Theoretical Physicist James Gates finds computer code in string theory equation

Matrix codeIf you haven’t already read my What is reality? article, you may want to before reading on.

Relatively recently, whilst exploring the mathematics of string theory, Theoretical Physicist James Gates and his researcher discovered something rather interesting buried deep within the mathematical equations of super symmetry.

They found computer code.

And it isn’t just random 1’s and 0’s either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software.

Specifically; Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code.

 

So what does this code do?

Computer code is just instruction for a processor – Information.

When transmitting information from one computer to another, there are fluctuations that happen (static in the line for example), that can alter the original information sent.

Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Codes are vital in the exchange of digital information as they monitor code sent and measure it against what’s already know, self-adjusting as required in order to accurately transmit and receive the correct information.

 

Why is this recent discovery interesting?

Super String Theory is an attempt by Scientists to explain reality – Ultimate Reality – The Theory of Everything.

If Theoretical Physicists are finding bits of computer code in their equations, it will likely galvanize further support for the Simulated Universe Hypothesis.

 

The Theory of which, goes something like this;

We are all living within a (very good) quantum computer simulation that our future Ancestors built.

Just like a computer today, multiple simulations can be run off of the same computer and off of the same program. So if it were the case that our Universe is a simulation as some Scientists believe it is, then we wouldn’t be the only simulated Universe; there would surely be many other simulations.

The trouble with such a theory is: How would we ever know if we are living within a computer simulation?

If we can not escape the simulation, how could we ever get to look at it from the outside in?

 

The Evidence

The more science explores physical reality, the more they become baffled by it.

Physical reality is made up of sub-atomic particles, but when we get down to this level; the laws of Physics change. Rather than finding something we would expect (something ultimately solid), we find particles that are able to exist in different locations at the same time…

Maybe that’s because everything has been simulated to give the impression it is here in this solid world when in fact it’s not.  Including you and I.

This Simulated Universe theory has got some pretty eminent scientists and physicists as supporters, believers or at least sympathizers.

However, just because a piece of computer code has been discovered within Super Symmetry equations, doesn’t necessarily conclude that we are actually living within a computer simulation. It may just be a very lucky coincidence.

But if more and more computer code keeps cropping up in physics equations, then it may indeed suggest that we are.

If our universe is the result of our future ancestors formulating a computer simulation, then the majority of the computer code from which this simulated universe is based on, will likely not (yet) have been discovered.

The irony here is: It may actually be String Theorists who invent, or rather (re)discover some of the code that gets used in creating the Simulated Universe in which we may be living :)

113 comments for “Theoretical Physicist James Gates finds computer code in string theory equation

  1. Jürgen
    May 15, 2014 at 8:32 am

    Need not be our ancestors. Humans could be a side effect in this simulation, even unplanned.

    • Ky Wiss
      May 15, 2014 at 12:40 pm

      Hi Jurgen,
      Quite possibly.
      That somewhat raises the question as to who or what is running the simulation and why.

      • August 14, 2014 at 6:08 am

        Is it possible that some creator (whom we would refer to as God, or gods) found it was easier to create a simulated universe, than to create an actual material universe? Perhaps this is like a kid staying up all night and doing a book report? No wonder the religious ilk say that God created the universe in only seven days ;) A programmer could do in one week, the same feat that would take an engineer a lifetime :)

        • Michael
          January 6, 2015 at 9:18 pm

          This could also say, that if we launch a video game such as Mario, we as humans, also created a new universe. And everything that’s in that computer game has a life as we do.
          That actually makes sense.

          • sh4dow
            January 7, 2015 at 9:13 pm

            although the virtual mario/his enemies wouldnt “think” about it, because they miss a more complex AI…
            btw. this somehow is a proof-of-concept for self-aware artificial intelligence (us!)

          • William
            January 8, 2015 at 2:57 am

            not yet, we still are really bad at programming to even simulate a nicely done universe or nicely done “entities” who are aware of their self-existence

        • jihad
          January 9, 2015 at 10:32 am

          a programmer is basically an engineer too pal:P

        • robert henick
          August 1, 2015 at 4:01 pm

          based on your same thought process, this god could create one, a perfect real earth. but to give this new ‘reality meaning’ he had to let this perfect world become on its own, thus the simulation to see if mankind or rather the inhabitants of this universe could indeed achieve the original production.
          it makes perfect from a manufacturing point of view as i was involved in actual production of commercial grade furniture from hardwoods to mdf to systems, powered, cubes etc…
          thoughts… ???

          • Joshua
            April 4, 2017 at 6:54 pm

            I think I know what your saying but I was thinking something similar from a different standpoint. I’m not a programmer but I’m pretty sure that in order to create A.I. You need to be able to create code that can freely write its own code which would in my mind probably require running a long string of code over and over possibly for some time before it almost became self aware or had no choice but to do something different to come out of a loop or something. I dont understanding programming very well I took one beginner programming class so my insight isn’t worth much but this is a thought I’ve had for a while. That somehow were going through a sequence where the creator is awaiting our maturity. Reaching that maturity to me means that we ourselves will be able to create A.I. and mimic consciousness so this awakening is happening from top to bottoms but simultaneously throughout all of creation. Maybe lol.

        • David ekci
          March 15, 2016 at 1:38 pm

          You are a very smart man my friend!

        • Ahsan Farooq
          March 24, 2016 at 6:42 am

          I am truely facinated with this theory. To creat such detailed world can only be possible by some one who is having serious, serious intelligence and knowledge (God or what ever name you want to give). And one more thing why this theory looks absolutely right that specific people (including me) experience to watch number sequences. (google angles numbers / number sequences). These numbers could be 1111, 1011, 1212, 911, 1122 etc.

          Holy Quran of Muslims amazingly says the same “Know that the life of this world is only play and amusement” (the life of this world is nothing but a “deceptive enjoyment)

          • Trolius Maximus
            September 28, 2016 at 4:11 pm

            Please leave religion (much less, the ignoble Qur’an) out of science. Religious scripture can be eisegesically interpreted to reënforce virtually anything, as it has done so routinely throughout the centuries. Thus, this ‘universal compatibility’ becomes its very disqualification for relevancy — a nodding idiot who’s willing to agree to anything, as long as they are be acknowledged.

            If we are indeed ‘living’ (*termed used loosely in this context) in a simulation, this system would not have been created by some “God”, as we so quaintly put it (…especially not one that demands petty piety from its pismire prostraters. But, rather, either in an advanced ‘version’ of our own selves (as alluded to), or a removed, advanced civilisation.

            Notwithstanding, who-/whatever orchestrated this ‘Matrix’ aside, the only way we could ever categorically prove this theory, is by ‘breaking free’ of it — à la the cited science fiction film — not through scientific scrutiny.

            Perhaps the Wachowskis’ imaginations were channelling a deeper reality…? Whatever the case, we better start to ‘believe’ if we want to know the ‘truth’…!

        • Aaron Munro
          June 8, 2016 at 4:00 pm

          Think more so that the computer simulation is God. Like we are the synapses in his brain visualised, manifesting what we observe.

      • Nikolas Tillquist
        January 22, 2016 at 4:13 pm

        Why do we build computer games such as SIMS or 2nd Life? Because we can. Why build a computer simulation of us? Because they can. When you run simulations you can better predict the future, hence weather forecasts.

        • Trolius Maximus
          September 28, 2016 at 4:15 pm

          Actually, video games are built specifically as pastime and in order to make money.

          That is, in tribute of a specific “God”, but not a grand “creator” per se… and we already know its name — Mammon!

      • Phil Banks
        April 20, 2016 at 5:04 am

        Information! Think of all the information 7 billion humans collect! We’re information gathers.

    • Shawn
      July 29, 2015 at 10:11 pm

      True, might not be human. Might be AI. We have afterall created AI thats comparable to a 4yr olds IQ that is self aware of itself. Could very well be the true Matrix. (The movie does share common details with the simulated universe theory. So it makes one wonder doesnt it.)

      • Serdar akkuş
        January 13, 2016 at 10:45 pm

        What ? A self aweare AI? Show me.

        • MK
          March 16, 2016 at 2:38 am

          #BINA48

          • Ev
            April 17, 2016 at 1:29 pm

            Thank you MK.

            I do believe that we are living in a simulated universe, however it is a beautiful thing and nothing bad is to come of it. Everything is for the greater good.

            I just get thrown off about space. If simulated, we could exist without so much outer-space. This must be large scale as we must eventually meet other aliens like ourselves. Perhaps we exist in a black hole and we need to somehow send radio waves out showing we’re advanced or something of that nature. Perhaps then we will learn more. Black holes could be like a nanotube…? We need a dedicated forum for this kind of talk, anyone have a link?

            Regardless, stay open minded – anything could be possible. Don’t pollute!

            Google:
            “Holograpic Universe and Brian Green”
            “Double Slit Experiment”
            “Quantum Entanglement”
            “Jerry Ehman’s wow Signal”

            Share your interesting links here for myself and others please!

            email me: info@ev0x.com

      • Matt
        June 30, 2016 at 11:02 pm
    • Don K
      May 28, 2016 at 9:16 pm

      In my humble opinion it seems plausible this is a simulated universe with semi conscious beings learning to master and evolve within various stable and random conditions. Especially, if we equate our species ability to recognize this and create rudimentary computer simulations based on the same principles. Do we in fact mimic the creators of this universe? Perhaps! If we consider a list of necessary elements that operate this universe I suspect the list is not so long for us to comprehend. Based on my limited knowledge and understanding some of the primary elements are: a special base genetic coding, sub routines including “what if, then, or, etc..” statements programmed into intelligent energy for life form development and operation and manifestation of the universe, various forms of math and physics for nearly every conceivable combination of gas, liquid and matter, various degrees of evolving consciousness and self awareness with fundamental subroutines for autonomous biological functions, instincts for survival, evolving intelligence for communication, tool development for adapting to and mastering of changing environmental conditions, evolving spacial awareness, the ability to define and manipulate various forms of matter, and time to animate the simulation. It makes perfect sense to me for the discovery of not one but multiple programming languages involved in the creation of this universe. Simply observe nature. Everything appears to operate autonomously. Everything appears to knows what it is. Everything behaves, acts and reacts as it’s programming allows it. Every living thing transfers genetic coding and learned behaviors to is progeny. Mankind is no different other then we have the ability to perceive more spatially, calculate test and quantify results to better define, manipulate and understand the elements of life in the universe we live in.

      • Matt
        June 30, 2016 at 11:08 pm

        “instincts for survival” is a very abstract skill though isn’t it. A sense of humour could be a survival instinct. And that itself is pretty complex and abstract. A free-minded AI might decided its easier to just die than to evolve and multiply. The will to live.

        • Jake
          October 18, 2016 at 4:10 am

          Yes and some do.

    • Ryan bamert
      July 21, 2016 at 5:35 pm

      If this theory proves to be correct , than an understanding of how to manually alter the coding of this reality would grant us the power to quote literally shape our reality. If our universe/reality is just an intricate computer program then is they’re way for our consciousness to escape it into whatever reality created us? Would you want to? Would you choose a truer form of reality if it meant leaving everythig that is part of this grand illusion, from your family, to the universe you know, to your own physical body? If you would is it a moot point? Is consciousness just a programmed illusion as well? Love this shit

  2. Carlo
    August 18, 2014 at 11:37 am

    What confuses me is: How do the scientists find the equations? I thought equations were written by people, therefor someone must have put the code into the equation right? I watched that interview/debate like ten times today trying to wrap my head around it. Could you try explaining it in simpler terms for my stoner brain? Thanks.

    • Ky Wiss
      August 21, 2014 at 7:10 pm

      Hi Carlo,

      Some believe Mathematics is not a human construct, but a Universal language – the language of nature, of science. If humans weren’t around, mathematical equations still would be.

      For example: The Fibonacci sequence would still be a mathematical program running inherently throughout nature, even if there weren’t people around to calculate it.

    • Victor
      January 8, 2015 at 3:41 pm

      Hey bro, the fact that they found a computer code in an equation somebody discover doesn’t mean the one who found it put it there in the moment of the discovery. Every equation was developed by empirical data, in other words, it was the analysis of the results of experiments, that helped structure an equation that would describe the experiment itself. When you see the world and understand what is going on, you get to describe what you understood in a mathematical equation.

      • Ky Wiss
        June 24, 2015 at 11:58 am

        What if, as a conscious observer, you are part of the equation?

        • March 30, 2016 at 12:14 am

          It says that the code is EVER changing & evolving so we ARE part of that code/equation — the code being the UNIVERSAL consciousness we are ALL a part of. A universe is the product of spirit forms that have evolved to the point to create physical matter out of their own thoughts… & thats what the universe wants us to attain — to gain the knowledge to be able to create matter/universes ourselves — thats why they say “KNOWLEDGE IS POWER” !!!!!

  3. Dan
    October 10, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Maybe I have a misunderstanding of this, but it seems to me that the Simulated Universe Theory is not the only possible explanation for why there would be computer code within the universe. As you mentioned in another comment, mathematics seems to be the language of the universe, independent of human experience. Why then is it surprising to find a mathematical algorithm within the universe? That’s all a “computer code” is, a mathematical algorithm that tells something how to behave. What I don’t understand is the difference between finding this code, and say the fibonacci sequence, or other mathematical constants that govern our universe like pi, the law of gravity, or the speed of light? Why would this code imply writing and simulation, whereas the others do not? Why wouldn’t we look at this “code” as just another mathematical law that governs our universe?

    I understand that this code is an error correcting code, and is similar to or equal to our own error correcting code, but this does not necessarily imply that future humans wrote it. It could be the inversion – that the reason we wrote our error correcting code and all other computer code is because we live within the same universe, governed by the same laws that the string theory code works in. Of course we would write code that was similar to how the universe is written when we are governed by the laws of universe. Those algorithms would be the most efficient codes for the task it concerns within the universe, so it would only make sense that as computer programmers we would find and use the most efficient code.

    Furthermore, if this does imply “writing,” why then would a deity not be considered as a potential writer?

    • Ky Wiss
      October 11, 2014 at 10:55 am

      Hi Dan,

      You raise some very interesting points and ask some very interesting questions. Thank you.

      Please note: This article wasn’t written to conclude (based on what Dr James Gates found in his super symmetry equations) that we are living within a simulation. There is a lot more evidence out there that one can draw upon to inquire further into this theory. It is merely another piece of the puzzle.

      I would like to suggest you do some further reading – The Simulation Argument by Nick Bostrum (2003) would be a great start. Nick is an Oxford Professor who presents a very well thought-out argument showing that at least 1 of the following 3 propositions must be true, although he doesn’t tell us which of the 3 is true;

      1) All previous civilizations of our technological development go extinct before reaching the technological maturity from which they’re able to build simulations whereby the characters in the simulation are/believe they are – conscious.

      2) All technologically mature civilizations lose interest in running these kinds of simulations.

      3) We are living inside a simulation.

      The likelihood of which option out of the 3 is true is based on probability theory. If the first two possibilities (1 and 2) were false, then option 3 would result.

      If a technologically mature civilization remained interested in running simulations, then there would be a massive amount of these simulations being run. Moreover; there would be far more simulated universes than real universes.

      If this were the case, the chance of us living within a Simulated Universe rather than a Real Universe would be far the more likely.

      N.B. I would also recommend you look into what happens when we get down to the planck length – The Universe appears to become pixelated.

      • Dan
        October 11, 2014 at 8:01 pm

        Hi Ky, thanks for the recommendations. It was actually Bostrum’s material that lead me to research James Gates, which lead me here :). My point was not to argue for or against the Simulation Theory proposed by Bostrum (though I do take some issue with it), but just that Gates’ discovery does not necessarily imply the Simulation Theory, as mentioned in the article. It could be the inverse (we discovered it because and after the fact that it is written into the universe), or it could have been written by a deity.

        • Eddy
          January 12, 2015 at 3:13 pm

          This is what I thought too. Think about it. How awesome it would be if the deity is actually using the mathematical equation to govern how the universe run, and then, we as a part of the universe, following the same logic, found and use the exact same equation to govern our computer (our own creation).

          After all, the equation is just a logical thinking to do what we all want to do right?

          • Aliaksei Rubanau
            July 27, 2015 at 4:53 am

            The only way to proof Simulation Theory, is to build Simulation

        • Ky Wiss
          June 24, 2015 at 12:07 pm

          Hi Dan,

          Well, I guess this discovery is so interesting is because it’s the first piece of digital evidence. Prof James Gates hasn’t just stumbled upon a mathematical equation, he has found computer code, ones’ and zeros’.
          And it’s not just random computer code that he’s found, it’s error correcting code for a digital system.

      • Michael
        May 13, 2015 at 9:58 am

        Without any thought at all, I offer you a forth possibility: This simulation is not possible.

        Everyone seems to completely suspend disbelief that technology is limitless. It’s not. We can’t time travel. We can’t teleport. Cosmic radiation doesn’t give people super powers(Flame on!) and it’s not because ‘we haven’t figured it out yet’. Some things just aren’t possible. I’m betting “simulation theory” falls into this category.

        I’m no computer genius, but we already know we are quickly approaching the limits silicon is capable of, and even though diamond processors will be the next wave of the future, they still have the same inherent flaws. Stuff melts when it gets too hot. This theory is gonna laughably end when someone realizes you need to build a death star sized computer, with a black hole nearby to dissipate the heat, all so that we can.. run.. simulations.. of the past? of parallel worlds? terraforming events? universe expansion? of what exactly?

        We don’t even have a reason(and thus funding) to explore our own solar system. In this imagined future we will spend seemly infinite resources into simulating infinite numbers of… what… exactly? I don’t want to go all Douglas Adam’s on you… but what was the problem trying to be solved? Because, I’m pretty sure I’ve got the answer.

        • Ky Wiss
          June 24, 2015 at 11:53 am

          Hi Michael,
          This theory may well come to nothing, but as yet, nobody has proved it wrong and there are little pieces of evidence suggesting it ‘might’ be true.
          We’re not talking about silicon-based computing. We’re talking about several evolutions on from that. A form of quantum computing. It’s quite different. Remember, closed minds of the past wouldn’t entertain the idea that the world was a sphere as it was a counter-intuitive idea, yet look at us now.

          • March 30, 2016 at 12:19 am

            SOOOOOO TRUE… couldnt have said it better myself — some ppl need to open their minds up & see this universe we live in as LIMITLESS potential… on the macro AND micro levels !!!!

        • January 9, 2016 at 8:54 pm

          Actually, we do have teleportation. We have teleported not only particles, but actually and more recently an entire atom! So saying we can’t “teleport” isn’t correct. We are limited yet, but we keep getting better at it. Also, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity allows for time travel. He did not think it was “impossible.” Further point; “general relativity or quantum mechanics, all the equations that best describe our universe work perfectly if time flows forward or backward.” This is known as “physics dirty little secret.”

          Granted, cosmic radiation doesn’t give people super powers, at least we haven’t yet learned how to use it for that, but don’t confuse comic books (that ignore physical laws often) with real science with its mathematical rules. Even so, rules don’t necessarily limit our ultimate capabilities. Chess, for example, has a strict system of rules, but look at the number of possible outcomes of a chess game; it’s so high, that as one website put it, “The possible number of chess games is so huge that no one will invest the effort to calculate the exact number.” This means there are a truly tremendous number of possibilities, despite all the rules of the game. The same seems to apply to our universe.

          To deal in absolutes then, as in “time travel is impossible,” is something I’m personally leery of doing. In fact, on the quantum level, many physicists say it happens all the time! So although there may be limitations, ultimate ones, it may also be there are ways around them. In any case, I’m willing to bet we are no where near our technological limits yet, and there are a heck of a lot more discoveries/innovations to come. Case in point: my Earth Science teacher in junior high school said we could never have a true talking computer that people could use or have in their home, because the memory and processing power needed would mean a computer the size of a city block. Two years later, microchips came out. Now, we have talking pocket phones that not only speak, but answer questions and do our bidding. So I think there is much more to come. References: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/fyi-how-many-different-ways-can-chess-game-unfold. And: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/

        • March 30, 2016 at 12:17 am

          ANYTHING is possible — we just dont understand how to do it yet !!!!

    • RONALD POKATILOFF
      April 4, 2015 at 1:12 pm

      I’ve been working on the computer universe possibility for about 3 years. I wrote a paper listing the evidence so far: big bang, 4 forces part of string projection, strings, gravity, antimatter maybe a fail safe system to destroy damaged strings, and more. Ron

      • March 30, 2016 at 12:20 am

        sounds interesting — Id like more info on that !!!

  4. vic smyth
    December 7, 2014 at 11:29 pm

    Mystics have been telling us for thousands of years that this world is an illusion. Now scientists are saying something similar. If this world is a simulation, maybe you are the programmer and you immersed yourself in your simulation to fully experience it. The simulation is over when you die (death being another illusion as you simply wake up recalling your simulation like a dream). You can then tweak the program and play it again (reincarnation).

    Just some silly thoughts.

    • John
      January 7, 2015 at 10:55 pm

      I like your silly thoughts

    • Ieyesou
      October 11, 2015 at 11:49 am

      i have experienced the reality of the fact that we are existing in a simulation in this material dynamic we call life. i while exploring the theory accidently stumbled on the or a source node of the matrix projector that is projecting our reality/ to describe the texture of the pixel that shapes the projected images .the individual design of the pixel is that of a diamond form pulsating of the inner shape accompanied and amplified by two further line contours with each consequent outer section vibrating and visually giving the overall pixel full intricate detail from its centre with each subsequent contour dlightly less defined . hmm eg when we look down the highway in the intense heat of the day we see the visual distortions of the heat waves above the surface. making the hazey effect. each individual holographic pixel is like this on each subsequent amplification of its kore infinately streaming fractually .unfortunately the limitations of language limit my explanation . i apologise for this.

    • March 7, 2016 at 3:11 am

      Sounds like a Great SiFi movie script :-)
      Or a new Theoretical paper.
      If you can only write one which would it be.
      The former is likey to get greater public exposure. The latter would hopfully be taken more seriously. Given that it had merit, Both would ensure your fame. One would assume the latter, although to a smaller audience, would last a whole lot longer. But that comes down to proofs ….. 8^)

  5. jeff
    December 9, 2014 at 9:29 pm

    The code Dr Gates found was created by a person in the 1940’s i believe. this would mean that if we are indeed a simulation then the person that created this error checking code in our simulated reality stumbled upon a solid piece of code that even those who may possibly be emulating us would use in this simulation project we call might call “our reality”. It would explain the code Dr Gates found, and also would lend to the theory we are indeed a simulation of earths past. It’s very possible more codes will be found. We need more examples of computer codes hidden in physics of nature that may possibly be used when trying to run a simulation to verify that we are a simulation. It get’s mind boggling just to think about it. maybe future humans are nothing more then million year advanced AI and not even human anymore, hence why they have created this simulation to try and reclaim and relearn what they once were before merging fully with machines. maybe god is super advanced AI that was once what we are now as a simulation and he is learning and teaching us so we can both benefit somehow. We may be our own creators.

  6. Me
    January 6, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    Interested in the topic, however cant find a source for the claim. Any link to a credible magazine or the original paper?

  7. Roland
    January 6, 2015 at 11:26 pm

    I think there is a more interesting question wether there is a simulation or not. The real question is – what does the code change? Obviously, the theory is working, without us, we are just explaining its nature. But it is working, and correcting errors in the meantime. But what is the error? And how does it correct it? Quantums are deleted and placed in, or are we talking about complete galaxies coming and going? And more importantly, the code corrects it according to what information is EXPECTED at the end. Expectation implies a preceding instance, upon which it is based, which is deemed correct. So in the end, even if this is a simulation or a natural phenomenon, there is/was something before…something remarkably similar. Or the universe has DNA.

    • Ky Wiss
      January 7, 2015 at 10:18 am

      All error-correction codes serve the same function: they are used to detect errors and allow the correct transmission of data.
      Q. For what (greater) purpose is this required in Nature?
      A. Who knows. Perhaps it’s to ensure the existence of a collectively perceived reality remains constant.

      • Roland
        January 7, 2015 at 1:01 pm

        I understand what their purpose and function in a program is. But what is the purpose of it in the fabric of reality? So my “question” is, when a correction happens, how do we perceive it?

        • Ky Wiss
          January 8, 2015 at 9:31 am

          Who knows. James Gates has found this code in his string theory equations. So far, this is the only computer code found in a physics equation. Will there be more computer codes found in the future? We’ll have to wait and see.

          Sub-atomic particles work in a very strange way and the same particle can be present in several different places at the same time.

          Maybe… (and this is pure speculation here) the error correction codes have some determination on where these sub-atomic particles need to be through the process of creating a perceived reality?

        • guesttt
          January 8, 2015 at 11:44 am

          Perhaps we perceive the error correction as glitches in vision, hearing and so on. Of course, some are more sensitive to seeing these glitches than others.

      • neurocelso
        January 7, 2015 at 7:29 pm

        very acute observations here – as a physician I can only add that all the mental health issue could be seen under a VERY different light… some of the “crazies” were actually very right.

      • luke cosic
        January 8, 2015 at 10:17 am

        But what if we are not the target of the simulation, maybe our whole existance is just a bug, or just a neglected piece of code that went out of control. Seems scary to me that we might never know.

      • Simeon
        August 7, 2015 at 4:37 pm

        Just a quick thought ran through my mind while reading this. As we know the laws of physics change in strange unexplainable ways on sub-atomic levels. Like the way quarks become entangled and can constantly appear and disappear in different places seemingly teleporting in relativity to each other… Maybe we need a different approach to this theory. Scientists who are working on proving this shouldn’t directly try to find evidence that this is truly the theory on which our “reality” is based on. They should assume that it IS the case and with that in mind start from square one and think about how it works and how it makes sense. Like is the constantly changing dynamic world of sub-atomic particles just a visual representation of how this high-end computing entity is processing the data. The little data “bits” being the particles themselves? The Hadron Collider may just in fact give us some kind of answer. That’s he thing with the universe… in order for something to work it has to have some kind of simplistic basis which leads me to believe that if we observe the particles carefully trying to find some relativity with the fundamentals we know about computing today we can truly answer the question. There is no reason to believe that the way this computer is simulating our universe naturally differs from the fundamentals we know about computers today EVEN IF this technology works with different resources. The recent find of “code” in the string theory gives all the more reasons for scientists to think about this possibility in my opinion.

      • March 30, 2016 at 12:46 am

        sounds like a GREAT theory to me — some people wouldnt be able to handle the things we’re not “supposed” to perceive in our reality !!!! -

  8. Sarki
    January 7, 2015 at 6:38 pm

    Hello , thank to share this information , but i would like to know if we are in a simulation create by some “future ancestor” in wich “worlds” they lived ?

  9. emeraldkat
    January 7, 2015 at 11:01 pm

    This argument has about as many holes in it as the ancient aliens arguement. I mean, seriously now, just because someone found code in a physics equation that suddenly means we live in the matrix? Ummm I think some people need to check their own internal logic for errors.

    • Paul
      May 3, 2015 at 7:25 pm

      This argument doesn’t stand alone. This idea has been purported based on experimental data since the 1800’s.
      Quantum Physics has destroyed the idea of Local Realism and has shown that the world we live in is unstable and nothing like the description given by our classical physics.
      To top it off, this idea is testable. Fermilab is currently conducting an experiment that will strongly test whether we live in a hologram.
      So no, just the information in this article alone is not enough to say that we live in a simulation. But if you’ve been paying attention, at all, to the science behind all this, then you’d see that there’s a lot of data backing this up.

    • Ky Wiss
      June 24, 2015 at 1:07 pm

      Hi emeraldkat,

      Actually, this argument doesn’t have any holes in it, apart from maybe our own intuition not liking the idea of it. It is very difficult to prove that we aren’t living in a simulation and nobody has yet been able to prove that we don’t live in a simulation. In fact, other areas of scientific discovery give us clues that suggest we may very well be living within a simulation.

      Some examples:

      Once we get down to the planck length, the physical world becomes pixilated.

      Time is quantized, non-constant and relative.

      Quantum Physics shows us that there is no real solidity to anything, just relationships.

      “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

      The act of observing solidifies the action of light.

      Reality unfolds in frames.

    • March 30, 2016 at 12:50 am

      its not saying the universe is a MATRIX its saying that the code is part of the universe & corrects errors in the coding of how we perceive reality — higher functioning beings who run the universe are using these “error correctors” to help us not go CRAZY — as some people are not ready to perceive the REAL reality we are living in !!!!

      • March 30, 2016 at 12:52 am

        if we could see ALL the spiritual energy around us they would think they are going PSYCHO !!! hahahaha

    • john mayfield
      June 5, 2017 at 8:07 am

      i think you need to think a bit harder into this.. what happens if our technology gets better to the point where we have computers which are capable of calculating the universe? and we figure out how it began.. if we were to run this simulation, all the beings and life within it would also exist in their simulation and have their own point of view just like we do. what we would gain from this would be all knowledge of our own universe, our history and even our future.

  10. L. Ponet
    January 8, 2015 at 12:46 am

    Hi,

    Very interesting article. Since this is one of the first things I consciously read about this theory of our Universe being one giant simulation, I’m not really educated on the subject. I couldn’t bear to think this though:
    Our computer codes are based mainly on mathematics and logic, which is (let’s assume) based on the nature of our Universe. If we were to be a giant simulation, why would our nature be the same as the one of the beings whose ‘computers’ are simulating us? This would then imply that obviously their mathematics, computer codes, and even the entire way their computers work are different compared to ours. Wouldn’t that then mean that finding a computer code in the description of our Universe is in no way related to whether or not we are simulated? In my opinion there is no reason to think that the way we simulate things would be the same as the way we are being simulated.

