[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4&feature=colike[/ame] Are we living in a computer simulation?
This is computer code that was invented in the 1940s, not just a standard number system such as binary.
What's your point? Using your logic we could say that everything is natural, stop all research. These are complex code, created by a human to perform a specific task. Ergo they are instructions; they are used in a computer to correct errors that happen when sending and receiving data in transit. Such as data being lost, update loss, dirty reads etc.. But on a minor level - talking maybe 1 bit. These instructions compute corrections so that 2 systems can recognise errors and understand what was sent before and what was received. This is understanding between systems based on instructions that had to be invented by humans. It's no a debate over whether this code is natural (this is obvious because it is based on mathematics) it is the amazing discovery that code is manifested into instructions not just inter-relating laws. It is as if natural is correcting itself without understanding why... unless it does understand why in a way we can't even begin to imagine. This is very philosophical, but i just found it interesting. Not trying to suggest i believe we are a simulation.
Computer code in essence is binary. This code that was discovered was complex rather than just a simple number system.
Preservation of information is a fundamental law of the universe though. There are only so many ways to insulate information that is being carried across a given distance against the "random" static created by other physical systems. Why should it be so shocking that the techniques we've developed for this in computation correlate with the physical universe? This is story of the entire history of computation (and, one could argue, science in general.) Where the logic completely falls apart, packs up and goes the fuck home is where someone jumps in and says, "lol we must be living in a computer simulation then!" Well, no shit we're living in a computer, buddy. The universe "computes" our reality, right? To say that it is therefore a "simulation," however, is to do drop the ball entirely. Consider: 1. Beavers who live on large rivers build dams. 2. Humans who live on large rivers build dams. ∴ All humans are beavers. Now is that a sound conclusion? Or would we be better off with: ∴ There is something about living on large rivers that makes dams useful to both beavers and humans. Similarly: 1. Information sent willfully through the universe must undergo a process of error-correction in order to be transmitted faithfully. 2. Information sent "naturally" through the universe must undergo a process of error-correction in order to be transmitted faithfully. Now, what should our conclusion here be? Is it: ∴ We are the Sims. Or is it: ∴ There is something about our universe that necessitates error-correction for the faithful transmission of information across physical boundaries.
Here we are dealing with code that would suggest that not only does nature recognise and is fully aware of where information came from, it also knows its state before it was altered by interfering forces. Thus it's as if nature knows the future, past and present results during the actual event in process and how to address the eventuality which arises - or merely fix it and return it to a state that it defines. Time is meaningless to nature because it can wield it how it almost 'choices' .. as one could interpret (i don't mind). Imagine if this were experimentally proved? it would reshape our understanding of everything... Your digression into logical fallacy was a bit unnecessary, i neither wrote the philosophical interpretation or subscribe to it. I am more interested in the math. However, i am sure there was more thought instilled in the theory then you gave it credit for. Please try not to shoot the messenger.
Well i have clearly stated... were this discovery viable it is astonishing. Are you reading the posts or just deciding on your conclusion based on your own subjective opinion? I am merely sharing scientific research with people i thought would be interested, what are you gaining from trying to shit on it?
Which post are you referring to? The one where you so brilliant made the connection between computer code and mathematics of nature, or the one where you asked me what my point was? To clarify i have answered both. I will summarise for you quickly if you're finding it hard to navigate and read this page. 1. Well done genius, that's not what's impressive with this discovery. The notion of nature's ability to check and error correct itself is. 2. I wanted to share with intelligent minded people, instead i encountered you.
....and how, exactly, does it suggest that? Nothing that was said in that youtube clip and absolutely nothing written in that study in any way point to such a conclusion.... Now you're just straight up contradicting yourself. If we operate under the completely-pulled-out-of-our-asses-assumptions that the universe has intent and that the source of this intention transcends the boundaries of space-time, and is omniscient....why would there need to be any "fixing" or "addressing" in the first place? Initial conditions could theoretically be set so that only "desirable" eventualities were even possible. You're already in such dangerous territory there. You're throwing wayyyyyyyyy too many completely un-scientific assumptions in there to even really talk about the subject coherently. And you really want to call Max out for not having an open mind? Lmao. You're taking a spiritual belief and trying to muddy up real science with it. If you're interested in the math, then by all means...let's talk math and not just pseudoscientific "what ifs." If you're at all a normal person though, chances are that you don't even begin to understand the math so I'd like to hear exactly what you're talking about....
Nice post Meursault. "...Now you're just straight up contradicting yourself. If we operate under the completely-pulled-out-of-our-asses-assumptions that the universe has intent and that the source of this intention transcends the boundaries of space-time, and is omniscient....why would there need to be any "fixing" or "addressing" in the first place? Initial conditions could theoretically be set so that only "desirable" eventualities were even possible...." Beautiful. Dead in one (and it made me laugh) MelT
[quote name='"HookedonPhonics"'] Here we are dealing with code that would suggest that not only does nature recognise and is fully aware of where information came from, it also knows its state before it was altered by interfering forces. Thus it's as if nature knows the future, past and present results during the actual event in process and how to address the eventuality which arises - or merely fix it and return it to a state that it defines. Time is meaningless to nature because it can wield it how it almost 'choices' .. as one could interpret (i don't mind). Imagine if this were experimentally proved? it would reshape our understanding of everything... Your digression into logical fallacy was a bit unnecessary, i neither wrote the philosophical interpretation or subscribe to it. I am more interested in the math. However, i am sure there was more thought instilled in the theory then you gave it credit for. Please try not to shoot the messenger.[/quote] No. A code does not imply any sort.of awareness. As was posted previously, a code is just a natural phenomena of order.
yes I know Is this just basically, you repeating the OP or what, was confused why you were talking about the 1940s and the fact that it isn't just simple number system?
I find it interesting that this thread has more bullies than scientists. Stop stroking your electronic cocks guys and think about the topic. If you don't agree with what someone says, ask them to clarify before saying they're a quack. The reason this discovery is amazing is because the universe has built into itself a series of checks which resemble exactly the checksums used in computer science. IE. If the receiver of the message adds up the bits of a message and they don't add up to the checksum sent with it then an error has occurred and the receiver asks for the sender to send it again. That is built into the fundamentals of physics and at the same time we are advanced enough to recognize that fact. AMAZING. None of us on Grasscity know exactly how the universe can represent these bit patterns and checksums; as apparently the work involved is very far beyond us, but we can try to simplify things. To me, it sounds as if this error correction is employed with particle interactions (and everything below and above). So if some glitch occurs within quantum probabilities and two particles interact in a way they are not supposed to, the behavior produced is self correcting. IE. Particle A bumps into particle B and produces a mini black hole (or some impossible anomaly.) Both particles recognize this and react in a way which reverses the anomaly and realigns with the quantum probability frequency of the universe. IE returns to a realistic and expected state. Discovering the correction codes of our universe is a lot like being an A.I. that suddenly discovers that it's made up of bit patterns inside of a complex hardware system. It won't be long before the A.I. discovers the rest of its code.
[quote name='"orenji"']I find it interesting that this thread has more bullies than scientists. Stop stroking your electronic cocks guys and think about the topic. If you don't agree with what someone says, ask them to clarify before saying they're a quack. The reason this discovery is amazing is because the universe has built into itself a series of checks which resemble exactly the checksums used in computer science. IE. If the receiver of the message adds up the bits of a message and they don't add up to the checksum sent with it then an error has occurred and the receiver asks for the sender to send it again. That is built into the fundamentals of physics and at the same time we are advanced enough to recognize that fact. AMAZING. None of us on Grasscity know exactly how the universe can represent these bit patterns and checksums; as apparently the work involved is very far beyond us, but we can try to simplify things. To me, it sounds as if this error correction is employed with particle interactions (and everything below and above). So if some glitch occurs within quantum probabilities and two particles interact in a way they are not supposed to, the behavior produced is self correcting. IE. Particle A bumps into particle B and produces a mini black hole (or some impossible anomaly.) Both particles recognize this and react in a way which reverses the anomaly and realigns with the quantum probability frequency of the universe. IE returns to a realistic and expected state. Discovering the correction codes of our universe is a lot like being an A.I. that suddenly discovers that it's made up of bit patterns inside of a complex hardware system. It won't be long before the A.I. discovers the rest of its code.[/quote] Wut there is no bullies