Thank you for taking the time to read it and give it your consideration.
>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.
