Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,552 answers , 19,366 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
411 active unimported users
More ...

Is this pseudo science or real: code found in superstring

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
10746 views

Article in question: http://humansarefree.com/2013/01/science-strange-computer-code.html

Problem: no credible looking or sounding site has anything on it. Only bunch of youtube videos. And some sites.

Here is the relevant paper on ArXiv

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Muhammad Umer
asked Nov 1, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Muhammad Umer (5 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
it's simple question no need to hate.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Muhammad Umer
-1 downvoted, because you only post a link. You should at least rephrase in your own words the contents and what your specific concern or doubt is.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Bernhard
It would be better to have more in the question, but it is interesting.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Philip Gibbs
I stopped reading after this "Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct)" ; This is very naive. We have not managed to create life, even if we put together all of the chemicals that compose a cell. A dead person has all the chemicals of a live person but we cannot bring a dead person to life. How can it follow logically that if you simulated a person in a computer the simulation would be alive! logical error there.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user anna v
Philip Gibbs gave quite a good answer to this. Voting to reopen/

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0
Most recent comments show all comments
@Sklivvz: It's not incorrect. See the post history.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0
if i had understood it i'd have rephrased it.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Muhammad Umer

1 Answer

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

The work being described is by Prof S. James Gates and it has a serious basis. He has noted that the supersymmetric equations of string theory contain some binary codes built in. These are the same as odes sometimes used in computing for error correcting. I think he means the self dual 8-bit Hamming code in particular. He constructs mysterious looking diagrams which he calls "adinkra" to encapsulate these structures. I don't think many other people have adopted this terminology.

Gates has hyped this quite a bit suggestion that it is a sign that we are living in a computer simulation as in the film "The Matrix". The video linked to is hyping this even further.

In fact these codes are ubiquitous in several areas of mathematics. They are associated with sphere packings, lattices, reflection groups, octonions and exceptional Lie algebras (especially E8) It is not particularly remarkable to see these coming up in string theory. There are other string theorists looking at these structures in a less hyped way to understand the role of algebraic concepts such as octonions and E8. See e.g. papers by Mike Duff and collaborators.

People working on quantum computing are also looking at these codes which are examples of stabilizer codes that can be generated as eigenvectors of Pauli matrices. They hope that the codes can be used to prevent decoherence and that this would make multi-qubit quantum computation feasible.

It is always possible that these codes could play some kind of error correcting role in string theory preventing uncontolled decoherence of spacetime, but this is pure speculation and it is not clear if such a mechanism is even needed. In any case these are natural mathematical structures and there is certainly no indication that they have been programmed in to the laws of physics as implied in the video. It is not as if they have discovered sequences of coded instructions that the laws of physics are following.

It is an interesting intellectual exercise to think about the way the universe might run like a computer or quantum computer. but suggesting that we are living in a matrix-like simulation is unjustified.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Philip Gibbs
answered Nov 1, 2013 by Philip Gibbs (650 points) [ no revision ]
+1; Thanks for the explanation.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0
People who upvote my answer may also want to vote to reopen the question so that more answers could be added

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Philip Gibbs
Didn't Newton, just like people today, do the same sort of thing - look for codes in the Bible?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Larry Harson
@philip gibbs thanks for taking time to answer it. I still don't get it all but now i know it's just not pseudo science. And before my question was buried in migration, - votes, and close requests.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 13:39 (UCT), posted by SE-user Muhammad Umer

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...