Thread: The Universal Code Theory

Oh joy, no replies yet and the thread's rating has dropped 2 stars. Well, I don't give a shit, so there!

I'm just expressing a theory that may not even be true in the hopes that someone will take the time to read and consider it.

If this dies, whatever I don't care

Seems reasonable enough. Stuff we don't have equations for, we just lack constants or the type of math necessary(remember how long it too for the world outside of Arabia to start using the number zero?)

Yay a tentative supporter!

True what you said, the things that we don't know how to render mathematically yet are just too advanced for the current knowledge of humanity to tackle.

But everything can be. Every day we discover more.

If this is true, emotions are nothing but variables stored in the brain and Mary the brilliant color scientist will learn nothing.

lol Replicon

Exactly what I mean.

EDIT: @TimeStopper: No, because maybe qualia are variables as well. Maybe our brains are able to simulate so damn well that they can produce new, simulated variables that cause qualia to us upon experiencing. You know that the brain is capable of amazing simulation that feels like real experience and gives you a sense of being and all that. Look at how vivid and mind-expanding our dreams can be

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

No, because maybe qualia are variables as well. Maybe our brains are able to simulate so damn well that they can produce new, simulated variables that cause qualia to us upon experiencing. You know that the brain is capable of amazing simulation that feels like real experience and gives you a sense of being and all that. Look at how vivid and mind-expanding our dreams can be

Uhmm... what did you just say?

I totally see what you're getting at.

The conscious manifest is then... something else. How can pain be expressed in equations? Or colours? Pain I guess could be but what about colours?

You've got me thinking... I hate it

This universal code is all numbers and equations, digits, symbols, and formulae. I know not how they are exactly represented, perhaps like random series of black dots on a white paper, which express certain number denominations by their density and presence, but…

Um, we are it. What exactly are you looking for...?

This theory is supported quantum mechanics and also by one specific quantum fact: that atoms do not exist until they are consciously observed. When not consciously being observed or otherwise taken note of, they simply are not. Don’t ask me how they discovered this, they just did. I think that it came as a result of one quantum equation, and fitted perfectly into another, so they agree that it must be true since it works with everything.

ERROR: SHIT LOGIC. DIVIDE BY ZERO, DOES NOT COMPUTE.

I don't know enough about numbers to argue efficiently. But, please note that equations are relationships. Not numbers.

Also, you are looking at this far too linearly.

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

This theory is supported quantum mechanics and also by one specific quantum fact: that atoms do not exist until they are consciously observed. When not consciously being observed or otherwise taken note of, they simply are not. Don’t ask me how they discovered this, they just did. I think that it came as a result of one quantum equation, and fitted perfectly into another, so they agree that it must be true since it works with everything.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't quite the case. In my physics classes, as well as a few quantum mechanic lectures I've watched, it has usually been said that atoms exist in every possible position at once until they are observed. The observer locks them into their position in reality. I think the double slit experiment shows that quite nicely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-..._of_experiment

As for the rest of your post, I was actually about to start a thread similar to this and was happy to see someone had already started! I agree with the idea that basically everything can be explained by numbers. However, one thing I don't quite agree with is that you say that with the proper technology everything can be explained with infinite precision. The problem with that is once you get small enough, as in smaller than quarks, things begin to be expressed in probabilities. This means that you can't ever quite define the location of anything quantum sized, only where it might be.

That doesn't really seem to be a problem except that some people believe if you can completely define everything, then that could mean that if you had the equation for everything you could essentially have a "life" calculator that you could input a problem and have it tell you exactly what would happen. This would include things like human decisions. Basically, there is no such thing as free will, just your brain doing what the universal code says it will do under the right forces. However, since our brains may take advantage of quantum mechanics, if we do operate on probabilities then we could never properly define what a person would do in a given situation. I feel like I'm kind of going off on a tangent though...

Back to your idea that our brain is just taking in numbers and simulating a world around us. I believe that that is exactly what is happening. All your brain is is a computer that takes in input from your senses, and provides output to your body. Really, it doesn't matter what the makeup of the universe is. What we feel is just how our brain interprets it. This idea is what has had me really excited about virtual realities for a long time. The companies at the forefront of virtual reality are creating ridiculous helmets that spray scents into your nose, or full body suits that press your nerves to simulate touch. All that is really needed is a way to stop your brain from receiving input from your senses, and start receiving input from a computer. With a computer fast enough to simulate the universe, your brain wouldnt be able to tell the difference. It is receiving input in the exact format that it was evolved to receive it in.

I'm sure this isn't a unique idea, but it is one that I have had for a long time. The problem is that the equations needed to define everything would be massive. There are some problems out there with equations so large that it takes teams of hundreds of mathmeticians just to create them. Having enough equations for every single possible situation in the universe would be a ridiculously daunting task. One nice solution to that is what are called "simple programs". It is the idea that a simple program, with a small set of rules, when run creates staggeringly complex patterns as a result. These are programs that can be made with a few lines of code, and can be explained with a few sentences in plain english. It sounds kind of ridiculous that a simple program could have such complex results, but this article explains some of the details better than I ever could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science

An implication of simple programs would be that the universe is run with just a simple program. All of the equations that we know as physics, as well as constants that seem to pop up everywhere like pi and the golden ratio, are effects of the simple program. When run these are patterns that emerge from the programming. This is in contrast with the idea that they are all part of the program itself. If you were to look at all of the equations in physics you would see what situations are possible in the world. With the simple equation you would have no idea until you ran it. It also means that you could never predict what is going to happen next in a simple program. Since it gives you no clues as to what patterns will emerge, you have to just run it and find out. This theory also lends itself pretty well to free will. Since extremely complex behavior, like that of the universe, is all said to have these simple programs as their framework, the brain can be said to follow the same principles. If its behavior is complex enough, then it may have a simple program as its framework. If so, then it is impossible to predict what the program will do. All that can be done is to let the program run and see what happens.

This post has turned out to be way longer than I thought it would be. Forgive what seems like rambling, this stuff just gets me kind of excited The TL;DR version of this would be that in essence I do agree that the universe has an equation, but I don't think it really matters. Even if it is numbers, we still experience it and get a chance to live in it. Even the illusion of life feels like life, so it doesn't really matter. The only real implication would be that if it is all just data, it seems possible that we could take the "input wires" from our brains and hook them up to a computer, run our own simple program, and live in another seemingly real universe.

How can pain be expressed in equations? Or colours? Pain I guess could be but what about colours?

Colors are just determined by the frequency of light. Light from 380nm to 750nm is visible to us, and is interpreted by the brain as color. If you know the frequency of light, you know what color it is.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

I'm pretty sure that this isn't quite the case. In my physics classes, as well as a few quantum mechanic lectures I've watched, it has usually been said that atoms exist in every possible position at once until they are observed. The observer locks them into their position in reality. I think the double slit experiment shows that quite nicely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-..._of_experiment

Yes, now I remember... you are correct. I misremembered. It's not that we make them exist, it's that we make them appear at a certain point in the universe instead of being randomly distributed or just compacted into one tiny glob of all of the matter in the entire universe, by our conscious observation of them.

Originally Posted by Cont'd...

As for the rest of your post, I was actually about to start a thread similar to this and was happy to see someone had already started! I agree with the idea that basically everything can be explained by numbers. However, one thing I don't quite agree with is that you say that with the proper technology everything can be explained with infinite precision. The problem with that is once you get small enough, as in smaller than quarks, things begin to be expressed in probabilities. This means that you can't ever quite define the location of anything quantum sized, only where it might be.

That doesn't really seem to be a problem except that some people believe if you can completely define everything, then that could mean that if you had the equation for everything you could essentially have a "life" calculator that you could input a problem and have it tell you exactly what would happen. This would include things like human decisions. Basically, there is no such thing as free will, just your brain doing what the universal code says it will do under the right forces. However, since our brains may take advantage of quantum mechanics, if we do operate on probabilities then we could never properly define what a person would do in a given situation. I feel like I'm kind of going off on a tangent though...

Back to your idea that our brain is just taking in numbers and simulating a world around us. I believe that that is exactly what is happening. All your brain is is a computer that takes in input from your senses, and provides output to your body. Really, it doesn't matter what the makeup of the universe is. What we feel is just how our brain interprets it. This idea is what has had me really excited about virtual realities for a long time. The companies at the forefront of virtual reality are creating ridiculous helmets that spray scents into your nose, or full body suits that press your nerves to simulate touch. All that is really needed is a way to stop your brain from receiving input from your senses, and start receiving input from a computer. With a computer fast enough to simulate the universe, your brain wouldnt be able to tell the difference. It is receiving input in the exact format that it was evolved to receive it in.

I'm sure this isn't a unique idea, but it is one that I have had for a long time. The problem is that the equations needed to define everything would be massive. There are some problems out there with equations so large that it takes teams of hundreds of mathmeticians just to create them. Having enough equations for every single possible situation in the universe would be a ridiculously daunting task. One nice solution to that is what are called "simple programs". It is the idea that a simple program, with a small set of rules, when run creates staggeringly complex patterns as a result. These are programs that can be made with a few lines of code, and can be explained with a few sentences in plain english. It sounds kind of ridiculous that a simple program could have such complex results, but this article explains some of the details better than I ever could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science

An implication of simple programs would be that the universe is run with just a simple program. All of the equations that we know as physics, as well as constants that seem to pop up everywhere like pi and the golden ratio, are effects of the simple program. When run these are patterns that emerge from the programming. This is in contrast with the idea that they are all part of the program itself. If you were to look at all of the equations in physics you would see what situations are possible in the world. With the simple equation you would have no idea until you ran it. It also means that you could never predict what is going to happen next in a simple program. Since it gives you no clues as to what patterns will emerge, you have to just run it and find out. This theory also lends itself pretty well to free will. Since extremely complex behavior, like that of the universe, is all said to have these simple programs as their framework, the brain can be said to follow the same principles. If its behavior is complex enough, then it may have a simple program as its framework. If so, then it is impossible to predict what the program will do. All that can be done is to let the program run and see what happens.

I love you.

Someone who shares my views!!!!

Originally Posted by Cont'd yet again...

This post has turned out to be way longer than I thought it would be. Forgive what seems like rambling, this stuff just gets me kind of excited The TL;DR version of this would be that in essence I do agree that the universe has an equation, but I don't think it really matters. Even if it is numbers, we still experience it and get a chance to live in it. Even the illusion of life feels like life, so it doesn't really matter. The only real implication would be that if it is all just data, it seems possible that we could take the "input wires" from our brains and hook them up to a computer, run our own simple program, and live in another seemingly real universe.

Long posts are good. Do not fear them. They are your friend in being thorough and expressing your thoughts in a complete manner.

Yes, this stuff gets me excited as well!

And I totally agree with your last section there. It doesn't matter because we still experience it even if it is just an illusion. This whole theory is merely a matter of curiosity into the nature of the universe.

Tempting, isn't it?

Go on. Press "play."

You know you want to.

While that is an interesting video, there is a lot I disagree with. I don't mean to be overly critical, but they don't give names for any of the people speaking, and some of the things they say lead me to believe they aren't really doing science, but instead philosophizing about current science. For instance, one man started talking about how there is no such thing as one electron...when it is quite possible to obtain one electron and observe it. Around an atom electrons do form clouds of probability, but it is possible to dislodge them from the atom and observe their behavior. Another man starts talking about quantum entanglement where certain particles become entangled under certain conditions. He then says that since we all began in the same point (the big bang) we are all entangled...but I'm fairly certain that that isn't a result of quantum entanglement. Entangled particles come from the decay of another particle, not from particles being close to one another. Another point I disagree with is that everything around us is infinitely divisible and can never be observed by us. There is indeed a smallest possible distance, known as the planck unit. We are still far from observing the universe to this small scale, but we are on our way, and unlike the video I do believe that we will eventually create technology to observe to that small scale (unless a different theory is right, which I'll talk about further down). Some of the other comments just don't sound like they are coming from people who have been really studying physics (unless they are dumbing down their speech for a layman audience). For instance, towards the end a guy asks why nuclear energy is more efficient than chemical energy. His reasoning is that chemical energy comes from the interaction of atoms in a molecule, whereas nuclear energy from the particles of a nucleus inside an atom. He then says that when you get even smaller, there is infinitely more energy to be harnessed. As far as we know, that isn't true. Chemical energy takes advantage of electromagnetic forces during chemical reactions. Nuclear energy takes advantage of the strong nuclear force that holds the particles of a nucleus together. The only other forces known to us are gravity and the weak nuclear force, which is responsible for particle decay. There is no other "stronger" force holding together subatomic particles. The strong force is responsible for quark interactions. I'm sorry if I seem overly critical of the video, but there were a lot of things that just jumped out at me as inconsistent with what I've learned. If I'm wrong on any of my points let me know.

There were a few ideas I liked though. The idea that our personal world is just what our brain interprets I agree with. I do think there is a reality, but I do think that since we are only receiving signals from it, we can change the signals to experience whatever we want. I don't think our consciousness has to be grounded inside of it. I loved that clip of the matrix, I think I'm going to watch that again soon. Morpheus explains it exactly as I would. I'm actually pursuing a neurobiology degree and am taking it upon myself to try to create a way to intercept the input signals to the brain and send fabricated data to it. If no one creates it before me, I'll be dieing trying, because I don't see what could be better than creating your own reality.

Another concept I find interesting is the idea of time in a fabricated universe. In the "real" world time passes at an apparently fixed rate. We have to observe it at its speed. In lucid dreams, time appears to pass at close to the same speed of real life. Even though it is a fabricated universe, our brains experience it at the same rate. I think that is because our brain, while amazing, can only do so many calculations per second. You could never live a thousand years in one night of sleep because your brain couldn't possibly have the amount of thoughts needed for a thousand years of experience in one night. There just aren't enough neurons. But what if we were to create our own universe on a computer of unimaginable speed. It would no longer be limited by calculations per second, and could provide us with the ability to experience a thousand years in the span of minutes. I personally don't believe our brain is anything more than the physical processes of our brains, and think that a computer could be "hooked up" to the brain and provide extra computational power. In this way, we could speed up the amount of information we process every second, thereby making it possible to decrease the apparent speed of time, maybe to the point where we could live lifetimes a real minute. A machine capable of this would completely shatter any concept of time or reality.

Another idea I do like in theory is the idea that we live in a hologram. The idea is basically that the universe is a 2D surface with information encoded into it. This information is projected into a 3D image, which is what we live in. There was a recent experiment done that gave some validity to the theory. In a hologram, the information is encoded into an N dimensional surface, and projected into an N+1 dimensional space. What happens is that the N+1 dimensional image is not as sharp as the information on the N dimensional surface. I don't like Ns so I'm going to use 2nd and 3rd dimensions. If the information on a hologram is encoded in 1 millimeter bits, then the 3d image it creates will have a resolution of say 1 centimeter. If you try to observe the 3d image down to 1 millimeter it will become blurry, because you can't encode information for 1 millimeter resolution in 3d in 1 millimeter bits on a 2d surface. If you were to take the universe as a hologram, this would mean that the observable universe would become blurry if you look at it with enough precision. Instead of being observable down to planck units, it would be observable to only a few magnitudes of distance larger than the planck unit. This is because the information is encoded on the 2d surface of the universe in bits the size of a planck unit. Some of the most sensitive instruments on earth are those that are used to look for gravity waves. These are extremely hard things to detect. One machine at fermilab has been picking up constant noise on its gravity wave detector, and it is possible that this noise isn't interference. Instead, it is because the detector is attempting to look at something smaller than the resolution of the universe's hologram. The world at that level is too "blurry" to observe. It is a very cool concept, but there is very little evidence to support it. Even the creators make a point to say that it is still a very young theory. But it sure would be cool if we existed on a 2d plane.

Here are some articles on it:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Non sequitur. If I read correctly they said.

P1) "Everything in the universe, every single aspect of everything, can be expressed in numbers and equations."

Therefore

C) "Everything is numbers and equations"

There is a huge difference between is and can be expressed in.

"I totally agree with the first part that everything can be represented by numbers, but I’m not sure that it is IRL, I’m just throwing it out there. Make of it what you will."

Yeah. Everything objective can probably be represented in numbers. Human/Subjective/Mind-generated things like love might not be able to. But that does not mean everything is numbers.

Look up the Double Slit Experiment. Here is an easy-to-understand video on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

If it can be completely expressed in numbers, how is that different from actually being numbers? And Iinked the double slit experiment a few posts ago.