The Simulation Argument

[Noax]

You might not like it, but James Gates did find Shannon coding in supersymmetry equations!

This statement is false.
Shannon coding was not found. Just something that bears a resemblance to it.
Secondly, Shannon coding is not computer code despite some of the media hyping it that way. It is not a language of machine instructions.
Shannon coding is simply a mathematical method for lossless compression of data invented 8 decades ago, well before there were computers or instruction codes to run them. If it was actually Shannon coding as you claim, we'd be able to uncompress it via unzip or something.
Huffman coding is another example of a format which serves a similar purpose, and is similarly not computer code.

[Noax]

What is FDp?

I believe FDP is referring to FlashDangerPants.

Yes, except he spells it with a lowercase p.

[attofishpi]

How would God know that that was the first time It had emerged from chaos?

That is a great question Greta, wow. Perhaps it could never know.

A deity/deities may have emerged and been subsumed back into chaos a billion times beforehand for all anyone knows - and the same could be said for the big bang, for that matter, which is a fun thought

I don't find much by way of fun with my comprehension of God.
I am not the biggest advocate of the buy bull, but I am currently reading Karen Armstrong's 'A history of God', and am intrigued by the statement, apparently issued by God to Isaiah:-
'No god was formed before me, nor will be after me..'
I found the statement was from Isaiah 43:10.

I find this intriguing because it, God, in the statement is considering time, and also appreciating that itself 'formed'.
In reading Armstrong's book, it appears that the prophets pre to the formation of Judaism, were reluctant to receive and indeed preach this 'God' entities instruction, whereas all along I had the assumption that these people, considered prophets, would have been exalted at the idea.
Since I know God\'God' to exist, I have little doubt that 'it' would have the capacity to know that 'it' is the sole creator of our reality.

But you didn't answer my question, can we infinitely regress within chaos?

I didn't answer because I didn't feel qualified to answer. My first thought is that infinite regression is like infinity - a sign that a mistake has been made, but that's only a guess based on the assumption that time is linear.

So at least one of the ancient authors believed God to have "been formed". I like the terminology - the passive voice suggests that something else formed God. So no deity preceded God (according to one ancient writer) but something else did and that was seemingly God's maker. In that case, if God exists, then maybe chaos is the ultimate expression of reality with God an underling?

From my own experience of this entity, I believe that it certainly was God that indicated to this author that it 'formed'. I don't think anything in the statement suggests a cause - that something else formed God and perhaps chaos is a place of no cause. From my experience, and with two days of reckoning where I have experienced a place of God's chaos, i've learned to respect its reason for wanting to be held in high regard. If indeed that is where it formed its consciousness, none of us should disrespect it for the state of our own affairs.

[QuantumT]

This statement is false.
Shannon coding was not found. Just something that bears a resemblance to it.
Secondly, Shannon coding is not computer code despite some of the media hyping it that way. It is not a language of machine instructions.
Shannon coding is simply a mathematical method for lossless compression of data invented 8 decades ago, well before there were computers or instruction codes to run them. If it was actually Shannon coding as you claim, we'd be able to uncompress it via unzip or something.
Huffman coding is another example of a format which serves a similar purpose, and is similarly not computer code.

Seems we cannot come to an agreement on that point.
Calling something false, doesn't meant it truly is false. But it's an easy way to discredit it. Trump does it all the time.

Let's just agree to disagree

[Noax]

Seems we cannot come to an agreement on that point.

I had two points: It is not Shannon coding, and Shannon coding is not computer code any more than is Morse coding (a third example, also older than any computer). You disagree with both?

Calling something false, doesn't meant it truly is false. But it's an easy way to discredit it. Trump does it all the time.

Now you've laid insult by accusing me of making up my facts, Trump style. Shall we compare notes? I saw an awful lot of made-up physics in your posts. For the most part I ignore it since you're not claiming to have actual basis for believing this position, but that gives you no right to lay false accusations.

It is fine that you believe what you want about Gates and his findings, but perhaps a quote from a place where Gates or his crew actually publish such a claim would help with your use of this claim to uphold a position that your are claiming counts as scientific evidence of your position.

[QuantumT]

I had two points: It is not Shannon coding, and Shannon coding is not computer code any more than is Morse coding (a third example, also older than any computer). You disagree with both?

