion, the binary code from OP is way better evidence. But in a way it fails to prove anything, just like the eulers number triangle.

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)

Maybe God isn't perfect

Maybe perfect isn't perfect as we describe it

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by LeoVirgo

 

God is nothing if not personal. And that too can be discovered from having gone down the road less travelled.

God is self aware, and we are children of God, begotten from God as source as a first/last cause (first father of creation), who is spirit, truth and life, then well, that's a pretty direct and personal relationship defined by sharing aka koinonia (communion of intimate participation).

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

God is personal...if that is what you are in need of Thee being. What ever we need Thee to be, seems to be which is what and how we experience Thee to be.

A source does not have to be aware for further animations to be expressed through and by a source, there seems to be no personal relation going on until conscious beings need there to be. Life seems to be content all on its own accord in just being, without there a need for personal relations. That is the beauty of it though, it is personal, but not how many take it to be as in a personal relation between two separate things....as if you or anything else could be separate from all that is and all that will be.

Life itself could be said to have a personal relation, the earth and its seeds and the growth and the air and the water and the sun....all work together, are interconnected, but they dont require any awareness for their might and beauty to work together and to 'be'. Just saying.

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
If infinity is involved the odds are extremely high that we are living in a computer simulated universe.

It seems to me that bringing the multiverse concept into this actually dramatically lowers the probability that we are in a "simulated reality" as opposed to a "real reality." The idea of simulation says that the number of simulations of the universe will be innumerable, but there is exactly one (1) non-simulated universe, and so probability would strongly suggest we are in one of the simulations. We could be in the "real" one, of course...it is just not very likely.
But the multiverse concept changes everything by stating that the number of "real" realities is infinite. This of course means that the number of simulated realities is also infinite...but that still leaves us with an even chance of being in one or the other.

Ain't this fun?