

Has James Gates Discovered Computer Code in String Theory Equations? [2012] - xd
http://www.transcend.ws/has-james-gates-discovered-computer-code-in-string-theory-equations-welcome-to-the-matrix/

======
tlarkworthy
This is a link to Gate's layman writup of the work
[http://www.onbeing.org/program/uncovering-codes-
reality/feat...](http://www.onbeing.org/program/uncovering-codes-
reality/feature/symbols-power-adinkras-and-nature-reality/1460)

Hamming codes are in the equations, which he thinks is a sign that someone put
them there. Or alternatively, perhaps its impossible for an information
preserving universe to exist without them (anthropic principle)

------
d_theorist
Can somebody who is not brain dead (as the author of the article seems to be)
summarise what Gates actually means? I can't watch the video because I'm at
work and the article itself is completely devoid of meaningful content.

~~~
bandy
Well, you see, first you get some really good pot and a few tabs of acid, and
then…

------
bdfh42
I think it is reasonable to assume that the observable universe is an
"emergent property" of some fairly simple and straightforward "rules". But
therein lies a great difficulty - even if/when we get to the rules they will
be very difficult to relate to the physics we observe.

The fact that the underlying "rules" might be simple and thus might be
conceived of as some sort of program hardly leads one to the conclusion that
reality is a computer simulation.

~~~
Pamar
Isn't this basically what Stephen Wolfram was describing in "A new kind of
science"?

------
kdavis
It's not quite as spectacular as it sounds[1].

I've not read the paper, but it seems as if they've just found a convenient
way to describe supermultiplets in 1D using doubly even codes[2].

[1] [http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4124](http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4124)

[2] [http://planetmath.org/evencode](http://planetmath.org/evencode)

------
sp332
Nope, and here's why: If you take a valid code and flip one bit, you get an
invalid code. But if you take a particle and (somehow) change one attribute,
you get a completely valid particle. It's impossible to change just one
attribute at a time, but you can wander around the graph and eventually arrive
at every point.

~~~
ofthecaribbean
Like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_Out_%28game%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_Out_%28game%29)
?

But I don't see how your explanation is compatible with their claim that found
a neat structure like a "doubly even self-dual linear" ECC. _If_ their claim
is that all transitions maintain that structure, then you are guaranteed to
stay inside the structure no matter how long you wander around the graph.

~~~
chiph
I was thinking more like a Drunkard's Walk[1]. Eventually, every possible
location (state) will be visited.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk)

~~~
ofthecaribbean
If you have an integer random walk and the step sizes are multiples of 3, you
cannot reach a location that is not a multiple of 3. The ECC structure they
described is similar to the set of multiples of 3: for example, an analog
computer trying to simulate such a walk would periodically round the location
to the nearest multiple of 3 to counter the effects of noise. The rounding
does not change correct computations (becase they would already be multiples
of 3), but it increases the likelihood that the result of the computation is
correct.

------
xntrk
wouldn't the more obvious conclusion be that the Hamming codes are a
reflection of the universe instead of the other way around....

------
tiatia
You can test for a computer simulation: [http://www.simulation-
argument.com/](http://www.simulation-argument.com/)

------
jotm
Yes, I'm sure our Universe runs on $hitty assembler code (or maybe it's C and
Java?) :-)

------
qwerta
Why I am reading this crap?