Shannon coding is a specific type of math that is used in computers to prevent errors when transfering graphical data.
It was not invented for that purpose, but it is used for it. There are different types of the code, but they all do the same job. They are all essentially Shannon coding.
So when you say it is similar, I say it is the same shit. It does the same job, and shares the same source/idea: Shannon's. To claim otherwise, is like claiming only Heinz Ketchup is real ketchup.

You also gotta ask yourself: Would a renowned and respected theoretical physicist like James Gates, defame himself by claiming this, if it was false?

You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
Had he created controversy with fake statements, it would be mentioned there. Maybe you can add it?

[QuantumT]

It is fine that you believe what you want about Gates and his findings, but perhaps a quote from a place where Gates or his crew actually publish such a claim would help with your use of this claim to uphold a position that your are claiming counts as scientific evidence of your position.

How about the actual presentation: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0051.pdf

[Noax]

Shannon coding is a specific type of math that is used in computers to prevents errors when transfering graphical data.
It was not invented for that purpose, but it is used for it. There are different types of the code, but they all do the same job. They are all essentially Shannon coding.
So when you say it is similar, I say it is the same shit. It does the same job, and shares the same source/idea: Shannon's. To claim otherwise, is like claiming only Heinz Ketchup is real ketchup.

A fair claim then, since I am sufficently unfamiliar with what was actually found to assess if it is another form of ketchup or just mustard squirted from the same shape bottle. Also, how was it found??? String theory equations are human constructs, and finding human-designed Shannon-like constructs in a human generated set of equations seems unremarkable. Again, I am unqualified to comment.

You also gotta ask yourself: Would a renowned and respected theoretical physicist like James Gates, defame himself by claiming this, if it was false?

I hadn't heard he claimed it at all, from anything I could find on it. It was similar to the Shannon structure. How similar (or not) is subject to interpretation, and I found no actual quote.

You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
Had he created controversy with fake statements, it would be mentioned there. Maybe you can add it?

I never claimed that Gates made fake statements. The entry was not written or edited by Gates himself, and it makes no reference to the paper in question. I would not expect the entry to give an extensive description of every paper ever published, but the publications section only makes mention of two things in '83 and '06. Surely that list is incomplete.

How about the actual presentation: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0051.pdf

I had already looked there, and you need more of a mathematics background to parse it. But you linked it, so I'll attempt to comment. The abstract lays out the claim I think:

Previous work [1] has shown that the classification of indecomposable off-shell representations of N-supersymmetry, depicted as Adinkras, may be factored into specifying the topologies available to Adinkras, and then the height-assignments for each topological type. The latter problem being solved by a recursive mechanism that generates all height-assignments within a topology [1], it remains to classify the former. Herein we show that this problem is equivalent to classifying certain (1) graphs and (2) error-correcting codes.

My bold, separating 'the former' from 'the latter', and seems to be the issue which this paper addresses. So he's saying that the problem of the classification of 'off-shell represetntations of N-supersymmetry' is equivalent to the problem of classification of certain graphs and error-correcting codes. Shannon coding happens to be one form of error correcting codes, but no claim seems to be being made here about a similarity there. He's just saying that the classification problems faced by each is similar, and methods used to solve the error correcting codes would similarly apply to this supersymmetry issue. The claim the way I see it here is even weaker than the way I see it represented in a place like quora.com. The two problems seems to share classification and can be solved in similar manner. I see no claim of actual coding being 'found' somewhere. So maybe I'm not reading this right.
If anybody else is reading this and has a better take, please chime in. The odds of my representing this accurately is pretty low.

The only specific mention I find to 'Shannon' in the entire paper (none talks about 'Shannon coding') is this:

Binary [N, κ(N)]-codes are maximal in the information-theoretic sense guaranteed by Shannon’s theorem: the fraction k/N is called the information rate of an [N, k]-code and measures how much of the information is being transmitted. The maximal κ(N) therefore corresponds to the maximal information rate: κ(N)/N ≤ 50 %, and κ(N)/N = 50 % only when N = 0 mod 8.

I read this as Shannon coming up with a theorem which is found useful in the analysis being done here. The rest is way over my head.

[QuantumT]

James Gates spoke in public about this, wich was recorded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA

[Noax]

Shannon coding is a specific type of math that is used in computers to prevent errors when transfering graphical data.

