Is this pseudo science or real: code found in superstring

Question

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

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

---

-1, there is no specific conceptual doubt. Besides, the whole page is full of crap (conspiracy-theories...). Don't read anymore unless you want to go to an asylum.

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

---

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

---

Yes, I also think the question should be reopened. Although the question itself could be better phrased Philip's answer is interesting.

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

---

For some reason the banner below is incorrect: this question has not been closed but migrated here: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18277/…

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

---

Not really sure if it should be opened, yet. @Muhammad, if you could edit some description of what is being talked about in the video, that would be great. I already linked to the arXiv paper, which lends some credence to the question/theory.

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

---

...or it could be reopened right now as well; that's fine, but please substantiate the question with some description of what is going on in the video.

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

---

@DIMension10 see meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4918; the answer is good, but just a video doesn't make for a good question.

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

---

/cc @JohnRennie ^^

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

---

@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

Answer 1

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

Comments

+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