Mar 22 - COMPUTER CODE has been discovered embedded WITHIN the equations of superstring theory

most viewed right now
 153
Image(s) inside Chinx’s Killer attended his funeral!!!!!smh
89 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 114
Phat ass white girl for real
35 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 97
Image(s) inside XXXTentacles facing 77 years in jail :niggaomg:
71 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 76
NBA Former NBA All Star Lorenzen Wright's ex wife is arrested in connection to..
109 comments
@sports

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 6 years ago '10        #221
Ciggavelli 35 heat pts35
space
avatar space
space
$1,882 | Props total: 9 9
okay, I think I understand what you're saying.

Look at this picture:


[pic - click to view]



If squares = laws
&
ovals = simulations

Couldn't that square that created "our simulation" have different laws, and they have just created particular laws for us to experience in "our simulation?" Because we see 0s and 1s, does that necessarily mean that the "square" that created us sees 0s and 1s? Does that mean the smallest "square" has to necessarily work under our current mathematical laws?


Last edited by Ciggavelli; 03-23-2012 at 03:20 PM..
 03-23-2012, 03:00 PM         #222
KillahhCamm  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
:applause::applause::applause:

Realest thread/contribution ive read since being a member.
 03-23-2012, 03:17 PM         #223
LebronOnYoBtch  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 Sheeed said:
How do you even begin to argue against this sh*t?
Thats What Im Trying To Figure....You Just Cant..Its Crazy
 03-23-2012, 03:20 PM         #224
LebronOnYoBtch  OP
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
Sadly Dude Has To Be Right Like We Sim The Past In Games Movies Etc Etc Who,s To Say That There Not Doing The Same To Us...But Also Whos To Say There Universe Is Not Simed...Its Crazy Son...This sh*t Got Me Thinking....
 6 years ago '10        #225
Ciggavelli 35 heat pts35
space
avatar space
space
$1,882 | Props total: 9 9
 ra1n said:
You guys are on completely different pages.

1 guy is arguing using theoretical implications of String Theory

the other is arguing for laws based on a simulated universe where anything can happen (not necessarily derived from String Theory)

Let me try to help:

String Theorists have traditionally postulated other universes/dimensions but NOT simulated universes.

The person who made the video and people in this thread are postulating simulated universes based upon the type of code in the equations.

this is why clarity is so important
The thing is, what's the difference between a simulated universe and "traditional other universes/dimensions?" Isn't that just semantics? Like, what makes a universe real versus simulated? Isn't it all the same?
 6 years ago '06        #226
illathruz 65 heat pts65
space
avatar space
space
$6,505 | Props total: 2306 2306
 Ciggavelli said:
okay, I think I understand what you're saying.

Look at this picture:


[pic - click to view]



If squares = laws
&
ovals = simulations

Couldn't that square that created "our simulation" have different laws, and they have just created particular laws for us to experience in "our simulation?" Because we see 0s and 1s, does that necessarily mean that the "square" that created us sees 0s and 1s? Does that mean the smallest "square" has to necessarily work under our current mathematical laws?
You got it wrong because math is not confined to physics. math is beyond physics. and lets just get it clear, physics means the description of what is going on around us. we use math to help us describe that. logic is transcendent. math is composed of operations and that is why it never changes.

)

all squares above and below us use math, although they might have different laws of physics. funny because, that is actually what M-theory is about. i don't think i've seen m-theory in this thread yet.

yes m-theory = string theory. although one has 10 dimensions and the other has 11 dimensions, mathematicians showed that they were actually describing the same thing in different ways. great book called warped passages by lisa randall about that.

the LHC is supposed to combine these two theories.


So math never changes. physics change and we describe those changes with math, but math never changes.
 6 years ago '10        #227
Ciggavelli 35 heat pts35
space
avatar space
space
$1,882 | Props total: 9 9
 illathruz said:
You got it wrong because math is not confined to physics. math is beyond physics. and lets just get it clear, physics means the description of what is going on around us. we use math to help us describe that. logic is transcendent. math is composed of operations and that is why it never changes.

)

all squares above and below us use math, although they might have different laws of physics. funny because, that is actually what M-theory is about. i don't think i've seen m-theory in this thread yet.

yes m-theory = string theory. although one has 10 dimensions and the other has 11 dimensions, mathematicians showed that they were actually describing the same thing in different ways. great book called warped passages by lisa randall about that.

the LHC is supposed to combine these two theories.


So math never changes. physics change and we describe those changes with math, but math never changes.
I agree that math can't change in our universe (it's not conceivable). But if the metaverse is infinite, how can one be so certain that math is always the same? I dunno, maybe I'm way off base here, but the infinity of all infinities would necessarily contain everything. If different math laws are a part of "everything" (and they must be because I (and others) can imagine different math laws), then how can math always be static always?

