100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Computer Code Discovered In Superstring Equations | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winlei
on
Thu 02/21/13 04:22 AM
|
|
Its not yet proven. I mean superstring is not yet proven
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been searching this subject and so far only S. James Gates Jr seems to be coming up. I don't know of any papers or peer reviews on his work.
S. James Gates Jr. Gates is Toll Professor of Physics and Director of the Center for String and Particle Theory at the University of Maryland in College Park. He serves on President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, hes closer than shanon. But he might prove the string theory first before proving the computer code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
String theory is, as yet, untestable. All that can be said about it is that it's logically consistent within itself. However, as far as I know, it's the top runner for the "Grand Unification Theory." The theory that will bring gravity together with the other three forces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaySinner
on
Wed 02/27/13 01:10 PM
|
|
It's a result I would expect, quite natural. The more we understand how the universe works, the more gain an insight into how our brains work. It goes hand-in-hand.
In the end, aren't we simply finding new ways of organising data? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a result I would expect, quite natural. The more we understand how the universe works, the more gain an insight into how our brains work. It goes hand-in-hand. In the end, aren't we simply finding new ways of organising data?  Yep. It is entirely possible that is all we are. Data and vessels for data. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 02/28/13 10:23 AM
|
|
Lets assume that computer code really is in equations.
First what? Math? Because Math exists in computer code, and it would be trivial to say that Math exists inside of an equation . . . . Trivial, and stupid. Second, so we have computer code in an equation that proves nothing? If actual code vs math . . . all it means is literally someone wrote it there. It has no use or meaning in the equation, and cannot come out of an equation because of that. Third: Superstring "theory" is internally inconsistent and so proves NOTHING about reality. Nothing is proven by this "discovery". Sounds like a sound byte to get attention from those who are scientifically illiterate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 02/28/13 11:23 AM
|
|
Lets assume that computer code really is in equations. First what? Math? Because Math exists in computer code, and it would be trivial to say that Math exists inside of an equation . . . . Trivial, and stupid. Second, so we have computer code in an equation that proves nothing? If actual code vs math . . . all it means is literally someone wrote it there. It has no use or meaning in the equation, and cannot come out of an equation because of that. Third: Superstring "theory" is internally inconsistent and so proves NOTHING about reality. Nothing is proven by this "discovery". Sounds like a sound byte to get attention from those who are scientifically illiterate. Yeh, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I was hoping some of you geniuses here on Mingle could shed some light on it. |
|
|
|
|
