Checksum discovered in DNA: More evidence of Simulation Theory?

Who is Jean Claude Perez or Pere Z, or Per EZ? Wiki shows the covers of several books he has written. He chose to adorn them with a Renaissance picture of Davinci's Vitruvian man. He could have chosen a Botticelli Venus arising from the quantum foam, or the Michelangelo Sistine Chapel ceiling allegory.

Its a Neoplatonic philosophic choice to believe in some ultimate reality beyond the capability of human understanding. Such a definable fractal reality that resonates with constants like the golden ratio is attractive to the male ego.

Question in my mind is whether Perez actually believes this stuff, or is trolling for male sheep?

Considering the complex expressions of evolution we see every day why should a relatively simple checksum mechanism be deemed special or impossible for nature. On a biological level, each variable of an evolving system including the amount of mutation allowed to pass through it must be moderated by something, it's not arbitrary. A checksum with x amount of error allowance that balances the system so that x allows enough mutations to pass through to allow for changes and therefore allow evolution to occur but not so much that the production of molecules is totally uncontrolled seems like a required part of the system.

This is a naturally ocuring system with no controller or designer. Unless we are going to say that we are a special part of the universe to which the laws of the universe do not apply, we should also assume that similar mechanisms occur in other systems.

Originally posted by Jargonaut
Considering the complex expressions of evolution we see every day why should a relatively simple checksum mechanism be deemed special or impossible for nature. On a biological level, each variable of an evolving system including the amount of mutation allowed to pass through it must be moderated by something, it's not arbitrary. A checksum with x amount of error allowance that balances the system so that x allows enough mutations to pass through to allow for changes and therefore allow evolution to occur but not so much that the production of molecules is totally uncontrolled seems like a required part of the system.

It shouldn't, but that's besides the point, which is that this proposed check-sum mechanism is total nonsense (see e.g. my previous post for why).

This should not be surprising.

Core parts of the natural world mimicking computer logic. Which came first and is which is based off the other?

There is another possibility. Maybe all our computer code is just a mirror of a natural occurring code sequence. So actually what we perceive as artificial is naturally occurring. That could cause us to mistakenly conclude that the universe is artificial. We create all sort of geometric shapes, triangles, squares polygons, just because they occur in nature does not imply they are artificial constructs. a quartz crystal looks manufactured but is totally natural, as an example.

So we actually found some more sense in how life works. Why is this a sign of some grand simulation.... or that we're engineered by... aliens? "Aliens" is just another alias for God apparently. As soon as we are closer to understanding nature we almost instantly give it some fantastic and religious explanation as if nature is not supposed to make sense to us.

Computer software is similar to processes and logic found in nature, not the other way around. Math is a natural science for god's sake.

With that said, we did not invent checksums, we just found that it is a best and fastest way to find errors in data. And not to mention that "checksum" is a extremely simple and down to earth (pun intended) concept while algorithms involved vary greatly. It makes total sense that nature has an error checking system.

Originally posted by alfa1
Lets just continue with the pseudoscientific woo, shall we?

It's the way of ATS. Ignorance is embraced because something sounds cool or is compatible with core beliefs about deities.

Originally posted by openminded2011
There is another possibility. Maybe all our computer code is just a mirror of a natural occurring code sequence. So actually what we perceive as artificial is naturally occurring. That could cause us to mistakenly conclude that the universe is artificial. We create all sort of geometric shapes, triangles, squares polygons, just because they occur in nature does not imply they are artificial constructs. a quartz crystal looks manufactured but is totally natural, as an example.

That is a great contribution and exposes another mathematical/physical world relationship not brought up before in the thread.

Crystals: Quartz, Zircon, Silica, Diamond (Carbon), Ruby (Aluminum Oxide) etc......
In their natural physical states, their shapes are macroscopic views of what the atomic structure in their molecules look like.

A crystal or crystalline solid is a solid material whose constituent atoms, molecules, or ions are arranged in an orderly, repeating pattern extending in all three spatial dimensions. In addition to their microscopic structure, large crystals are usually identifiable by their macroscopic geometrical shape, consisting of flat faces with specific, characteristic orientations.

Again, is this geometry produced by manipulating matter where nature understands mathematical relationships, or do the mathematical relationships get exposed as a side effect of a more profound mechanism.

Much like RNA, DNA, this is complex order and symmetry on a molecular level that exhibits extreme intentional design. While crystals are certainly not "alive", they exhibit properties of organization found in life... perhaps part of a process that 'evolved' into life, if that makes sense.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by alfa1
Lets just continue with the pseudoscientific woo, shall we?

It's the way of ATS. Ignorance is embraced because something sounds cool or is compatible with core beliefs about deities.

In defense of that, ATS didn't come up with this.

Originally posted by charlyv

Originally posted by openminded2011
There is another possibility. Maybe all our computer code is just a mirror of a natural occurring code sequence. So actually what we perceive as artificial is naturally occurring. That could cause us to mistakenly conclude that the universe is artificial. We create all sort of geometric shapes, triangles, squares polygons, just because they occur in nature does not imply they are artificial constructs. a quartz crystal looks manufactured but is totally natural, as an example.

That is a great contribution and exposes another mathematical/physical world relationship not brought up before in the thread.

Crystals: Quartz, Zircon, Silica, Diamond (Carbon), Ruby (Aluminum Oxide) etc......
In their natural physical states, their shapes are macroscopic views of what the atomic structure in their molecules look like.

A crystal or crystalline solid is a solid material whose constituent atoms, molecules, or ions are arranged in an orderly, repeating pattern extending in all three spatial dimensions. In addition to their microscopic structure, large crystals are usually identifiable by their macroscopic geometrical shape, consisting of flat faces with specific, characteristic orientations.

Again, is this geometry produced by manipulating matter where nature understands mathematical relationships, or do the mathematical relationships get exposed as a side effect of a more profound mechanism.

Much like RNA, DNA, this is complex order and symmetry on a molecular level that exhibits extreme intentional design. While crystals are certainly not "alive", they exhibit properties of organization found in life... perhaps part of a process that 'evolved' into life, if that makes sense.

BTW.... I answered your question as to 'why base12', in which I also included the role of geometry.

The most 'fluid' or gaseous of elements/state of matter is that of hydrogen plasma, the most concrete/hard is that of crystals... then you move up to metals and metallic micro-structures. EVERYTHING is geometry.

This was what I was getting at in my post on page for when I addressed base12. From the most 'gaseous' or plasma, to the hardest theoretically, are the relationships in which are the key to understanding everything, their relationships are expressed through geometry. My theory is, that everything should be referenced towards a vector equilibrium for it is a standard that can escape time, movement, and gravity(theoretically). It is... perfection(considering there's no such thing as a perfect circle).

speaking of which...(perfect circle - tool)
This is a reference that goes with enochwasright's first post on this thread, in regards to dna

My shadow Change is coming.
Now is my time. Listen to my muscle memory.
Contemplate what I've been clinging to.
Forty-six and two ahead of me.

"Forty-Six & 2"
Tool

Btw...Maynard James Keenan(lead of tool and a perfect circle) is a study of sacred geometry and philosophy

Another great song that references everything that we've been talking about:

true in living wisdom, well off and witty
using gods sleeve, write the hell of the city
see my elegance dining on the periodic table crawl for elements
the universe designs my intelligence
drop science down a bottomless pit one swift, doing handstands on pyramid tips

ahhh, why not, lets bring some music into the thread, lol.

speak the convo to colors and shapes

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Awesome post brother. I love to see member's personal research.

reply to post by FlySolo


Let me break it down for you: the God of the bible is a pretty smart guy don't you think? The Creator of all....amen.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by FlySolo
Nice find! I just hope I can comprehend most of it.

I'm not at all familiar with Dragon folding, which seems to be something that Martin Gardner popularised in Scientific American, so I'll skip that, but on the genetics...


What he seems to have done is to take the whole genome, and count sets of three, one base at a time. "Codon" is a poor word for that because the word "codon" specifically refers to an intermediate step in amino acid construction and he's not using it in that sense here.

eg. TACGGATGAC...
he counts TAC, then also ACG, then CGG, then GGA, and so forth, one step at a time, which is why he comes up with the total of 3 billion "codons" (his word), which isnt right because humans have 3 billion base pairs in total.

So at this point he's got 3 billion sets of three nucleotides, which in no way correspond to anything in biology, and proceeds to stuff those counts into the matrix specifically set out for amino acid coding... which has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

From here on he gets some nice numbers which match up to within 0.1 percent of "( 3 - Phi ) / 2" , but I cant see what the point of it all is.
Nor it is stated why he chose "( 3 - Phi ) / 2" as the goal. He probably just tried a bunch of different variations of formulas somehow related to phi, until he got a hit.

Still not seeing there's anything meaningful here.

P.S. Another copy of it can be found here , as a pdf file.

If I understand you correctly, stop if I'm wrong, you're saying in layman's terms he took irrelevant combinations which have nothing to do with the process of DNA and stacked them together to come up with Phi?

ETA:

I think I see where you may be wrong. He didn't take sets of three and count one base at at time. He looked at the whole genome and discovered the sequence of occurrences of each base at a time. He divided the genome into groups of 2,4, 8, 16, 32 & 64 to further see the mathematical relationship turn into the "dragon fold" as demonstrated in the .GIF on page 1.

The biology and amino acids is not what is really being talked about here. What's been discovered is the frequency in which these codons occur in the genome.



The larger number is the number of times that particular group set of codon occur. When broken down it creates this equation:
1 - 1/(2 phi) + 1/(2 phi) - 1/(2 phi) + 1/(2 phi) - 1/(2 phi)

So in summary. No he didn't stack the codon deck, the genome showed the stack.

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Originally posted by charlyv

Originally posted by openminded2011
There is another possibility. Maybe all our computer code is just a mirror of a natural occurring code sequence. So actually what we perceive as artificial is naturally occurring. That could cause us to mistakenly conclude that the universe is artificial. We create all sort of geometric shapes, triangles, squares polygons, just because they occur in nature does not imply they are artificial constructs. a quartz crystal looks manufactured but is totally natural, as an example.

That is a great contribution and exposes another mathematical/physical world relationship not brought up before in the thread.

Crystals: Quartz, Zircon, Silica, Diamond (Carbon), Ruby (Aluminum Oxide) etc......
In their natural physical states, their shapes are macroscopic views of what the atomic structure in their molecules look like.

A crystal or crystalline solid is a solid material whose constituent atoms, molecules, or ions are arranged in an orderly, repeating pattern extending in all three spatial dimensions. In addition to their microscopic structure, large crystals are usually identifiable by their macroscopic geometrical shape, consisting of flat faces with specific, characteristic orientations.

Again, is this geometry produced by manipulating matter where nature understands mathematical relationships, or do the mathematical relationships get exposed as a side effect of a more profound mechanism.

Much like RNA, DNA, this is complex order and symmetry on a molecular level that exhibits extreme intentional design. While crystals are certainly not "alive", they exhibit properties of organization found in life... perhaps part of a process that 'evolved' into life, if that makes sense.

BTW.... I answered your question as to 'why base12', in which I also included the role of geometry.

The most 'fluid' or gaseous of elements/state of matter is that of hydrogen plasma, the most concrete/hard is that of crystals... then you move up to metals and metallic micro-structures. EVERYTHING is geometry.

