KevinStanton Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 A physicist named James Gates, at the University of Maryland, recently discovered a pattern called an "adinkra" in the equations of superstring theory that encoded a strange string of binary code. Now the wild part. It turns out that this "random string of binary code" was a very particular kind of error correction code invented by a scientist named Claude Shannon in the 1940's! It's used today in internet browser's. They said they have no idea what it's doing there, and it appears to be completely artificial. Oddly enough though it's also found at the most fundamental laws of physics! A strange, but probable explanation is the "Simulation Hypothesis" proposed by Nick Bostrom, which basically says that in the future there will be millions of simulations that LOOK like the real world but aren't. And so the odds that we are not in one of these right now is astronomically improbable. I guess we are in the Matrix. What do you make of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 I don't see why it would matter. All of our actions in the end achieve the same values as they would without civilization, so whether or not a robot is providing those values or something more direct is largely irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinStanton Posted May 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 I don't see why it would matter. All of our actions in the end achieve the same values as they would without civilization, so whether or not a robot is providing those values or something more direct is largely irrelevant. Well it's just cool is all. And it would help to explain the weirdnesses in quantum mechanics and relativity -you know via the digital physics paradigm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Craig Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 I wouldn't swallow a blue pill yet. First, there is no evidence that string theory is actually anything to do with reality - indeed, there are so many versions and possible versions that it can explain anything, therefore predicts nothing. Second, here is my prediction: when other scientists look at it, it will be shown to be one of these: (1) A mistake; (2) Statistically insignificant; or (3) A logical consequence of how the equations were generated or processed, not anything to do with "deeper reality". I hang my reputation as a prognosticator (!) on this :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 He shows groups of four bits with lines drawn between them. As there are only 16 total permutations of the bits and even fewer schemes for linking one to the next then it is probably a coincidence. Assuming this is legit, which it may not be. At any rate these are not computer codes as in programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 27, 2012 Report Share Posted May 27, 2012 When he says that they have found the same code that is used in computers, he does not mean the very same numbers. Rather he has found the same technique of redundancy. I can see why that would be interesting, but I don't know why that would be surprising. Imagine that some ancient came up with a way to row a canoe using two oars instead of one. It would have some advantages. Now, someone else from the tribe dissected a human body for the first time and found we have two lungs. He might say to someone: I have found that the design of the lungs uses the same principle as our canoe-rowing design. Well, that's interesting, but not surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 SN, I'm assuming that you're alluding to a logical connection between the canoe and the lungs, not just a coincidence. If I'm wrong, ignore my reply. When he says that they have found the same code that is used in computers, he does not mean the very same numbers. Rather he has found the same technique of redundancy. I can see why that would be interesting, but I don't know why that would be surprising. Imagine that some ancient came up with a way to row a canoe using two oars instead of one. It would have some advantages. Now, someone else from the tribe dissected a human body for the first time and found we have two lungs. He might say to someone: I have found that the design of the lungs uses the same principle as our canoe-rowing design. Well, that's interesting, but not surprising. Well, the invention is the result of intelligent design, and the lungs the result of evolution. It makes sense that they have similar techniques in them, since the first is designed to function in the physical world, the second exists because it functions in the physical world. The techniques are similar, because they solve similar problems. That is the connection: the problems being solved is similar. Why does it then follow that equations describing the laws of physics should contain a pattern similar (beyond the likelihood of a coincidence) to a pattern that's the solution to a problem? I understand the association (the physical world), but that by itself is not a logical connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 P.S. To me this sounds more like astrology (a coincidence interpreted as a connection) than an actual connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 I wrote on the simulation hypothesis recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.