Simulation theory

[JDSalinger]

Hello all, here are some questions I had on the simulation theory (I don't actually believe this it's just fun to think about). What spiked my interest was seeing Dr. S. James Gates, Jr. talking about computer code found in the formulas for string theory.

The code found is not just 1's and 0's but there are extra 1's and 0's in the equation, just like our computer would send to make up for lost information. The argument behind the simulation theory is, if you are not aware of it, that our civilisation will get so advanced that it could one day make a simulated universe much like our own. If we were able to do that we would run thousands of these simulations and therefore the odds of us being the 'real' universe would be unlikely.
Wouldn't a civilisation so advanced to create alternate universes run on super computers not need to throw in extra 1's and 0's?
I see a lot of flaws in this argument and think it verges on conspiracy theory, but a few physicists seem to like it. For me the main flaws are; it is counting on there being a civilisation before our own that has gotten so advanced and it doesn't solve how that universe got there or if our universe is nothing more than code what is theirs made up of?
If code is found in the equations that we use to describe our universe, which is what Dr. Gates' work is about, would that rule out god?

 

[Emptiness]

I know that they are thinking of testing this hypothesis by analysing the disposition of cosmic rays at angles or something lol. I was shocked that something could even give us an indication to proving such a theory might be true.

It doesn't have to be advanced human intelligence, I think it is far more plausible that it would be alien lifeforms or even machines like in the matrix lol... who knows, perhaps it's the DMT entities who simulate our existence?

Such a crazy theory though, completely non-linear and out of the box. It is what the science community needs more of if we are to get over bizarre hurdles like quantum mechanics.

The main thing though is that there is a code and when their is a code it is necessary for there to be intelligence. chaos is stupid untill it becomes so chaotic that it becomes intelligent and so on (chaos theory)... like a single strand of cotton in chaos with many others others... zoom out a bit and then intelligent design emerges as you see a single thread of cotton, zoom out more and it is chaos in a pile of single threads, zoom out and the pile of single threads becomes a nice circular, intelligent looking ball of cotton yarn and so on and so forth.

I like ur comment on this though... lol, who is simulating the simulators world? what if it's just all on the back of a turtule, simulation after simulation after simulation... all the way down?

 

[Heyt]

I think the P2P Hypothesis is really interesting, as far as Simulation Theory goes. It's kinds of what I'm leaning toward at the moment, that basically somehow we are organic computers simulating reality in a P2P network. Like the Matrix but with no server

Or perhaps we are simply living in a universe in which organic computers like us simulate the universe, yet it predates us so that can't work. But, if we were simulated organic computers in a simulated universe we would still run into the problem of the universe being older than the members of the P2P network, so how does that work? Otherwise, it makes a lot of sense.

EDIT: What if the error correcting code, which is normally used for transmissions, are for the transmissions in data between members of the P2P network?

In short, the P2P Simulation Hypothesis promises to provide a unified explanation for many baffling physical features of our reality for which we currently have no such explanation.

Further, there are a couple of tantalizing new lines of evidence regarding the P2P Hypothesis.

First, 2013 National Medal of Science award-winning physicist James Gates has found the existence of binary-error-correcting block codes embedded in the equations of string theory [6]: error-correcting codes just like those computer programmers actually use to prevent inconsistencies in online simulations [7].

 

[JDSalinger]

Yeah, it is all interesting to think about, I liked the P2P hypothesis Heyt. Although I think that the whole simulation theory thing hangs heavily on string theory, which a lot a physicists don't really agree with. I personally don't understand the whole eleven dimensions thing, things by nature aren't overly complex so string theory seems to go against how everything else in the universe is imo.

 

[JDSalinger]

Just saw your edit Heyt, that would explain the extra code part very nicely!

 

[Heyt]

FQXi Essay Contest - It From Bit or Bit From It? [back] TOPIC: How the Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis Explains Just About Everything, Including the Very Existence of Quantum Mechanics by Marcus Arvan

Here the author also answers questions about the paper and its implications, which I found interesting :thumb_up:

 

[vin9x]

Yeah, it is all interesting to think about, I liked the P2P hypothesis Heyt. Although I think that the whole simulation theory thing hangs heavily on string theory, which a lot a physicists don't really agree with. I personally don't understand the whole eleven dimensions thing, things by nature aren't overly complex so string theory seems to go against how everything else in the universe is imo.

I suggest reading The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.
He starts with special relativity and ends up at M-Theory.
Very interesting and comprehensible book.


Furthermore, he talks about some intriguing stuff at the end of the book, starting at page 171 with "What Are Space and Time, Really, and Can We Do without Them?".
You should really read those two short pages.
It's fascinating that theoretical physicists are researching those most basic problems and how they seem to get into equally paradoxical territory people get into when thinking about the origin of consciousness (which seems to be just as fundamental for us as space and time).

 

[JDSalinger]

Furthermore, he talks about some intriguing stuff at the end of the book, starting at page 171 with "What Are Space and Time, Really, and Can We Do without Them?".

Really cool read, it resonates with my personal beliefs that we exist beyond this physical world in a place removed from the space time continuum.