I wanted to question this bit, since there seems to be a conflict somewhere. I googled Shannon coding and everything talks about data compression. Shannon coding is a way to compress text, numbers, or bits into less text, numbers, or bits, without loss. That's what all the google hits and wiki says.
You on the other hand describe a purpose of error detection/correction, which is the math behind storing or transmitting information on/over unreliable mediums. It detects and/or corrects a certain amount of errors. This is a completely different purpose, and it makes the data somewhat redundant, and hence less compressed, not more.

Now in the paper published, there is only one mention of Shannon, a reference to a theorem that applied somewhere. There is no mention of compression, of Shannon codes, of 'computer codes'. There is one mention of 'computer' in a place where the mathematics was large enough to require a computer to crunch the numbers.

What the paper is full of is mentions of 'error detection/correction codes', known as ECC in the industry, which is exactly what you're talking about above. Both are useful for computers, but existed long before computers and 'computer code' were a concept. 'Computer code' has a specific meaning of the output of something like a compiler. Such code is stored in windows as a .exe file. Gates' paper makes zero reference to anything of this nature. He's talking about ECC and that the classification of that problem is similar to the classification of what he's facing in this SuperSymmetry problem.

James Gates spoke in public about this, wich was recorded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA

So he did. The show was a sensational circus with a complete ass for a host. Many comments noted this.
I suspect that he only got the spot on the show by agreeing to refer to the ECC codes as 'computer codes', because he makes no mention of computer codes in his paper. ECC has found uses in computers, but it was not invented for them and they are not in fact computer codes. As far as I can see, they are not Shannon codes either, but neither the paper nor the video make mention of Shannon codes.

Anyway, it comes up around 2:40 in the video where Gates refers to this similarity to "computer codes". The host immediately asks if he found "computer code" (a completely different thing). Gates carefully corrects him with "computer codes". This repeats about 4 times and finally Gates caves and starts using "computer code" and even agrees to the hosts reference that this is equivalent to finding the likes of a browser or search engine, which are indeed two examples of 'computer code'. Gates at this point is letting the completely uninformed host put words in his mouth, but he stops correcting the host after a bit. I don't see Gates attempting to be a sensationalist here, but rather resigned to being in a room with idiots and caving to the circus that thrives on ratings, not accuracy.

So yes, Gates actually agreed to a statement that 'computer code' was found in SuperSymmetry equations. He said those two words after a bit. But this was not a scientific presentation, and if he actually claims that, the scientific paper published demonstrates no such thing. I somehow doubt he is making a reference to a different finding.

[QuantumT]

Sounds like hair-splitting to me. Don't assume to much, coz then you make an ass out of u and me

[Davyboi]

Those of you, who don't want to read all my arguments, because it's to damn much, can skip the text, and use the video links below.


Okay, I tried a couple of times to make a thread about this, but they both got derailed by people who rambled on about metaphysics and accusations about it all being basically religious.

I thought about giving up, since the subject seems to attract people with an infinite amount of doubt and question, and less knowledge about science, but I am an optimist, and I believe that I just need to make it right.


Concluding that we exist inside a super computer, was not easily done. Before I ever got to that point, I studied science in all its forms: biology, astro physics, quantum mechanics, electro magnetism, evolution, math, geometry, string theory, relativity, chemistry, computing, robotics, consciousness and probably some more, that I didn't think of when I wrote this.

So it was not some vaguely based conclusion. It was the sum of the parts.

I want to make one thing absolutely clear! I do not believe in God or the supernatural! Hell no! An invisible all powerful being judging us? Ridiculous! Whoever is behind our reality is not divine! And I don't consider the supernatural to be supernatural, but to be interference.
I don't mind people having their faith, as long as they don't bother me with it. So enough with faith and religion, please! I want no part in it! I am into science only!

So, this a scientific discussion about a model to explain reality. Any attempt to bring metaphysics into it will be ignored! I know that it will not stop certain people from attempting it, but they will be met by a wall of silence from me!


Now, let me walk you through the things that led to my conclusion:


1: The Collapse of the Wave Function.
Measurement or observation turns waves of potential into particles. The Quantum Eraser Experiment has determined that for sure! Measuring is just an extension of observing. Observing needs consciousness. Consciousness seems to be the logic (but not provable) culprit of the collapse!


2: Non-locality.
Entangled particles copying eachothers behavior across distances.
You have to be a hardcore physicalist to not find that weird! It is most logically described as central governing. Both particles receive their state from the same place.
You could choose to see it as an illogical marvel of nature. Up to you!