This was what I was getting at in my post on page for when I addressed base12. From the most 'gaseous' or plasma, to the hardest theoretically, are the relationships in which are the key to understanding everything, their relationships are expressed through geometry. My theory is, that everything should be referenced towards a vector equilibrium for it is a standard that can escape time, movement, and gravity(theoretically). It is... perfection(considering there's no such thing as a perfect circle).

speaking of which...(perfect circle - tool)
This is a reference that goes with enochwasright's first post on this thread, in regards to dna

My shadow Change is coming.
Now is my time. Listen to my muscle memory.
Contemplate what I've been clinging to.
Forty-six and two ahead of me.

"Forty-Six & 2"
Tool

Btw...Maynard James Keenan(lead of tool and a perfect circle) is a study of sacred geometry and philosophy

Another great song that references everything that we've been talking about:

true in living wisdom, well off and witty
using gods sleeve, write the hell of the city
see my elegance dining on the periodic table crawl for elements
the universe designs my intelligence
drop science down a bottomless pit one swift, doing handstands on pyramid tips

ahhh, why not, lets bring some music into the thread, lol.

speak the convo to colors and shapes

edit on 22-4-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: additional statement

Yes, since you posted that I went into overtime studying the implications of base12 (duodecimal) and why it is so fundamental to geometry exhibited in nature.

However, once I got into that last video you posted, by Nassim Haramein - That my friend, caused a no-sleep night. Truly amazing and watched it almost 3 times completely through. This was part 2 of a series, so obviously I had alot more to digest.

I am trying to relate it as how a computer would use base 12 in a machine sense, and how complex problems could be visualized in a different way. Just like machines use octal and hexidecimal, (base8,base16) we use them as tools to quantify digital data and make it easier for humans to group binary data.

Base12 seems to offer so much more, and its fractal roots are really interesting to study, so thanks for that. It will be a while before I can post some ideas resulting in this info overload, so bear with me for a true answer to what you have started here!

FLYSOLO

The above post applied to you as well, especially the Video part. I tried to combine both the post from you and MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS but screwed it up. By the time I saw the error, the 4 hour edit window had expired.

Woah.... this is probably not the best '1st thread' for me to get into!
Extremely interesting op and comments, but I gotta go lay down for a bit now.

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
Whoa! Shaweet!

I'm just going to shoot form the hip with this next part.. but I wonder...




take that idea...

bring in some geometry.... such as the E8 model




dumb it down with a little...




then take a ride on the cuboctahedron train.... I wonder what the results would be.

BRB!(in 100 yrs lol)

that image reminds me of this
en.wikipedia.org...:Tree_of_life_kircher_hebrew.png
Curious that the kabbalah is also based on mathematics and has been compared to string theory, as a unified field theory.

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)

Hmm....you mean by an intelligent creator. Sounds a lot like it could be God. This is why I have never understood why science and religion argue so much.

Can't it be quite possible that God actually has intelligence? That what we call God..,Allah....etc., is in fact an intelligent creator? This would also explain all of the different names, differing stories, different messengers, etc. It seems logical that if one has the capability to create life, others would as well. This would still tie in to THE God, or THE creator, since someone would have been first.

I believe this is a fallacy known as equivocation. Ironically enough we were discussing it in the other thread, but this is exactly that. The claim is that checksum was discovered. No it was not. It was discovered that cells can correct errors during replication. That is NOT the same thing as a file integrity check or even close to it. It's really just poor terminology and nothing more. Similarly it's the same thing when people compare information theory to DNA.

Originally posted by Barcs
I believe this is a fallacy known as equivocation. Ironically enough we were discussing it in the other thread, but this is exactly that. The claim is that checksum was discovered. No it was not. It was discovered that cells can correct errors during replication. That is NOT the same thing as a file integrity check or even close to it. It's really just poor terminology and nothing more. Similarly it's the same thing when people compare information theory to DNA.

That was discovered a long time ago. In this study they claimed to have discovered another mechanism analogous to check-sums, but the claim is based on subjective interpretation of wrongly used data and is total BS.