    • Ky Wiss
      January 8, 2015 at 9:18 am

      We (humans) run simulations from one or possibly two vantage points. From a position of enquiry or from a position of knowledge.
      Can you think of any other reason for why/how a simulation could be created without some sort of pre-existing knowledge or input?

      • L. Ponet
        January 8, 2015 at 12:11 pm

        That’s not really what I meant. What I meant was rather that we might be a simulation with our nature’s laws and our math that follows from it, as merely input parameters for it. This would mean that us finding a computer code in our nature would be in no way related to the code they use to run the simulation, rather than something that is inherently connected to our simulation and only to ours. This means that finding the code in our nature doesn’t mean that we would be coded by another civilization seen as it is not connected to each other. It’s difficult to explain my thoughts but i tried.

  11. Mike
    January 8, 2015 at 7:54 am

    Hey mate, I have a nagging idea about what might be happening and wanted to put it out there. Is it possible that what they are seeing is a result of them using computers to do the analysis? Kind of like artifacts from the software they are using to analyse the data. The subatomic universe is an interesting an unpredictable realm, I don’t completely dismiss this theory as it would explain a few things, or at least justify their behavior. I guess what I’m getting at is it can be hard to understand something you know nothing about, especially when you have to observe “from within the box” and it can be easy to influence the results.

    • Ky Wiss
      January 8, 2015 at 9:08 am

      Interesting :)

      • PerryO
        June 5, 2016 at 8:22 am

        If we are indeed in a simulation, dear operator/deity/god/AI/Alien… I’ve been playing for 54 years, how about a level up or upgrade. Get us on the leader board…. No wonder the game gets tilted so often. Pez (^_-)

    • 01000111
      July 23, 2015 at 7:09 pm

      I was thinking this same thing. Basically, our observations are first obscured by the tools we use to measure them, followed by many other levels of abstraction. Classic General Semantics (not linguistic semantics) by Korzybski.

      How much does the analysis tool influence the output? Is the analysis tool even capable of outputting the incoming information in a comprehensible way for humans, or even capable of comprehending the information itself?

      I say all of this knowing nothing about how this analysis was even performed, so there could be obvious reasons that I am missing as to why these questions aren’t significant.

    • March 30, 2016 at 12:25 am

      agreed — VERY interesting — I think it has a deeper meaning & within 10-15 years we will ACTUALLY DISCOVER the spiritual/universal energy that binds matter together — and this code is just a stepping stone in that direction !!

  12. Pingback: Si daca… |
  13. simon clark
    January 11, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Think of it this way. If I was going to build something that turned carbon dioxide into oxygen and plant material using sunlight as the energy source and expected it to self replicate and fit in with nature, chances are after enough revisions and improvements it would look like some plant or other. The same thing goes with this code, all they’ve done is chanced upon natures answer to a problem, and faced with similar problems some clever coder in the 40s did something broadly similar.

    It doesn’t mean we are a simulation, just that a good solution to a problem will always be a good solution.

    The truth is it doesn’t matter if we are a simulation are not, we’ll likely never be able to modify our own environment as the required level of control to prove it either way.

  14. Bryce/Vasily
    March 8, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    The idea is the source of the virtualization instance, as long as someone carries the idea it stays true and the simulation continues. Whatever the best idea that is created is the truth in our instance.

  15. Bryce/Vasily
    March 8, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    Our interpreted Universe is a collection of the best ideas we comprehend. Our universe is a distributed computer system to virtualize ideas.

    • Java
      June 20, 2015 at 5:53 am

      The outer world must be simulation too. So we have several nested simulations. :)

  16. CodePt
    May 2, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    Observer effect

  17. May 7, 2015 at 1:20 am

    I’ve always had this idea that maybe everything that exists is product of thought. This sort of confirms that for me. It definitely doesn’t explain how everything began quite yet but this was an incredibly interesting and mind-boggling read. What I want to know is, if we did live inside a simulation, do we truly have free will? Are the decisions we make our own? Or do we exist in two different places at the same time, and only one of those instances truly understands what is going on? I’ll tell you this. The me that exists on earth is confused beyond belief lol

  18. Jontra
    June 26, 2015 at 11:52 pm

    What if we look at this theory of simulated Universe from the point of us creating the simulation and participating in it.
    We are mortal and we have limited life time. What if – we constructed “machine”, quantum computer, call it what you like – that can simulate “real” world. So, we connect to the “machine”, play the simulation (we are born, we live and die). Now imagine that playing 1 simulation takes 1 minute in real time. That allows us to live about 5.000.000 simulated lives (reincarnations) in period of 10 years in “real” life. In that way we are almost immortal.
    And maybe the reason for simulation is that our real world is not suited for life as we know it anymore, and we are forced to use the “simulator”.
    Someone can say – if we simulate, why not assign ourselves the best possible life? Answer can be that we are not allowed to choose. If we were allowed, than the simulated world would collapse, because we would all be wanting the same – beautiful life. Furthermore conditions in which we are “born” are best suited for our level of progress – something like karma.

    Or alternate theory can be that our real world is nothing like this simulated, maybe we don’t have bodies, maybe we are just, what we call, consciousness, and God created this simulation to give us life experience. To test us, to see if we are worthy of His creation. But instead of giving us one chance (life), we keep coming back (in and out of the simulation) until final judgement.
    That would explain God sending His Son to redeem our sins (entering the simulation Himself), karma, near-death (out of the body) experience, reincarnation, memories of past lives, Maya etc. and to a certain extent a parallel Universes (parallel simulators).
    When you think about it, that is what religion tells us – God created this Universe (simulation). Religion also tells us that we can exist beyond the simulation. And it also teaches us how to earn that existence.
    (I didn’t intend this to be pro religious theory but one thing led to another…)

  19. TimAK
    July 20, 2015 at 11:58 am

    @Jontra
    Your theory was more or less exactly what I was thinking when I rode this last year:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10697529/Prisoners-could-serve-1000-year-sentence-in-eight-hours.html

    Maybe we live a self-created simulation in order to simulate the past of our species? I mean recording/storing of all information/communication worldwide through various intelligence agencies – anyone? What is going to be possible with that amount of data in 100 years, after we recored/stored 100 years of human knowledge/communication? Maybe we are just a simulation of a future generation who tries to reproduce their past with the information they collected on humanity for X years. Kinda like studying history, but in a more Interactive way. Or maybe its kind of like a acceptance test, once you graduated in the simulation you are good to go for the real/next instance, else reset or even level down :D

    Or maybe we live in a simulation because that way we are able to gather way more experience in a shorter amount of time just like how the article suggests to proceed with inmates. In my opinion most likely the whole theory of living in a simulation is just wishful thinking and we are extensively seeking hints in all directions because we want to find some even if its a ghost hunt! Modern society/life/humanity is so…twisted in so many different ways for so many different reasons…many intelligent people just wish and hope it is a simulated reality because else they would loose faith in humanity and/or go insane!

  20. TimAK
    July 20, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    And if its true that there is some sort of cycle, that everything repeats in some sort of way.That all happenings, all our experiences, our innovation and everything around us/about us is merely version 2, 3, 5 or even version 50. Then who knows if for example the drones, lasers and other tech considered brand-new, actually already existed at one point 3000 years ago and now basically were just brought back to life again. I mean who knows for sure even with all the information available out there today? Due to the wide range of deeply corrupted minds, and society itself, most of us will never get to know for sure the real truth about our civilizations past. Because information has a worth and cash is king today. So the more the everyday person does NOT know, on any given subject, the better for someone else’s piggy-bank which ultimately will always end at the beginning of the cycle when somebody told you it all started when humans lighted a fire for the first time. If there is some truth hidden in that, we all are time travelers already. The majority of the Ameripeans born these years/decade, will make exactly the same experiences as their grand-(grand-grand)-parents, war, poverty, a dark future. They time traveled back into a weird future!

    Sorry, BS, way too much spare time today >:P

  21. Inês
    September 10, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    The matrix is real.

    • TJ
      November 1, 2015 at 12:11 am

      “The Matrix is real”? Not even the spoon is real. And that, I think, is sort of the point.

  22. nameless
    May 22, 2016 at 12:00 am

    If a thing is merely a description of itself then the Program must exist before the programmer. Information is ultimately fundamental and primordial. Embedded within is the script for a play in which we are the characters, a story that is recounted endlessly as the Program returns to previous states across the eternity of time. Alas, Don Quixote will never see the pages upon which he is written nor will he know that his mortality is an illusion.

  23. billy Heng
    May 26, 2016 at 5:21 am

    maths is another way for descriptive or representation of reality, it could be present in recursive pattern or in other form that yet to be identify by human being which itself has more than one form.

    there are full bundle of error correction coding for different function, question is if I use individual coding to run your graphic representation how do I know which is the actual correction representation of your goal .???? unknown question right ????
    Do let me know if you found the truth and the only truth

  24. Don K
    May 28, 2016 at 9:23 pm

    In my humble opinion it seems plausible this is a simulated universe with semi conscious beings learning to master and evolve within various stable and random conditions. Especially, if we equate our species ability to recognize this and create rudimentary computer simulations based on the same principles. Do we in fact mimic the creators of this universe? Perhaps! If we consider a list of necessary elements that operate this universe I suspect the list is not so long for us to comprehend. Based on my limited knowledge and understanding some of the primary elements are: a special base genetic coding, sub routines including “what if, then, or, etc..” statements programmed into intelligent energy for life form development and operation and manifestation of the universe, various forms of math and physics for nearly every conceivable combination of gas, liquid and matter, various degrees of evolving consciousness and self awareness with fundamental subroutines for autonomous biological functions, instincts for survival, evolving intelligence for communication, tool development for adapting to and mastering of changing environmental conditions, evolving spacial awareness, the ability to define and manipulate various forms of matter, and time to animate the simulation. It makes perfect sense to me for the discovery of not one but multiple programming languages involved in the creation of this universe. Simply observe nature. Everything appears to operate autonomously. Everything appears to knows what it is. Everything behaves, acts and reacts as it’s programming allows it. Every living thing transfers genetic coding and learned behaviors to is progeny. Mankind is no different other then we have the ability to perceive more spatially, calculate test and quantify results to better define, manipulate and understand the elements of life in the universe we live in.

  25. Gary Ehlenberger
    June 11, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    There is a high probability that Code can be found in uncomputable numbers and even transcendental numbers such as Pi, and e, etc.

  26. GAVIN LIDDLE
    June 15, 2016 at 12:08 am

    Did it say this code was discovered in the mathematical equations of supersymmetry? I only mention it because I thought it was recently concluded after extensive work at the lhc that supersymmetric was probably not real

    • Ky Wiss
      June 21, 2016 at 8:57 am

      Hi Gavin,
      There are no experimental (physical) conclusions about supersymmetry as yet. Experiments at the LHC are in the early phases and are ongoing. So far nothing has been proven or unproven. And yes, this code was found in the mathematically equations used to describe supersymmetry.

  27. Nate
    June 23, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    Simulation theory explains relativity with regards to time. This simulation may take 1 hour to run to our actual beings, but change the parameters in the simulation and it feels like a life time.

    Gates found Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Codes in string theory. They are vital in the exchange of digital information as they monitor code sent and measure it against what’s already know, self-adjusting as required in order to accurately. Transmit and receive the correct information. Instructions on how to transmit and receive information is in string theory. We are information. Everything is just information.

  28. Tonia Feagle
    July 9, 2016 at 4:46 am

    Why wouldn’t we find code that created life amongst the creation of computers in the way that we seek. To seek is human seeking to be the creator. We create this www in our life as the webs of string that is life. You desire to be on the outside looking in can be connected with minds eye. We do exsist in two places and we are the creator of the computer we are exsisting in or symilation that you speak. We created the computers with coders from life. We know these codes by listening to our mind. The equation then drawn out is us making our simulated life appear. You can see it clearly through both sides by see with minds eye.

