Simulation and energy
What does it say that creating new simulations shows the universe is becoming larger from inside of itself? How can that be represented as an equation? What does it mean that we can multiply Pi by itself to a specific decimal point? What is the limit to our “universe’s” capabilities? Might this tie in with the transfer of energy and our discoveries/current understanding that energy is transferred but not lost? Might there be a need to lose energy in order to maintain processing capabilities for the whole?
Is it possible that our network (“universe”) is on an older generation of software in comparison to how computers and hardware are/is updated? If so, is it possible to transfer our existence onto a newer more sophisticated network seamlessly/without us being aware, or even the universe? What happens if we have too many simulations of our own running one day, what effect would that have on the “universe” – seeing as it is all likely one computation? What effect does that have on the “greater universe”? (the one housing all of existence)?
What application could Pi have for generating “random” properties in a simulation? Could we create a code that works by pulling Pi to a certain decimal point, or working within a range of decimals in Pi, and/or using such functions multiple times throughout the coding? Could this help to create multiple versions of one thing which are just slightly different, in some ways not noticeably different at all? (controlled randomness?) (randomness with a limit)? Is there any possibility of using such functions to allow for formulations which begin to formulate and regulate themselves through forced randoms/set limits in an almost random calculation? Can the limitlessness of Pi add to the limits to allow for true randomization within itself?
What type of numbers would we see if we then took all of the code used to create such functions and view it in its simplest form? What would the computer be reading it as? What implication does this have with regards to human DNA and how simply complex it is?
Using math to communicate thought; is possible if we are a simulation or if we create a sophisticated simulation of our own at any point. Simple code could be proportionally grouped to communicate one specific idea; symbolizing whole functions to simplify a string.
Imagine seed points and universes/bracket points being summarized as specific functions with symbols for thought, or “words” instead of “symbols” when in comparison to the english language. – Or signifiers used as a language format-to sum entire complex lines of thought (code) into singular meanings. This also brings the question of which type of functions would benefit from ambiguous meanings? Would there be more ambiguous code in conscious thought, or in creational aspects?
Eventually you wind up with the simulator or calculation housing conscious thought. Meaning that the underlying code can be read; indicating that so can our thoughts, meaning all thought can be quantized as functions of math. This gives each individual thought the possibility of being represented as an equation, function, or group of functions, with groups of thoughts being open to definition as well.
Also meaning the universe has its own language which it uses to read consciousness, and other parts of our realm, and which surpasses any form of communication we currently use, as it is the source. If not we will one day be able to prove this by creating our own simulations. The question is do we want to create something that has no choice as we did not. The barrier of computation and comprehension being seen before it occurs. The language is more than likely math, or math is our door to interpreting and deciphering our universe’s language. Building a simulation might be the only way to rule out possible unseen answers.
How would this tie in with velocities, perceptions, and constants? Which types of equations might be modular within a singular state or solid state equation? How could an equation move along a timeline in reference to another, and how could one do so without reference? What if you considered the zero point (creation point) a part of the equation? Wouldn’t it be needed to get things started?; An if x time has passed, x event will occur? How could it not exist? If you have a big bang, or any velocity based creation, wouldn’t the 0 point in time be required? How can you have a formula for time which is tied specifically to gravity and space if the 0 did not exist to start? Would that not mean there are two separate instances of time? (what type of areas of calculation might be instanced by the way?)
How could a formula be tied to a constant consistent form of time – where it would seem to be necessary for the source to exist? Based on the above, this would mean that our perception of time is in some way pulling from the calculated whole (of time) by pulling from measurement of other forces/constants; where in order for those forces to exist, there first was a 0 point, and in order for those forces to have value, they must be retrieving those values from that point. If i’m here you’re still there. Even if the calculation of our relative times does not take place until we are in view of each other, there still must exist a process in which it is determined that we exist at this point in comparison to the whole of time and space. At some point that calculation will need to take into account the initial 0 point if we are to ever meet again.
This also brings the idea of numbers potentially having non permanent values in the context of the source. Is there any number which is defined in the source language as a value based from the start point (0)? How could you represent such a number? Something which modulates itself or changes as time goes along in order to allow for “bookkeeping”? Are there any numbers within the source which have modular values, or values where the definition of the value changes? Or formulas which might choose to change themselves?
Which would be simpler in terms of efficiency for a simulation? Something which calculates the perceived time by factoring in the 0 point, or splitting many time calculations across the universe for separate determinations, with no constant value (even if it is in the background)? What happens if something is large enough to view many of these processes at once? What is required to allow for that to happen? Even if you did split everything wouldn’t it be likely that some single process is being run, or each instance is accessing some broader formula to determine the outcome (in reference to the amount of time which has passed from creation)?