3: Quantum tunneling.
Particles crossing improbable boundaries. You do not see it in nature, matter crossing through matter. But you occasionally see it in computer games. We could call it a small glitch.


4: The speed of light.
What could possibly stop something in a vacuum? A spaceship going max speed with a headlight. The headlight light should exceed light speed. It does not. Something stops it. What??


5: Dark matter and energy.
The universe does not add up without it. Matter as we know, does not explain what we see. We still fail to detect the dark stuff. Maybe there are some other forces at large? Some digital settings maybe?


6: The Physical Constant.
If our universe had been just a tiny bit differently adjusted in polarity between protons and electrons, we would not be here! But it's just perfect for us! Many scientist see that as wonderful luck. A miracle! Others think there must be more universes out there. All failing to produce life. Are we the lucky one among trillions?


7: The Fibonacci Sequence / The Golden Ratio.
The whole universe seems to be wrapped in codes that determines everything from black holes to snail shells. It is there. It's for all to see. You can calculate it. But is it random? If it is random, is it the ultimate coincidence?


8: The Holographic Principle.
At the event horizon, at a black hole: What happens? Susskind won the argument against Hawking: Events are displayed as "holograms" at the edge of the universe!
But! Not only black hole events are displayed! All events are!
Who's watching?


9: String theory equations.
Scientists make them to describe the universe. Physicist James Gates Jr. discovered computer codes buried deep within them. Not just random 1's and 0's but a specific code. One that was made in the 40's to correct graphical errors in data transfer.


10: Math has two answers to the nature of the universe:
1) A multiverse or 2) A zeroverse. It seems to favor the zeroverse slightly.


11: The Simulation Argument by Dr. Nick Bostrom.
At least one of the following propositions is true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman stage.
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.



Bonus arguments, that cannot stand alone, but helps build the case when combined with the above:

12: Snow flakes and flames.
The only place we know of, in the universe, that has those incredibly graphically beautiful phenomena, is Earth. They could be unique to Earth. They are as amazing as they are unnecessary. A true gift of beauty from nature. Or maybe not?


13: The Supernatural/Paranormal/UFO's.
Nature cannot break its own laws, so if they are broken, it is evidence that someone/something above or beyond the universe is causing it.
If just one case in all human history is true, it exists!


14: The miracle of life.
Nobody knows exactly how the first living cell came to be.
Most scientists consider it a true miracle.


15: Dreams.
When we dream, our minds create a false reality, that we think is real - nomather how bizarre it is. So the question is: Can we trust the reality that we are presented to, when we are "awake"?


16: Direct brain stimuli:
When surgeons stimulate the brain directly, fx the area that controls a hand, there is a delayed effect of a few seconds. As if the signal goes "some place else" before ending in the hand.



I'll leave the conclusion up to you. Because: who am I to tell you?

But if I add up all the parts, the sum of them = A Matrix.

I have no idea what sort of computer we live in. I only have a faint idea of the makers technology, intention and purpose. But I do not know! So please do not ask about stuff I can't possibly know!


Videos (for those who prefer visuals to text):

"What is Reality?"
A technical/philosophical approach to our information reality
Complication level: 7/10
Entertainment value: 9/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ztlIAYTCU (30 min.)

"The Simulation Hypothesis"
A layman's introduction to the hypothesis
Complication level: 3/10
Entertainment value: 6/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M (50 min.)


Quotes:

The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
- Werner Heisenberg

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
- Niels Bohr

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
- Albert Einstein

Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought.
- Albert Einstein

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C. Clarke

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
- Max Planck

Very! Very! Very! Interesting mate, a lot of food for thought here, thank you

[Davyboi]

I do agree with you on alot of points here, I have only had a glance at your post, I need to study a bit more in-depth. I do believe we are some part of a matrix, Il be truthful I don't think it's a computer one tho.
When you are asleep, or awake. You are still that same person, so both reality must have the same importance.
Mmmm I am stuck for words here! Let me think about it for a bit. will discuss with you more when I have come to a conclusion.

[QuantumT]

Very! Very! Very! Interesting mate, a lot of food for thought here, thank you

Glad you liked it!

The hypothesis film has changed address btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznWo8f020I

[Davyboi]

Very! Very! Very! Interesting mate, a lot of food for thought here, thank you

Glad you liked it!

The hypothesis film has changed address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznWo8f020I

Thanks mate, nice one