  29. Romanos
    July 26, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    Having read the paper that this pertains to, the article is, unfortunately, almost completely wrong.
    The paper itself says nothing of the sort. It simply shows (and although I do have a PhD in mathematics the abstract itself which contains no equations per se makes its conclusions clear enough) that all the possible string theories can be catalogued in exactly the same way that certain sets of error correcting codes could be classified. This is very very far away from claiming that a code has been found in string theory itself that points to a simulation. The simulation hypothesis, though interesting, is weak in the same sense that the Anthropic principle is weak. Because we only have one example to look at, we cannot claim that we are or are not a “special” case because we have no idea what the norm is. For example, the majority of universes may be such that it would never be possible to simulate a universe as complex as our own – something the simulation hypothesis assumes as a given. We also don’t even know for certain that we can simulate a universe as complex as our own at all – we might think that there is a good chance, but given that we haven’t even developed a single AI yet, it is far too early to tell.
    Regardless of all, this paper though correct really doesn’t do much except note some connections between the way we describe the universe through string theory and coding. Given the number of uncertainties here, anyone who truly believes that we are in a simulation has far more faith than even the most radical religious believer.

    • Ky Wiss
      August 26, 2016 at 9:01 am

      Hi Romanos,
      You may have been a little too quick to dismiss that there has been no actual code found (There really has).

      When interviewed on a panel in New York by Neil Degrasse Tyson – This is what Dr Stephen Gates personally said on the matter:

      Neil Degrasse Tyson: ‘Wait… As you dig deeper, you find computer code written in the fabric of the cosmos?’

      Dr Stephen Gates: ‘In the equations that we wish to use to describe the cosmos – yes’

      Neil Degrasse Tyson: ‘Computer Code!?!’

      Dr Stephen Gates: ‘Yes, strings of bits of 1’s and 0’s’.

      Neil Degrasse Tyson: ‘You’re not just saying it resembles computer code, you’re saying it IS computer code?’

      Dr Stephen Gates: ‘It’s not just IS computer code – it’s a special kind of computer code that was invented by a scientist named Claude Shannon in the 1940’s’.

      You can listen to him state this in his own words here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZKmyMaG40o

  30. jason
    July 27, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    I like this theory, it a great piece to ponder. Personally I have always made the link to genetic coding when it comes to these apparent error correcting codes. What would a conciousness conclude in the dark of its mothers womb before its birth into the outside world? The multitude of atoms and molecules in a dance of orchestrated possibilities, its reminiscent of the sub atomic world. If we are the progeny of this tree of life then it follows we will eventually become the tree as well. 3D is a womb, and were all going to have to get the hell out :)

  31. david cignoni
    August 28, 2016 at 2:26 am

    2 things- if they found, ” something rather interesting buried deep within the mathematical equations of super symmetry…” …didn’t they write those equations themselves…can’t see how anything that they didn’t write got into their own equations…..next—-whoever wrote this simulation did a poor job….let’s hope if we get good enough at quantum computing we can do a damn better job….how about making the stars a lot closer than they are so we can actually travel to them for one…? A simulation where we can see the universe but never get there SUCKS!

  32. zep
    August 29, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    If one single programmer designed this matrix/universe in private, I wonder if he (or she) took credit for The Beatles…?

  33. Clive Stellings
    September 28, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    If an entity created a simulation of a universe it would require some resources such as storage and memory. Then a simulated entity created a simulation in the simulation then that would require resources in the simulation. Then an entity in the next level of simulation created a simulation then that would require similar resources and so on and son on. At some point I feel you would run out of resources to create the next level of simulation as each level would have a smaller and smaller section of the the next level universe above. Something has got to give at some point.

    “I would also recommend you look into what happens when we get down to the planck length – The Universe appears to become pixelated.”

    The comment above cannot have validity at this point

    • Ky Wiss
      September 28, 2016 at 8:35 pm

      If a simulation created another simulation, would it not use ‘simulated’ resources to do so?
      Like a fractal process maybe…

  34. Mike
    September 29, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    The elephant in the room which I haven’t heard mentioned before, even from philosophers, is ‘what is the definition of real’ ? Until someone can clearly define ‘real’, it’s difficult to say whether or not we’re in a ‘simulation’.

    • Elise
      February 16, 2017 at 2:42 pm

      “actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.”

  35. gta
    October 31, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    All we are playing a game called GTA

  36. February 7, 2017 at 9:28 pm

    It’s surprising to find on theawakenment.com a resource so precious about equations.

    We will note your page as a benchmark for Theoretical Physicist
    James Gates finds computer code in string theory equation .

    We also invite you to link and other web resources for equations like http://equation-solver.org/ or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation.
    Thank you ang good luck!

  37. rletzgus@yahoo.com
    February 17, 2017 at 11:22 pm

    Why does it need to migrate towards advanced ancestors to be the code generators or the owners of the computers we live in? If they were able to simulate a universe of “us’s” then why wouldn’t they just put themselves in a simulated undamaged simulation. They coukd effectively make themselves “gods”

    It may be a single Supreme Being “God”. That always is or has been and “made” this simulation for “himself” so that he could experience all things.

  38. john mayfield
    June 5, 2017 at 7:56 am

    I agree. i came up with this idea of a simulation on my own while trying to understand how the universe began. the idea of what pre-dated the big bang is baffling.. even if matter can expand.. the beginning.. doesn’t make sense.. input had to come from somewhere. I also wonder about black holes. perhaps. a black hole is a error.. lack of data. perhaps a chunk or cluster of memory failed. and what we visualize from that is a blank void.
    it’s logical to me. that any intelligent species should come to the same logical goals.. #1. live forever. #2 obtain all knowledge.. we may be part of #2. weather it is to study evolution, learn of their own origins by simulating their creation, quite simply if we were to render and generate a simulation of our universe perfectly we could learn of the past, the creation of our planet, all life on it, and even the future by watching our simulation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *