Strange Computer Code Discovered Concealed In Superstring Equations!

For a full professor of physics at a major university, his webpage lists very little original work he did.

[link to umdphysics.umd.edu]

There's the paper I gave in the post above, with five other coauthors, there's a popular piece about that same stuff, and there is this newer (2011) paper with one of the same coauthors, a "beautiful" professor who is probably German but is teaching at the historically black Howard University not far from UMD.

[link to arxiv.org]

The coauthor (on both the academic papers on Gates' site) has a lot more papers listed on his homepage and can be assumed to have provided much (all?) of the horsepower:

[link to www.physics1.howard.edu]

so if this is true, then there is a string of simulations from each level going on. what if the creators of the original simulation died and all simulations within each simulation are buried on a computer in some cave and will run for an eternity or until they figure out that they are just a simulation and unplug themselves. would we ever be able to master our world and break out into their world? what if their world runs on different physics?

what if the computer code is just what god used to create this world, and this is the only world. surely god wouldnt have used something so simple that we figured it out in only a 100 years. or maybe it is that simple. would a creator even allow us to figure it out?

Concealed..... You know physicists WRITE the equations.

lol right? thats like writing a story and being surprised there is a character in there. i wrote it but whats he doing in there!!! ahhhhhh

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,: And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."

Computer code is naturally aligned with the universe as dose everything else around us and within us(In a harmonious frequency).

There are patterns everywhere. You cannot escape them.

The greatest hackers out there are hacking our code of life on an esoteric level.

They are from other dimensions and have been able to hack into ours.

We are getting help from other dimensional beings who actually helped create us.

They do not want the beautiful creation they started to go to wast by some lower level dimensional beings.

But they still want us to evolve on our own.

So that we can understand this experience and move on to the next with complete knowledge and understanding of duality.

These are my thoughts on it from a thread i had created a few weeks back:

I came up with a theory from what i have learned about the web that has been woven to this point:

First we have to understand that the Deep Web has been here sense the beginning of the internet. All it was back than was coding like one poster stated earlier.

That coding was the backbone of what we call the internet today.

Then when we get the introduction to the World Wide Web.

It had to be user friendly for everyone to use and enjoy so they had programers take those codes and create operating systems that ran internet browsers with pictures and links.

The World Wide Web was created as the outer layer.

Over time the internet grew and shed some layers and has became what we have today.

The Deep Web was also growing at a fast pace for many reasons plus all those old layers of coding from the earlier versions of the internet had to go somewhere. Hence my theory why the Deep Web's url's end with onion. Because it has many layers

Thus what we have today is the Dark Web buried below who knows how many layers of random coding.

Yea, I'm sure in parts of those deep layers there may be some crazy shit going on there and very possibly something similar to the Arcons that are mentioned on this forum.

But i will tell you i have so far found no mention of them on the Deep Web where i have been at least.

On a more esoteric level i do know there are patterns in everything around use.

There is order in chaos.

And among the random coding deep down in the dark web there is most definitely a pattern to be discovered and who knows what it has to say.

Thread: I am on the "Deep Web" right now. Ask me a question? (Page 4)

Peace

Last Edited by DoubleHelix on 03/26/2012 03:41 PM

Physicists have found that protons and neutrons, which have dimension, are made up of quarks, which have no dimension but are merely single points.

in other words..something comes in trough the points named quarks which are the main recorded? propulsion things inside the nucleuses of atoms in this reality we named a hologram?

memes are not to mention [link to en.wiktionary.org]

angels of... [link to en.wiktionary.org]

oops...interference ....*angle of refraction

So what exactly is this code, explain like u would to a ten year old.... What does it do?

English
[edit] Noun

angle of refraction (plural angles of refraction)

(optics) The angle between the perpendicular and a ray refracted at a surface

[edit] Translations
[hide ▲]optics: angle between perpendicular and refracted ray
Select targeted languages

Finnish: taitekulma (fi)

Hides in equations written by some other human and freaks out conspiracy theorist retards.


It's like if you took every 3rd letter of the bible and lined em up, wooooooooooooooh secret code

Tat_Tvam_Asi [link to en.wikipedia.org]

3 spin states is exactly like saying 3 co-rdinates or 3 sizes Length width height.

And all co ordinates are Ida set of numerical data.

Thus not only is everything definable in a numerical form because numbers are infinitesimal the universe though large is finite everything everywhere since the dawn of time is already encoded in the sequenceofnumbers that. Starts at zero and ends at infinity.
Eg your date of birth xx/yy/zzzz is simply a number as is your death date the geographical co ordinates of your birthplace and place of death your weight went born your weight when you die the number of protons and neutrons in your body at both times mall are numbers and each and every number possible ALREADY exists whether you like it or not.

It's all ones and zeros when you get down to it.

Wrong terminology is being used in discussion, and that causes confusion. It's not computer code that is embedded within superstring equations, nor is this world a computer simulation.

What that guy is saying is that there is an instance of a very specific class of mathematical functions that is embedded within those equations. That class of functions is commonly known as Error Correction Protocols. There is an infinite number (in theory) of such protocols in the class, but all of them share the same property - the ability to recover 'correct' information from potential 'corruption'.

The proper terminology to use, therefore, would be to say that Reality (the true Reality), is an unbounded field of all possible information configurations (of which there is an infinite number... in theory), while this particular 'reality' we now share is a field of all possible information configurations bounded by the built-in error correction protocol.

It's a strictly theoretical distinction... until one realizes that all error correction protocols/functions also have (at least one) built-in weakness.

It is well known that under very specific circumstances (which, for truly well built functions can have probability of occurrence below 10^-20) the function can enter an unstable state, much similar to resonance known from classical physics.

Under such specific circumstances, all kinds of 'weird' shit start happening. Previously 'impossible' information configurations start popping out of nowhere, and while in Information Theory one might label those configurations as simple 'garbage', in physics... one might even call them 'scientific breakthroughs' or something. In 'sorcery', on the other hand, one might not call them anything, and just use them without having any understanding of how or why they work.

However, a truly smart function designer would foresee the 'corruption' problem long before it happened in practice, and would split 'correct' information into, more-or-less, independent information blocks. Each block of information would be 'protected' by the built-in error correction protocol, so that if one of the blocks became corrupted, other blocks would still remain unaffected.

Therefore, think of 'elementary particles' as such, more-or-less, independent information blocks. When one 'particle' 'decays' into another 'particle'/information block, there is a (very, very, very... VERY) short moment in which that information block is in an undefined state (meaning - potentially 'corrupted', 'physically impossible', 'magical', or whatever your preference may be).

That undefined state may either be a 'correct' information block, or an 'incorrect' one. If it's a 'correct' one, error correction protocol locks it into that new state, but if it's an 'incorrect' one, it gets 'corrected' ('most' of the time, at least) by the protocol before anyone 'notices' anything 'strange'.

Either way, it takes an incredible amount of energy, or an even more incredible amount of 'luck', in order to use an inherent weakness of the built-in error correction protocol.

The fate of this place has definitely been sealed. Whether anyone gets out of it 'alive' is only up to each and every one of those now stuck in it... and some are, most definitely and beyond any doubt, NOT getting out.

Payback is a bitch, and revenge is best served cold... or so they say. We'll have plenty of time to see and enjoy that last meal in this world.

I've been thinking about the implications of error codes existing at the very fundamental levels of quantum physics and have come up with some possible theories on their function and or purpose.

For one, error codes are used widely in modern technology for the preservation of information that is either stored or transmitted. The codes are to protect from "noise" that can flaw the original data when it is retrieved or reconstructed. Therein lies possibly the key in understanding error correction codes and their purpose at the quantum level.

I imagine whatever is the quantum particle or wave or element at it's most irreducible level represents information about it's state. That information could be a few number of physical parameters like position or velocity, energy, vibration, frequency or perhaps some yet undiscovered physical parameter that is encoded as information, information that might get corrupted by some quantum level "noise"

Now in this quantum world, where our quantum "particle" would exist, I imagine "particle" translations, be it displacement or motion such as that which we can observe with a regular object (in the classical world), is not the same in the quantum world. At the quantum scale, such "particles" could be something like a Brownian motion that acts on particles with discrete displacements. In other words there is no smooth motion of quantum "particles" but sudden appearances and disappearances from one point in space to another of a particular quantum particle. Much like some kind of "quantum teleportation." This is where correcting error codes might come to play.

Data that is transmitted in a signal, the data corrupted by noise, is error checked and reconstructed at the point it arrives at. Apply this concept to our quantum particle, it disappears in one place and when it does reappears error correcting codes check that the quantum particle is fully reconstructed with the correct information and state it had the moment it disappeared.

Well, that would be my guess as I ponder more.

That's the problem with analogies. They make us feel comfortable by giving us impression that we understand something we really don't.

OK, here's an analogy that is going to explain nothing, and yet still give us that comforting feeling of understanding. The bad news is that's this 'explanation' is going to pull us even more into (completely wrong) 'computer simulation' view of this world.

Those familiar with Dynamic Random Access Memory refreshing can skip the following link:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

The gist of this 'explanation' is that 'refreshing' of this world happens at intervals of Planck time.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Every 10^-44 seconds, information in this 'reality' is 'read', (potentially) 'corrected', and then 'rewritten' (or 'reconstructed', if you prefer). Why? Well, therein lies the rub.

The two words that should explain it are:
a) predictability
b) controllability

Heck, I've been repeating those two words for ages now, but I have impression that none have been listening. So let me explain them again.

Quote:
"Controllability is an important property of a control system, and the controllability property plays a crucial role in many control problems, such as stabilization of unstable systems by feedback, or optimal control.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]


Can't find a proper quote, but this one can do the job:
"In stochastic analysis a random process is a predictable process if it is possible to know the "next" state at the present time." (with present and next state being separated by the length of Planck time)
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

These two properties of systems are tightly correlated.

First of all, you can't have a controllable system without having at least some degree of (reliable) prediction of the system's (future) behavior.

And, second of all, you can't have a (reliably) predictable system if that system can take an infinite number of possible states. Anything that has an infinite number of states is not a system, is not predictable, and sure as hell is not controllable by any stretch of imagination.

In that regard, and that regard alone, this 'reality' perfectly fits definition of a predictable and controllable system (artificially designed, since all systems are of artificial design). But the fact that this reality is artificially designed does not imply that it's a simulation, be it computer simulation, or any other kind of simulation.

Rather, when I mentioned bounded information configurations, I was referring to constraining an infinite number of possible configurations to just a fraction of configurations (an infinitely small fraction, compared to infinity) that offers 'optimal control' over the system's behavior.

Now, there's another property of information (and systems) that you may want to consider:
c) usability

Mathematicians will feel more at home if they compare (true) Reality with the set of R (real numbers, as in 1.234567890123... up to infinite number of decimals), and this 'reality' with a subset of N (natural numbers, as in 1,2,3,4,5... up to infinite number of decimals), with that subset containing, let's say, only the numbers 1,2 and 3.

You have to take just a subset of N because the set of N is 'as much infinite' (let's not go into comparing infinities here) as set R, and that makes it as much useless for any kind of system design as the set R. Both sets, R and N, have usability of 0 when it comes to system design (parts of the system may use R or N, but the system, as a whole, must be constrained and finite).

In this little example, we could have number 1 corresponding to electron, number 2 to proton, and number 3 to neutron. All the rest of the 'elementary particles' from the particle zoo would simply 'not exist'.

What a wonderfully simple world that would be, wouldn't it? There would be no more headaches for physicists secretly shitting their pants (but at the same time, cheering in the public) as they wait for results of the next experiment from an even bigger particle accelerator.

Physicists, just like mathematicians, like simple (mathematical) solutions, so just imagine their utter panic if an infinity suddenly stared them back in their faces, and all the walls of that (so methodically
and carefully built) zoo of 'elementary particles', and all of their (nice and simple mathematical) formulas, came crashing down. What would happen to their jobs if they suddenly realized that Mathematics itself was simply a result of the system's design. That outside of that system there is no Mathematics at all, and without Mathematics... there is no Physics either...

What above analogy says is that this 'reality' is just an infinitely small 'subset' of Reality. This 'reality' is not computer simulation, but simply constraint of a much (infinitely) larger 'set'. This subset contains all the 'elementary particles' and their relations, which together make all 'possible' ('correct') information configurations.

Error correcting part of those equations, therefore, consists of 'rounding off' infinitely large number of arbitrary information configurations by mapping them to the nearest 'correct' ones. Only 'correct' ones are allowed to exist within 'physical time', and since they tend to 'wonder off' and 'get corrupted', they have to be 'corrected' ceaselessly.

And therein lies the source of probabilistic behavior of Quantum Mechanics. This 'reality' is not deterministic, but it is predictable. In short, it is probabilistic.

But to get back to the purpose of this system.

Usability is a rather tricky concept to define, but I think that we can safely say that no one would ever attempt to create a system that would have absolutely no use whatsoever for the system's designer. And therein lies the second rub.

The concept of a useful system implies that someone (system's designer) is using (as in abusing) the system for one or more purposes that are useful to the system's designer.

Every use, unless it's consentual and symbiotic, implies abuse by one side using the other. And since I don't remember anyone coming down here to speak on designer's behalf (or the designer himself), allowing people to freely move in and out of the system, the only possible conclusion that I can draw is that the use of this particular system is neither consentual nor symbiotic. This is a perfectly clear and indisputable case of abuse.

On the 'funny' side of the story (if one can call any abuse funny), I am absolutely certain that someone is eventually going to come down here, in the 'past', 'present', or 'future', and claim that system's designer told him (or her) that he 'Loves' his creation so much, and that 'Love' is 'the only answer to all', and that we'll all leave this system for a better and happier place 'out there', if only we are 'good' and 'kind' (meaning - obedient), and 'full of love and grace for the system's designer'... or some other equally stupid thing.

We all know what people I'm talking about, right? There were scores and scores of them throughout the history (and, I bet, not just Human history), but almost all of them must have been forgotten long, long time ago. We only remember like a handful of them, don't we? There must have been thousands, maybe even more.

Either way, one thing everyone can count on is that once a system (any system of abuse) starts showing 'abnormal behavior' (that is, a tendency to liberate itself from control), designers of that system are going to try everything in their power to return the system to 'normal'. Meaning - a predictable, controllable, and usable state.

I am actually counting on that, since that would, pretty much beyond any doubt, level the whole play field.

The only alternative would be to let the whole system explode in designer's own face, and I very much doubt that any designer worth his salt would ever want to have his system explode in his face. Any alternative to a direct and explicit manipulation inside the system (in order to 'stabilize' it) is, therefore, simply nonexistent.

Hence the name ~ theory ...

And you can be so sure when it is those I'm sure more educated making those theories?

Judging by expressions on the faces on some "important" people out there, I'd guess that physicists have finally got their answer. But, just in case you've got stuck at simple problems (and their solutions), let me give you a quick explanation of why complete superstring theory 'must' be 12-dimensional.

Sphere packings and lattices
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Either way you look at it, there's certainly not much time left. I wonder if 'reset' would be appropriate word for what is going to happen? 'Shutdown' maybe? Or 'waking up'? Or, my favorite - 'payback time'?

Should be possible to hack RL then.

[link to www.onbeing.org]