[Adriaan]

Interesting video I saw on reddit today. I'm sure this is a much more simplified explanation, but this guy claims to have discovered computer code down at the core of our existence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BMYtnv_OnI

[bluetops]

"...and in the end, the world is not real."

[EscoLehGo]

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[goin-god]

QUOTE (EscoLehGo @ Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 13:33)

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Retard.

It would be pretty cool if they could totally prove this, I mean, I've been always facinated with this. The idea that deep in what forms everything in the Universe, there is something as simple as secuences of code that pretty much dictate how everything works.
In other words, a complex Matrix Universe.
I've been wondering this ever since the world started to be simulated so damn well in, to give an example, Video Games. Obviously video games are Light Years from being a real simulation of anything like the Universe. But what when computers have the sufficient power to proccess all the nessesary information to create a simulation of the world that any person would totally mistake by the real one. This has to be possible. And it wouldn't be crazy if our Universe is something similar.

[Adriaan]

Yeah, if you think about intelligent life, it seems inevitable that technology would be driven in that direction of simulation. I also once saw an interesting talk of how our brains are so easily fooled into believing false realities, like when we dream or watch a cartoon. So 1000s or millions of years from now, if humans still exist in this universe, it's not crazy to think that technology can exist whereby one can plug into a simulation and, even for a brief moment, believe in a false reality - much like when you are dreaming.

[sivispacem]

It's not surprising at all. Despite the apparent complexity and ambiguity of the title of the code, it's actually really just a form of the basic error-checking dual-code equation based on linear algebra, which I don't even pretend to understand, but that's not the point. What I don't understand is why a mathematical creation that is nothing more than a formula wouldn't appear in superstring theory, which is a composite of theoretical physics based very extensively on complex mathematics and coding. I don't really see how it can be constituted to be evidence of intelligent design, as some claim it is, or that we are living in a "computer programme". What I struggle with even more is the YouTube video, which appears to be absolute nonsense. Drawing analogies between intelligent design and actual software (in this instance, web browsers) because of an apparent similarity in mathematical equations is, logically speaking, akin to claiming that a sturgeon and a cape buffalo are the same animal because they both have a penis.

[El Zilcho]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 19:04)

It's not surprising at all. Despite the apparent complexity and ambiguity of the title of the code, it's actually really just a form of the basic error-checking dual-code equation based on linear algebra, which I don't even pretend to understand, but that's not the point. What I don't understand is why a mathematical creation that is nothing more than a formula wouldn't appear in superstring theory, which is a composite of theoretical physics based very extensively on complex mathematics and coding. I don't really see how it can be constituted to be evidence of intelligent design, as some claim it is, or that we are living in a "computer programme". What I struggle with even more is the YouTube video, which appears to be absolute nonsense. Drawing analogies between intelligent design and actual software (in this instance, web browsers) because of an apparent similarity in mathematical equations is, logically speaking, akin to claiming that a sturgeon and a cape buffalo are the same animal because they both have a penis.

It's pretty misinformed. As you said, string theory is totally theoretical and mathematical in nature. It isn't even a well supported or confirmed part of real life - it's a theory far from the level of relative confirmation that evolution is, for example. Citing something as strenuous as this as 'evidence' (har har, do they know the definition of the word?) for intelligent design is rather embarrassing.

This post has been edited by El Zilcho on Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 18:10

[Otter]

...sturgeon don't have penises. Penii? Penui?

[Adriaan]

@sivispacem & @El Zilcho: You just blew my mind. I have no idea what I'm doing

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Otter @ Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 19:14)

...sturgeon don't have penises. Penii? Penui?

My point exactly. It's not even factually correct!

[goin-god]

QUOTE (El Zilcho @ Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 15:07)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 19:04) It's not surprising at all. Despite the apparent complexity and ambiguity of the title of the code, it's actually really just a form of the basic error-checking dual-code equation based on linear algebra, which I don't even pretend to understand, but that's not the point. What I don't understand is why a mathematical creation that is nothing more than a formula wouldn't appear in superstring theory, which is a composite of theoretical physics based very extensively on complex mathematics and coding. I don't really see how it can be constituted to be evidence of intelligent design, as some claim it is, or that we are living in a "computer programme". What I struggle with even more is the YouTube video, which appears to be absolute nonsense. Drawing analogies between intelligent design and actual software (in this instance, web browsers) because of an apparent similarity in mathematical equations is, logically speaking, akin to claiming that a sturgeon and a cape buffalo are the same animal because they both have a penis. It's pretty misinformed. As you said, string theory is totally theoretical and mathematical in nature. It isn't even a well supported or confirmed part of real life - it's a theory far from the level of relative confirmation that evolution is, for example. Citing something as strenuous as this as 'evidence' (har har, do they know the definition of the word?) for intelligent design is rather embarrassing.

I'm pretty sure the important part is the Video, and not the description some random dude put on it.

[Otter]

I think it's only circulating because the idea itself is rather profound. Imagine, were it true? And if we were able to, eventually, hack reality?

It's like finding a magical sceptre and becoming a god. The stuff of fantasy.

[El Zilcho]

QUOTE (goin-god @ Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 19:21)

QUOTE (El Zilcho @ Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 15:07) QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 19:04) It's not surprising at all. Despite the apparent complexity and ambiguity of the title of the code, it's actually really just a form of the basic error-checking dual-code equation based on linear algebra, which I don't even pretend to understand, but that's not the point. What I don't understand is why a mathematical creation that is nothing more than a formula wouldn't appear in superstring theory, which is a composite of theoretical physics based very extensively on complex mathematics and coding. I don't really see how it can be constituted to be evidence of intelligent design, as some claim it is, or that we are living in a "computer programme". What I struggle with even more is the YouTube video, which appears to be absolute nonsense. Drawing analogies between intelligent design and actual software (in this instance, web browsers) because of an apparent similarity in mathematical equations is, logically speaking, akin to claiming that a sturgeon and a cape buffalo are the same animal because they both have a penis. It's pretty misinformed. As you said, string theory is totally theoretical and mathematical in nature. It isn't even a well supported or confirmed part of real life - it's a theory far from the level of relative confirmation that evolution is, for example. Citing something as strenuous as this as 'evidence' (har har, do they know the definition of the word?) for intelligent design is rather embarrassing. I'm pretty sure the important part is the Video, and not the description some random dude put on it.

Maybe so, but superstring theory is man made and by no means an accurate or well supported image of the universe itself. If the theory was backed up enough to actually describe the Universe (like Relativity or Quantum Theories) then yes, this would be an astounding discovery. At the moment, it's intriguing at most. It's comparable to finding a code on a cereal box, there by mistake but artificial(ala A Beautiful Mind anyone? ). It's not like we've found binary in stars.

[GTAvanja]

Even if it were true it still wouldn't change anything. A computer code behaves in a particular way. It can only be changed by it's designer or a hacker. Which means externally. It doesn't change anything for us. We live in this universe which may or may not be the only universe and may or may not be real. And there's nothing we can do about it if it isn't "real".

This post has been edited by GTAvanja on Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 21:30

[El_Diablo]

I don't care for these "computer program" theories of reality.
as GTAvanja just pointed out, it's useless. there's nothing to talk about.

ok yeah, we could be in the Matrix.
now what? doesn't change anything. can't do anything about it.

if we're gonna' talk about the meaning of life let's get crazy and make it interesting.
my favorite theory is man-made infinite regression.

you know why we can't figure out where the universe came from? or what caused the Big Bang?
because we did it. not "us," but whichever form of intelligent life came before. the universe is an endless cycle of simultaneous destruction and rebirth at the hands of a bunch of super-intelligent scientists with autism. we reach the heights of knowledge and creation and then it all implodes. I mean think about it, try to follow me here and see if you can keep up...

...intelligent life is like a self-fulfilling technological prophecy that never ends.
the Big Bang happens. matter breaks down and returns to its original base form, spreading out in all directions. life takes root somewhere and begins to evolve. advanced life seems to be on an unavoidable collision course with technology. as our intelligence grows, our technology grows, until the point that technology becomes more advanced than our own intelligence. intelligence inevitably merges with technology. we upload our consciousness onto computers and live forever. the nature of existence and reality takes on a whole new meaning.

eventually our hyper-intelligent bionic-man computer-scientists invent the Big Bang machine.
it starts out innocently enough, simply as a way to study the Big Bang and the origins of life. it's just an experiment. but then somebody gets arrogant and pushes the button. and...
POOF.

the Big Bang happens. matter breaks down and returns to its original base form, spreading out in all directions. life takes root somewhere and begins to evolve.
the cycle starts all over again.

wrap your mind around that sh*t!

[finn4life]

Some fun theories to read in here that's for sure.^^

It's sometimes cool thinking about these things, kinda blows your mind.

[Viperman]

Likewise I'm not to much of a fan off these theroy's. I find it incredibly difficult to accept that creativity off any sort can be provided by some computer program/simulation.

[GTAvanja]

QUOTE (Viperman @ Friday, Aug 31 2012, 00:31)

Likewise I'm not to much of a fan off these theroy's. I find it incredibly difficult to accept that creativity off any sort can be provided by some computer program/simulation.

You don't need to believe in a theory to find it interesting and to play with it.
For example, what if there is no creativity? What if we're just programmed to think that something is creative while something else isn't? The problem you have is accepting to believe that such an advanced code could even exist. And that really is a difficult concept to fully grasp. I mean, we don't even fully understand time, or even gravity and things like that.

[Icarus]

When you die, you're actually just being written out of a seven billion line code, since you had to be a dick and cause a segmentation fault.

It's quite a code.

[Adriaan]

Btw here's a funny view on the movie from Opie and Anthony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8z9pY9iUTI...outu.be&t=2m34s