I know I'm drifting off topic and into metaphysics here (which I know is ironic considering my previous statements...lol), but how can one be so certain that math can never change ever?


Last edited by Ciggavelli; 03-23-2012 at 03:45 PM..
 6 years ago '06        #228
Lord Booker 46 heat pts46
space
avatar space
space
$1,020 | Props total: 1076 1076
That Sims video game is a good way to think about it. Just a super version of the game. Where the controller could controll any single being within the world, but when they are not controlling them our MIND aka ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE kicks in. Like all the crazy sh*t you hear about in the world would be the guy playing the game making that sh*t happen. Like we are the CYBERDINE intelligence that is aware but we are unable to leave the computer program we are in to cause any harm to the REAL PEOPLE......Cant believe what im saying but it's POSSIBLE.
 6 years ago '10        #229
Ciggavelli 35 heat pts35
space
avatar space
space
$1,882 | Props total: 9 9
 ra1n said:
No, it's just not semantics

the extra dimensions / parallel & bubble universes are predicted by String Theory because the math seems to point in that direction

A simulated universe, perhaps simulated by a computer, suggests we are some artificial consciousness/virtual people with different laws (perhaps controlled by other advanced beings)
It sounds the same to me....lol. But, if I'm being honest, I see what you're saying. They're both theoretical, it's just that a simulated universe is taking a few more steps than "traditional" string theory. That makes sense
 6 years ago '06        #230
illathruz 65 heat pts65
space
avatar space
space
$6,505 | Props total: 2306 2306
 Ciggavelli said:
I agree that math can't change in our universe (it's not conceivable). But if the metaverse is infinite, how can one be so certain that math is always the same? I dunno, maybe I'm way off base here, but the infinity of all infinities would necessarily contain everything. If different math laws are a part of "everything" (and they must be because I (and others) can imagine different math laws), then how can math always be static always.

I know I'm drifting off topic and into metaphysics here (which I know is ironic considering my previous statements...lol), but how can one be so certain that math can never change ever?
it can't change anywhere because it is a system. a procedure. an idea. even if there were infinite universes, you would have to use math to describe infinity. there are no different math laws. we can talk metaphysics, cus i'm deep into that, but even there you have the same thing. metaphysics is build off of math which is why they call it sacred geometry.

ideas are not bound by the laws of physics.
 6 years ago '10        #231
Ciggavelli 35 heat pts35
space
avatar space
space
$1,882 | Props total: 9 9
Hmmm...look what I just found:




and

"Albert Einstein (1879-1955) stated that 'as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality'" (from here: )


I'm not saying that I'm right, but numbers don't lie (pun intended...hahaha)
 6 years ago '07        #232
Jeet Kune Do 12 heat pts12
space
avatar space
space
$7,072 | Props total: 1843 1843
how mind blowing would it be if it was found in humans
 6 years ago '10        #233
Ciggavelli 35 heat pts35
space
avatar space
space
$1,882 | Props total: 9 9
 illathruz said:
it can't change anywhere because it is a system. a procedure. an idea. even if there were infinite universes, you would have to use math to describe infinity. there are no different math laws. we can talk metaphysics, cus i'm deep into that, but even there you have the same thing. metaphysics is build off of math which is why they call it sacred geometry.

ideas are not bound by the laws of physics.
I don't think metaphysics is built off of math; it's the other way around. When using math, one is making ontological and epistemological a.ssumptions about the world (i.e., metaphysics). Without a "realism" worldview, one can't have math.

I don't have to use math to describe the infinite. I prefer a picture


[pic - click to view]



ideas are just that: ideas.


 ra1n said:
Another interesting thing I should add:

If the universe is infinite, then all possibilities may exist.
Consider a deck of cards - if you shuffle it enough times, the order has to repeat.
The same applies to the particles that make us up. Particles can only be arranged a finite amount of times, so in an infinite universe, the arrangement must repeat. So there must be an infinite amount of other copies of you and me out there. But also, the arrangement is likely to not exactly repeat until it repeats. Thus, with different arrangements, there are different possibilities.
Indeed. However, I disagree with one point. You can infinitely arrange a finite amount of particles in a finite space. particles can be .01 spaces apart, .001 spaces apart, .0001 spaces apart, etc....
 6 years ago '06        #234
illathruz 65 heat pts65
space
avatar space
space
$6,505 | Props total: 2306 2306
 Ciggavelli said:
Hmmm...look what I just found:




and

"Albert Einstein (1879-1955) stated that 'as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality'" (from here: )


I'm not saying that I'm right, but numbers don't lie (pun intended...hahaha)
You debate is between two people over semantics. They even have does god exist on that forum. And then they vote on it. Who are these voters? and there were only after 11 votes. i could have signed up and swung the vote. this is not a credible source.

the einstein quote is taken out of context.

The quote is Einstein's answer to the question: "how can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?"

He the responds "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"

So we have basically gone way off topic from the initial points. the beauty of my explanation is that its simple. can you posit your a.ssertion in a sequence of steps?

for example
- all men are humans
- joe is a man

Conclusion: joe is a human

if you do this, i think you'll better understand why you are wrong
 6 years ago '06        #235
illathruz 65 heat pts65
space
avatar space
space
$6,505 | Props total: 2306 2306
story about einstein: did you know that he didn't believe in the big bang at first? but then this guy lemaitre used einstein's own relativity calculations to prove him wrong. einstein admitted defeat by giving him a standing ovation at a conference.
 6 years ago '10        #236
Ciggavelli 35 heat pts35
space
avatar space
space
$1,882 | Props total: 9 9
 illathruz said:
You debate is between two people over semantics. They even have does god exist on that forum. And then they vote on it. Who are these voters? and there were only after 11 votes. i could have signed up and swung the vote. this is not a credible source.

the einstein quote is taken out of context.

The quote is Einstein's answer to the question: "how can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?"

He the responds "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"

So we have basically gone way off topic from the initial points. the beauty of my explanation is that its simple. can you posit your a.ssertion in a sequence of steps?

for example
- all men are humans
- joe is a man

Conclusion: joe is a human

if you do this, i think you'll better understand why you are wrong
1) nothing cannot create something because even if it could it would still require "something" to turn that "nothing" into "something else"
2) I can think (which is something)
3) Something therefore must exist
4) Since something exists, "nothing" does not exist
5) Since something exists that must mean that something must have always existed, as nothing cannot create something
6) Since something always has existed, linear time does not exist, as linear time requires a beginning by definition
7) things that require linear time are merely an illusion, because linear time does not exist
8) Physics requires linear time, therefore physics is not "real/correct"
9) String theory uses physics, so it is also not "real/correct"
10) a.ssumptions about string theory are also therefore not "real/correct"
---------------------------Point 1, string theory is logically inconsistent
11) "Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, “knowledge, study, learning”) is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change (according to wikipedia)
12) change requires linear time
13) linear time does not exist
14) math is therefore not as "true" as one would like to believe
15) If math is not as "true" as one would like to believe, then mathematical laws are also not as "true" as some claim
16) a.ssumptions regarding mathematical laws being static are therefore not "real/correct"
------------------Point 2, math laws are not "real," but could be widely different depending on the context

There ya go. Copyright © Ciggavelli 2012
 6 years ago '04        #237
J.BEEZY 10 heat pts10
space
avatar space
space
$8,325 | Props total: 2476 2476






 6 years ago '06        #238
illathruz 65 heat pts65
space
avatar space
space
$6,505 | Props total: 2306 2306
this is horse sh*t. pardon my language but can you just label your conclusions and premises on your own and make this argument very simple. lets go one by one and i'll show you logic.

1) nothing cannot create something because even if it could it would still require "something" to turn that "nothing" into "something else"

is this what you mean to say?
premise 1: to become something else, you need something
premise 2: nothing does not have the ability to use something
conclusion: nothing cannot create something
 6 years ago '10        #239
Ciggavelli 35 heat pts35
space
avatar space
space
$1,882 | Props total: 9 9
^ I'll let you work with that for a bit, but my logic/conclusions/premises are consistent and easy to understand. Once you're finished, I'll respond. I should take a break from this for a while anyway...hahaha
 6 years ago '06        #240
illathruz 65 heat pts65
space
avatar space
space
$6,505 | Props total: 2306 2306
well i'm waiting for you. because this is basic logic. you are going around the issues man.

the bottom line is you have no proof that "nothing" does not have the ability to use "something" to change itself. since you don't have that proof, your argument falls apart. there are other holes in your argument and leaps of reason also.

and hey, nothing and something are 2 different things so there is math again. math is logic and if you can't write a decent argument with premises and conclusions, you are bullsh*tting
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 35
Image(s) inside Lawyer with big ass t1ttys
113 comments
2 days ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 34
Black thought freestyles on funk flex | #freestyle087
139 comments
2 days ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 32
Image(s) inside Houston Better Stop Playing With Me 😩
57 comments
2 days ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 13
Image(s) inside T1tty Meat from Nicki Minaj
49 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 10
Five MORE women accuse Russell Simmons of sexual misconduct - bringing total t..
142 comments
2 days ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 7
Some confused X Men actors think they won't be Recast :mjlol:
206 comments
2 days ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 6
When You Catch The Homie Wearin Fake Red 11s
20 comments
2 days ago
@gear
most viewed right now
 6
Lil Duval with the joke of the year
58 comments
2 days ago
@wild'ish
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy