Wake Up NEO.(string theory inside)

Click here and disable ads!

Strange Computer Code Discovered Concealed In Superstring Equations!

Morpheus is offering us the pill.

Equations at the deepest levels of string theory (i.e. the closest we can get to how the universe works on a fundamental level) contain computer code. Specifically, error correction codes needed to transfer digital information accurately despite the inherent static caused by physics. Something that makes little sense to exist in nature. It implies that not only are we living in a computer simulation, we're getting close to finding the fourth wall, so to speak, from the inside.

Clearly the next step is to expand across the known universe and scrawl a 6 billion lightyear wide 'FUCK YOU' across it somehow.

If you accept Nick Baustrum's assumptions, then logically, as Sam Harris admits, it means we are both possibly and probably a simulated universe. One of innumerable ones.

The theoretical physicist Jim/James sees that within the equations of string theory are bits of information. These bits form interesting codes also representable as binary. 0 and 1. Why are they interesting? The formation of these codes act as an agent for error checking. The best example being when sending information over a wire to other networks, there is a chance for the bits to be scrambled. Error checking is done to figure out which bits were scrambled to insure the integrity of the data.

This was discovered a while ago, using basic logic.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

Fucking logicians.

This is more philosophy than it is science (the idea that we're in a simulation) and is almost indistinguishable from faith in an almighty God. Why? Because a few basic assumptions are made for the world that would run the simulation that we are in.

So let's assume that logic and some simple physical phenomena holds for all the universes above our own. Then the SMBC comic is quite correct in assuming that a simulation must be smaller than the universe it inhabits. This is just basic information theory. You can't contain more information in an object than the information it does contain.

Is it confirmed in any way by anyone independent?

A quick look over indicates that this argument doesn't present any evidence that we are living in a simulation, but asserts that it is POSSIBLE we are living in a simulation.

The video doesn't either, it's just an interpretation of a human-crafted theory.

True, but it could be interpreted as evidence for a simulation.

pretty unsettling stuff

I find it amusing that the idea life is a virtual simulated reality is perfectly plausible, but the existence of a God is lol r u dumb? Ho, Codex.

Unfortunately, string theory cannot into falsifiable predictions

LULZ aside this also means that some scientists think that there is enough experimental evidence that the Universe hasn't come about on its own how they usually pretend.
Without mentioning that the simulation theory is another version of simulations turtles all the way down.

Hypothesis =/= theory

Your point is...?

My point is that some scientist coming up with wild stories does not mean it is accepted in the scientific community as a correct theory

First, a theory is a theory, being accepted or not doesn't make it less of a theory.
Second, I never said that the scientific community at large support such 'hypothesis'.

Remember when they told us that the Higgs boson traveled back in time and broke LHC? Good times.

from wikipedia:

I remember they said that was a distant possibility, not that that's what actually happened. I don't think anyone took that as anything more than a mental exercise

So?
It refers to SCIENTIFIC theory, not the general use of the word theory.
Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Hypothesises can have margins of error (true most of the time), theories cannot (true all the time). What most people think are theories are actually conjecture (a = b, hence c).

So when theories got redefined what does that means?
And if theories don't have margins of error why we need different theories for different frames of reference?

Redefined? I think you mean superseded. A new theory is thought up that incorporates the old theory but also the new evidence that contradicts the previous theory.

E.g. The theory of special relativity also holds for Newtonian physics. You can actually go plug a everyday speed into the velocity equations if you don't trust me and see that the relativistic correction is insignificant. Hence special relativity superseded Newtonian physics.

Edit: Now it's true that a theory needs not be all-encompassing, but then restrictions are listed. It will stay true as long as the boundary restrictions are not broken.