Show HN: An effort to explore the Simulation Theory
Unfortunately, this was a bit to long to fit into HN's submission text field:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/HDA5M1MJEC#JcyAWGpy9PXl
It's 6 pages consisting of explanations/examples of logic/code to arrive at the conclusions.
It also just occurred that the "ID" part turns into "13", as in what will be aired in "Best Moments Of" re-broadcasts on TV next Monday, the 13th.
It would especially be appreciated if someone was knowledgeable enough to write a program figuring out the probability of all this being coincidental.
Anyway, should you care to amuse yourself with "something different", again, the document is 6 pages (1 of which is mostly images).
For anyone who downloaded it in and took the time to read it, thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
10 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 31.5 ms ] threadMaybe I can put your mind to rest, though? Language is a system of patterns at the end of the day - you're not wrong for noticing these similarities, but you'd be wise to acknowledge them as subjective. Your mind is fabricating these correlations because that's what it wants to do. They aren't inherently wrong, but their correctness is not enforced by any logic or laws of the known universe I'm aware of.
>It's hard to correlate your findings with real-world evidence of a simulated universe
>I'm not sure if there is such a program that could prove you right or wrong here
That's why I think it would be useful if someone were to be able to write a program calculating all the possible outcomes as the "denominator", the findings in the document being the numerator; way beyond my ability as my experience with such things is limited to having messed around a little bit with MATLAB back in school.
>Your mind is fabricating these correlations because that's what it wants to do.
Is it tough? Because it's quite the working set of correlations.
And to be truthful, it's not that "my mind is fabricating" these things as much as "this is where these things wind up going" ... provided you have a condition set of "I'd like to derive (1) a clear message (2) of relevance (3) in such a fashion that there are no superfluous remainders as numbers/letters/words."
Obviously this is not a civil court case but if it were, do you think what was presented would meet the criteria for "a preponderance of circumstantial evidence", which would be acceptable in such a setting?
Add to that the probability of all this happening to fall into place "just so" ...
> but their correctness is not enforced by any logic or laws of the known universe I'm aware of.
Well, if the past is any indication of the future, such things are always in the process of being discovered.
Having said that, this is just a suggestion for "a way" of gathering "something" as evidence for Simulation Theory using probabilities.
Is it something that is commonly accepted? No, of course not.
But as I read/watched videos on the subject, one of the things that was noticeably missing was any discussion along the lines of "and here's how we're going about the process of figuring out if this is true".
So what was presented, while not perfect, is just "something" along that line to get the discussion going.
And "something" is better than "nothing", which as far as I can tell is where the current discussion rests.
I could be wrong and for all I know computer scientists/physicists who subscribe to the theory, or at least it's realistic probability, may very well have some method of going about calculating the odds of such a thing that they as yet have not disclosed to the public.
In the absence of knowledge of such things, this is a start, however "weird", in that direction.
Anyway, thank again for taking the time to read it and reply.
Let's be real, though: your answers are not deterministic. Someone else could do the same process you have (a-la "I'd like to derive...") and end up with entirely different answers. In that sense, these answers are being "made up", even if you have a general train-of-thought for each derivative.
If you want to study simulation theory in earnest, I'd abandon the numerology and start investigating the physics of entropy and other calculable indications of complexity. It's much easier to prove, and a lot friendlier to the scientific method.
Deterministic would be "100% causal".
That's not what's being said at all with this. What's being said is, "In the absence of anyone being able to come up with something 100% deterministic to further investigate this theory, how about we first start with "highly-probable", derived by the improbability of everything you just read falling into place "just so" ... by sheer accident.
Of course, you're suggesting personal bias:
>> "Someone else could do the same process you have (a-la "I'd like to derive...") and end up with entirely different answers."
It may seem so and people I've shown other, less involved, far less complex versions of this sort of thing are always quick to suggest that (Dunning Kruger Effect), and yet when challenged to do so, I've yet to see someone prove this assertion by following the following criteria (all of them need to be met to make any decrypted messages worthwhile):
(1) Must be relevant to original starting point (2) Must be relevant to actual happenings, either current, historical, or future (3) Must have no superfluous numbers, letters or words left as remainders
The third part is particularly stringent and as I've developed familiarity with this practice over YEARS, the reality is simply that "only certain avenues of decryption are open" that even meet THAT criteria ... and the ones that do, tend to automatically meet criteria (1) and (2).
So, basically, if people can't prove this assertion with much, much simpler versions of such puzzles, how much less likely then is it that they can do so with versions that require multiple pages worth of this sort of thing?
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few" – Shunryu Suzuki.
> In that sense, these answers are being "made up", even if you have a general train-of-thought for each derivative.
Again, not at all how this works. It's not AT ALL "let me see if I can get this from that" but rather a process of picking things apart and playing with them and seeing where they lead.
Again, the possible outcomes that meet those three stated criteria are usually relatively few in number and tend to relate to themselves and the subject.
> It's much easier to prove
And what has this proven definitively so far in terms of the simulation theory?
Has anyone come out and said they can use that to prove 100% beyond any doubt that "yes, we do live in a simulation"?
If so, can you provide a source I can read?
> outcomes that meet those three stated criteria are usually relatively few in number and tend to relate to themselves and the subject.
You haven't proven any of this, though. The content you've uploaded is a single experiment trial with no documentation of scientific method. You do not pose a question, formulate a hypothesis, elaborate your research or make meaningful conclusions between these occurrences. You just... run experiment trials, and assume that people follow your work.
The much simpler explanation is that all of these words have multiple things they could become. We read them and let it "fall into place" based on wherever our minds are at the moment. You have to admit that some of your findings are a stretch - manufactured human concepts like gematria are not evidence of universe simulation, and randomly swapping letters like "Fe" with "Ir" just because it feels right is an even worse basis for research.
You're free to spend your time however you like, but I should warn you that anagrams and numerology are the furthest from scientific evidence you could be. "highly probable" ideas inspired by random numerology is unfortunately also not very scientific either. Just really forced coincidence, as far as I can tell.
> And what has this proven definitively so far in terms of the simulation theory?
That, so far, all hard sciences seem to indicate our universe is naturally expanding as a consequence of physics. We don't need simulation theory to complete our model of the cosmos.
This is an introduction to the approach; as mentioned, there are other examples to be had ... including things which relate to both past and near future.
>> with no documentation of scientific method
Scientific method apparently has its limitations; so far it has failed to yield any measurable results insofar as proving itself useful for investigating this subject matter.
Do you think if we WERE in a simulation, the creators of such a simulation would enable dwellers within it to be able to comprehend the underlying code base with such a relatively simple approach? Seems doubtful.
Having said that, if we are indeed in a simulation, it would make sense to use any approach possible to investigate that; if the "scientific method" is fruitless in ascertaining such a possibility, it would be dogmatic and illogical to cling to it as we now know it if it does not suit the purpose of proving itself useful in figuring out the odds of our being in a simulation.
On the other hand, a method that leads to an outcome whose probabilities can be calculated would be, if not a 100% absolute causal proof, at least more useful than "nothing" which is what seems to be the current state of affairs (again, I could be wrong and for all I know computer scientists/physicists may very well have some secret method they employ to figure these things out that they've not as yet let the general public in on).
> You do not pose a question, formulate a hypothesis
Come on man, what is this ... a middle school science fair?
Very well. "Is there an abstract method of encryption/decryption whose results would be able to be analyzed using probability theory to ascertain the odds that such results were obtained randomly as a subset of all possible outcomes of manipulating all known points of data within the encrypted set? I would argue that the answer is yes and the results indicate that the odds of such an outcome being accidental/random are so low that this demonstrates that we more likely than not are indeed living in a simulation where different aspects of the world can be reliably demonstrated to effect other related aspects of our world using this encryption/decryption method, which would indicate that said encryption/decryption method functions as a sort of "code", indicating a strong likelihood that we do indeed live in a simulation; furthermore, the more such examples can be found, the lower the odds that they are random and the greater the odds that we are indeed living in a simulation which functions on this sort of "code", which can be systematically investigated in order to reveal relationships between different aspects of our world."
As mentioned, this document is just an introduction with 2 examples, "N.F.L." turning into "2023 Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88" and "Matrix" turning into "Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 ID" which in turn turns into "13" ("I+D") and that in turn turns into "Our Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 Ruins 57" (Super Bowl 57) and that in turn turns into yet other phrases related to things about the Super Bowl as we know it; the "ruins" part is explained in the document.
>> The much simpler explanation is that all of these words have multiple things they could become.
Again, you seemed to have skipped past this part so I'll repeat it.
Words turning into other words (anagrams) is just a tool used in the process; the objective is to have the outcome (1) Be complete, with no remainders, and (2) be relevant to the original starting point and (3) be relevant to either current, historical or future events.
It "seems" easy to do if you're not familiar with this approach; in reality it's not quite that easy and the eventual outcomes become fewer and fewer as you progress along the route of "trying to not have a...
Thanks for just asking that! The answer is yes, it's called the total value of all heat in the universe. At the heat death of the universe, there will be no entropy left to feed randomness. If the universe were to be consumed in flame, it would be too entropic to sustain order. If you disagree that heat is the source of all randomness, that's a much better thesis to disprove than making shot-in-the-dark guesses at universe simulation.
> Again ... "perfect outcome, no superfluous remainders
It's literally not. Where did the "on" go from "Iron"?
> and that in turn is better than "nothing".
Nope, I believe Einstein actually defined this as the root of all human madness. Trying the same thing, over and over again, expecting novel or groundbreaking results...
You can't say I didn't give your theory a shot. You're either wrong or you botched the presentation, I'll let you decide that for yourself.
> Would that not be more practical in the service of human endeavors?
The provable reality is regarded to be more practically important than comforting or interesting lies, yes.
Thank you for answering in this fashion; I suppose I could have amended that with, "in such a fashion so as to provide a measure of usefulness in determining the probability of the Simulation Theory being correct?"
> Where did the "on" go from "Iron"
Assuming you mean at the very beggining, the "O" = 15/1,5/"A,E" ... "E" turns into yet another "5/FIVE/Fe, IV/IRON IV", and the "A" and two resulting "Ns" are added to "RI" to get "RINNA", the "R" from "Iron" = "18/1,8/A,H" ... resulting in "Rihanna".
> expecting novel or groundbreaking results
Yeah, not for nothing, but I don't see stuff like this anywhere on the internet so I'd say it's "pretty novel"; I don't make claims to have a monopoly on this approach as I've met others who seem to be aware of this phenomenon and have demonstrated an aptitude for analyzing such.
For example, that "Toyota" becomes "Supra" by substituting the atomic number of iron and some non-intuitive multiplication of what seems at first to be random superfluous numbers was shown to me recently by someone else.
> You can't say I didn't give your theory a shot.
True enough, and thanks for your time and consideration.
> You're either wrong or you botched the presentation, I'll let you decide that for yourself.
Where exactly do you feel as if I'm "wrong"; please specify.
The logic holds up and the odds of ALL THAT falling into place "just so" by random coincidence, ESPECIALLY considering her being the main attraction at the Super Bowl this particular year and "NFL" turning into "2023 Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88" ...
Not to mention another (albeit pop-culture-y) term for "simulation" is "Matrix", which turns into "Our Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 Ruins 57" (it's Super Bowl 57), which in turn morphs into "Our Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 RULES! Ha!" ...
> The provable reality is regarded to be more practically important
Please let me know how figuring out the rate of entropy at the edge of the universe affects day-to-day life of the vast majority of people on planet Earth
> than comforting or interesting lies
What part of this is a "lie" ... considering a good part of what's discussed in the document is actually happening next Sunday?
If you consider this method to result in just random, coincidental "comforting lies", then I would urge you to ponder the following conundrum:
Using this method, the word "Axis" (W.W. II) turns into "Germany rids six million Jews."
The underlying "code" for this can be demonstrated methodically as well.
Now what do you have to say?
Based on what? Patterns in language? You have not proven any correlation between your findings and simulation theory whatsoever. You can ignore the scientific method, sure, but without direct evidence of correlation nobody will care. The reason you can't think of a practical way to compute this is because your assumption has no calculable basis.
> but I don't see stuff like this anywhere on the internet
Such a shame the hard, provable sciences are the ones that get traction.
> The logic holds up and the odds of ALL THAT falling into place "just so" by random coincidence
It doesn't fall into place. You put it into place, and you have no deterministic theory of how it works besides "knowing it's right". That's the opposite of logic.
> Please let me know how figuring out the rate of entropy at the edge of the universe affects day-to-day life of the vast majority of people on planet Earth
Science isn't about coming up with the most revolutionary theory of how things work. It's about proving the most feasible answer as correct beyond a shadow of doubt.
> Now what do you have to say?
If I spell "dog" backwards it makes "god". Is it time for a new religion?