Mr. B.G shared this article with me, and I found the embedded video(not the article itself), both stimulating, fascinating, and fun, and hence pass it along to you. Here's the article; you have to scroll down to find the video of Dr. Gates taken during a panel discussion. it's about 12 minutes long, and Dr. Gates begins his commentary at about one minute into the video:

Theoretical Physicist Finds “Computer Code” in the Fabric of Space

There's a bit of humor and fun in this video, as Dr. Gates, having briefly outlined his hypothesis, is challenged by another panel member after Dr. Gates suggested that these "codes" embedded in the fabric of space time (well, to cite him more accurately, in some of the equations of string theory) imply that we live in a sort of generated hologram, even citing the movie The Matrix as an illustration of his remarks. The challenger interrupts and asks if he may present an argument against that view, and one can hear Dr. Gates say "please" in such a tone as implying he too is uncomfortable with his findings. The challenger is presumably Lee Smolin, himself a theoretical physicist of some ability, and author of a popular critique of string theory called The Trouble with Physics, which is a good read, and whose cover, a pair of laced shoes tied together to render easy walking progress impossible, basically summarizes Smolin's (and many other physicists') problems with string theory: it's lovely as a mathematical formalism, but does really advance empirical physics very far.

Now all this is fun and quite intriguing, and I have to admit that when I watched this video, I am intrigued enough to want to find any of Dr. Gate's books or publications for further examination. But there are other interesting comments made in the video, and one of them Dr. Gates (during his colloquy with Smolin) suggests himself: his model is based on the idea of super-symmetry, which, he points out, will be tested when they fire up CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Now, if you've been following CERN's annoucements closely lately, one of the models that is looking increasingly questionable in the theoretical physics zoo of theories, is super-symmetry. The verdict is still out on other models, like hyper-dimensionality(which if verified, would certainly buttress string theory). But this need not, I suspect, invalidate whatever insights Dr. Gates has discovered.

But Smolin raises an interesting and highly philosophical point during his exchange with Dr. Gates, and that is that that mathematical equations themselves are not process, that is to say, they do not "flow" with time, but rather, are "snapshots." But is that really the case? Mathematical functions have to be performed; the act of creating or writing - of deriving - them is itself a flow in time; the snapshot itself is the result of several other snapshots in a discrete formal process which, Gates implies, appears to be intimately wedded to the actual structure of reality. So perhaps what has been lacking in formal mathematical physics is a more accurate way to embody this feature - one might be tempted to say with Kozyrev this "non-scalarity of time" - as something more than a simple delta-t function.

It's fun to speculate here, but perhaps the most entertaining thing from this video - illustrative perhaps of the state into which modern physics has got itself - is when the host asks a question of a panel member participating in the discussion remotely. This gentleman goes on to say that perhaps someday when we meet "ET" they'll ask us to show them what we've got, and we opened our books and showed them all our mathematics. The gentleman then quips that the aliens respond, "Oh, math... we used to do that too."

The bottom line? What I found interesting and highly suggestive about Dr. Gates' idea - again, not having read about it more in depth, and noting that he does not make this observation himself in so many words - was that one may not be looking so much at equations that describe reality, but rather, perhaps, at a grammar in a "Chomskian sense." After all, the great modern discovery of physics - the role and importance of the observer - was there all along in most human languages and grammars, and the subtle effects of that observer are writ large on the subtle and manifold ways in which temporal order - the complex verb systems and tenses of human languages - are arranged. Maybe the reason physics is not unified - here comes a really high octane speculation, one is tempted to file it in the "bizarre" file - is because the disciplines are no longer unified. Imagine Dr. Michio Kaku or Dr. Gates or Lee Smolin speaking to Chomsky LInguistics conference, or, conversely, a Fodor or Katz as guest speakers for a physics conference, and you get the idea. The functions of mathematics - attribution, commutivity, cardinality, ordinality, dimensionality, and all the rest - are not, after all, all that different from those of grammar.

Anyway, it's a fun video folks, so enjoy, and I'll...

...See  you on the flip side...


  1. If our universe is a computer program, and we are conscious, then the “computers” that we build can become conscious! In other words, the Singularity is near.

  2. Your comment about the rules of math being similar to grammar is interesting.

    As a former math geek (reformed), I always considered it a language and never questioned that the rules were indeed a grammar. The same is true of computer “languages,” which have definite grammars, and are simply another form of math and logic tied together. Programming and solving equations are very much like writing prose or poetry – you try to write within the rules to say something clever or useful.

    I always liked the language of math because, like German, the rules were the rules, and there weren’t more exceptions to the rules than rules themselves (as it is with English).

    I always considered string theory to be a convoluted effort at smoke and mirrors – a load of mathematical noise to hide the flaws in mainstream (public consumption) physics.

  3. I was out driving my car this morning and 3 people almost slammed into me.
    Driving a car is a 2 dimensional endeavor. Flying an aircraft in three dimensions requires a very sophisticated machine and a well trained pilot…
    Imagine the consciousness of a person who can operate in 4 dimensions.
    This entire world is designed to make sure no one finds out

  4. Is sophism the right word?
    Is talking about knowledge equal to knowledge? How many of us have met a serious sci fi geek who knew naught of science. Especially applied.

    Rupert Sheldrake is working on some of these ideas with serious empiric effort. Most of his friends at thunderbolts.info are doing the same on related subjects. Don Scott. Wal Thornhill. Dave Talbot. Velikosvky. Halton Arp. Kristian Birkeland. Tesla.

    Since when is math anything more than language? Since when is math the same as science? Except of course when demanding huge ever larger grants of LHC’s and what not. When did Hawking come up with any idea that was provable? As in worthy of an experiment. As in even possibly observable.

    Trying to understand how it is that I see so little of electric universe theory here when so much of Dr Farrell’s work fits tight to electric universe theory. Any help?

    While holding the highest respect for Chomsky’s efforts on international relations (excepting of course his hypocritical statements on 9/11), he’s proven repeatedly full of tripe on his working ideas for linguistics. Roger Fouts proved that decades ago soundly.

  5. From Joseph’s, “one may not be looking so much at equations that describe reality, but rather, perhaps, at a grammar in a ‘Chomskian sense’,” I remembered the ancient schools of wisdom teachings where – if one spoke certain words – Reality itself would change. Was this only symbolic, or were they actually describing a mixture of grammar and mathematics that somehow collapsed waveforms in a prescribed manner?

    David Icke, in his efforts to explain shapeshifting, may have actually come up with some interesting ideas on this possibility. He posits first that Reality is ORIGINALLY waveform (not dual waveform-particle), which I agree with. Then, he assumes that the ‘collapse of the waveform’ to form perceived reality occurs inside a person’s brain/mind. Again, this is in-line with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics. (This is just taking ‘The Observer Effect’ to it’s logical conclusion, although physicists balk at the implications.)

    Where it gets interesting is when Icke posits that there are some ‘folks’ who can consciously ‘get inside’ the decoding mechanism that is rendering waveform into particle-form. (Whether one has to be ‘outside’ the system to accomplish-this is an interesting question. Perhaps this is the ‘enlightenment’ referred-to throughout the Ages.) This would take two forms:

    If I could ‘get inside’ MY decoding mechanism, I could ‘hijack’ my ‘ingrained’ down-translation and down-translate as anything I could imagine. (Mass and size ‘shifts’ would be accommodated within this ‘model’.) This would make sense of the ‘gods’ appearing as anything they wished, and shamans instantly ‘translating’ from one form to another. Not to mention staffs turning into snakes in Egyptian courts, for example…

    If I could ‘get inside’ an OTHER’S decoding mechanism, (which would imply a mastery of whatever telepathy is – maybe ‘oneness’) I could ‘hijack’ his/her normal down-translation. I could either (1) ‘block’ the down-translation entirely (and appear invisible to them) or (2) ‘insert’ code of my own and have them down-translate a vision of me (or their ‘outside’) as anything I would wish. On the former, I have personally been in a few situations where I ‘knew’ there were beings close to me, but I could not see them. On the latter, it might explain ‘nonsensically-shaped’ beings, or even ‘burning bushes’.

    The world gets a lot more interesting, with these ‘lenses’ on…

    1. Imagine becoming a master alternative dimension shifter. Now imagine this was possible because time scale and scales of distances were really only a purely conscious frame of reference and manifestation. A trillion trillion years later or a trillion trillion miles away all wave forms and particle interactions manifesting your pocket of conscious existence are mirrored yet again exactly or with every conceivable slight or drastic alteration to form infinite alternative timelines. Now imagine an infinite number of alternate you existing in an infinite number of times and distances from your perceived current self. Now what if the dual finite aspect of what is doesn’t let infinity double down exactly anywhere or when inside of all infinity? What if each potential moment was a permanent fixture as it would have to be in a true infinity. What if like an electron we are mathematically truly everywhere at once but our conscious manifestation is only finite so we can only observe where we perceive our selves to be along a given point of current that we exist on and can only thus measure. But perhaps choices, awareness, will and the learned or rare ability to change conscious vibration could alter the position and direction of our current without being reborn a trillion trillion years later or travelling a trillion trillion miles to an alternate Earth. I imagine the novice could only effect the minimalist of changes and shifts in the beginning like the potential for a staff to be a snake while the timeline and every other material thing remained the same. But as his vibratory will, knowledge, experience and mastery progressed perhaps eventually he could take different shapes and time, distance, and dimension travel at will rather building a space ship or time machine.

    1. Once the observer takes a snapshot; the wave collapses.
      To flow with conscious observer/universe interaction is through symbolic/consciousness/universalinteraction. It flows faster than thought itself; 4 it communicates intelligently by non/locality symbolic/thought in/sync .

      1. Although it’s not clear by what “symbolic” means; it is indivualized through the collapsing wave/reality perception. The observer collapses the wave through symbolic thought process “unconsciously”. The time factor involved is the lag time, from unconscious to consciousness. For example, seeing a snake, ignites the unconscious – way before[fractions of seconds, to seconds] consciousness. It’s a survival mechanism. Therefore, the individual must interface with the reality he or she sees symbolically. This requires conscious thought. But “others” are interacting as well as yourself. By moving physically in the presence of many, being seen but of no consequence to their thought processes, your unconscious presence IS intereraction in the groups wave collapse. Thus one could let the reality “flow” as she or he speeds up the unconscious interaction “physically” while thinking/seeing symbolically while/AND communicating with the interface intelligently. This will get a REACTION.

        [the above was a lame attempt to partially explain “symbolic-thought-communication”] through a common univers(al)/interface.

  6. We are dealing here with a late twenty early twenty first century equivalent of the Ptolemaic Cosmology. Simply put it’s back to the drawing boards the scientist have got it wrong again.

  7. There’s a misconception that complex language denotes complex ideas and that complex ideas require complex language.
    Perhaps the code they found (as with the “error in the equations”) takes the observer into account. After all, something has to direct the energy into something observable..

    1. If the Word being spoken of there is Jesus Christ (see Dr. Michael Heiser) then the fact that someone is the Word gets really interesting.

      1. Imagine a Christian that swears dying and discovering the infinite potential of the other side for the first time. “Jesus Christ!?…” he voicelessly utters, thinks, or swears in the seemingly dark, empty appearing sea of pure potential and potential manifestation. “Give me light!” he silently cries, thinks, and thus puts and mentally shapes into existence these potentials,(Jesus Christ, light, and the word) because his potential of I Am didn’t die with his body and previous reality. Odd, yet fascinating blasphemy.

Comments are closed.