Let's be real, though: your answers are not deterministic. Someone else could do the same process you have (a-la "I'd like to derive...") and end up with entirely different answers. In that sense, these answers are being "made up", even if you have a general train-of-thought for each derivative.
If you want to study simulation theory in earnest, I'd abandon the numerology and start investigating the physics of entropy and other calculable indications of complexity. It's much easier to prove, and a lot friendlier to the scientific method.
Deterministic would be "100% causal".
That's not what's being said at all with this. What's being said is, "In the absence of anyone being able to come up with something 100% deterministic to further investigate this theory, how about we first start with "highly-probable", derived by the improbability of everything you just read falling into place "just so" ... by sheer accident.
Of course, you're suggesting personal bias:
>> "Someone else could do the same process you have (a-la "I'd like to derive...") and end up with entirely different answers."
It may seem so and people I've shown other, less involved, far less complex versions of this sort of thing are always quick to suggest that (Dunning Kruger Effect), and yet when challenged to do so, I've yet to see someone prove this assertion by following the following criteria (all of them need to be met to make any decrypted messages worthwhile):
(1) Must be relevant to original starting point (2) Must be relevant to actual happenings, either current, historical, or future (3) Must have no superfluous numbers, letters or words left as remainders
The third part is particularly stringent and as I've developed familiarity with this practice over YEARS, the reality is simply that "only certain avenues of decryption are open" that even meet THAT criteria ... and the ones that do, tend to automatically meet criteria (1) and (2).
So, basically, if people can't prove this assertion with much, much simpler versions of such puzzles, how much less likely then is it that they can do so with versions that require multiple pages worth of this sort of thing?
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few" – Shunryu Suzuki.
> In that sense, these answers are being "made up", even if you have a general train-of-thought for each derivative.
Again, not at all how this works. It's not AT ALL "let me see if I can get this from that" but rather a process of picking things apart and playing with them and seeing where they lead.
Again, the possible outcomes that meet those three stated criteria are usually relatively few in number and tend to relate to themselves and the subject.
> It's much easier to prove
And what has this proven definitively so far in terms of the simulation theory?
Has anyone come out and said they can use that to prove 100% beyond any doubt that "yes, we do live in a simulation"?
If so, can you provide a source I can read?
> outcomes that meet those three stated criteria are usually relatively few in number and tend to relate to themselves and the subject.
You haven't proven any of this, though. The content you've uploaded is a single experiment trial with no documentation of scientific method. You do not pose a question, formulate a hypothesis, elaborate your research or make meaningful conclusions between these occurrences. You just... run experiment trials, and assume that people follow your work.
The much simpler explanation is that all of these words have multiple things they could become. We read them and let it "fall into place" based on wherever our minds are at the moment. You have to admit that some of your findings are a stretch - manufactured human concepts like gematria are not evidence of universe simulation, and randomly swapping letters like "Fe" with "Ir" just because it feels right is an even worse basis for research.
You're free to spend your time however you like, but I should warn you that anagrams and numerology are the furthest from scientific evidence you could be. "highly probable" ideas inspired by random numerology is unfortunately also not very scientific either. Just really forced coincidence, as far as I can tell.
> And what has this proven definitively so far in terms of the simulation theory?
That, so far, all hard sciences seem to indicate our universe is naturally expanding as a consequence of physics. We don't need simulation theory to complete our model of the cosmos.
This is an introduction to the approach; as mentioned, there are other examples to be had ... including things which relate to both past and near future.
>> with no documentation of scientific method
Scientific method apparently has its limitations; so far it has failed to yield any measurable results insofar as proving itself useful for investigating this subject matter.
Do you think if we WERE in a simulation, the creators of such a simulation would enable dwellers within it to be able to comprehend the underlying code base with such a relatively simple approach? Seems doubtful.
Having said that, if we are indeed in a simulation, it would make sense to use any approach possible to investigate that; if the "scientific method" is fruitless in ascertaining such a possibility, it would be dogmatic and illogical to cling to it as we now know it if it does not suit the purpose of proving itself useful in figuring out the odds of our being in a simulation.
On the other hand, a method that leads to an outcome whose probabilities can be calculated would be, if not a 100% absolute causal proof, at least more useful than "nothing" which is what seems to be the current state of affairs (again, I could be wrong and for all I know computer scientists/physicists may very well have some secret method they employ to figure these things out that they've not as yet let the general public in on).
> You do not pose a question, formulate a hypothesis
Come on man, what is this ... a middle school science fair?
Very well. "Is there an abstract method of encryption/decryption whose results would be able to be analyzed using probability theory to ascertain the odds that such results were obtained randomly as a subset of all possible outcomes of manipulating all known points of data within the encrypted set? I would argue that the answer is yes and the results indicate that the odds of such an outcome being accidental/random are so low that this demonstrates that we more likely than not are indeed living in a simulation where different aspects of the world can be reliably demonstrated to effect other related aspects of our world using this encryption/decryption method, which would indicate that said encryption/decryption method functions as a sort of "code", indicating a strong likelihood that we do indeed live in a simulation; furthermore, the more such examples can be found, the lower the odds that they are random and the greater the odds that we are indeed living in a simulation which functions on this sort of "code", which can be systematically investigated in order to reveal relationships between different aspects of our world."
As mentioned, this document is just an introduction with 2 examples, "N.F.L." turning into "2023 Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88" and "Matrix" turning into "Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 ID" which in turn turns into "13" ("I+D") and that in turn turns into "Our Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 Ruins 57" (Super Bowl 57) and that in turn turns into yet other phrases related to things about the Super Bowl as we know it; the "ruins" part is explained in the document.
>> The much simpler explanation is that all of these words have multiple things they could become.
Again, you seemed to have skipped past this part so I'll repeat it.
Words turning into other words (anagrams) is just a tool used in the process; the objective is to have the outcome (1) Be complete, with no remainders, and (2) be relevant to the original starting point and (3) be relevant to either current, historical or future events.
It "seems" easy to do if you're not familiar with this approach; in reality it's not quite that easy and the eventual outcomes become fewer and fewer as you progress along the route of "trying to not have any superfluous remainders" ... which in turn leads to a limited set of variations which inevitably meet the other criteria automatically; this funneling of effort into outcomes that only exist by meeting all 3 criteria is something that can be calculated using probability theory; while I'm not skilled enough to be precise with the probabilities involved, even an intuitive understanding of probability theory leads to the conclusion that even with a very, VERY conservative estimate of outcome sets, say, "there is a 1/100 chance that this outcome is random" ... multiplying such probabilities in a series (1/100 X 1/100 X 1/100) quickly demonstrates that the odds of the results being random decreases exponentially.
Is that 100% definitive causal proof? "No". Is "99.999999 ... etc." better than "nothing"? I would argue "yes".
> We read them and let it "fall into place" based on wherever our minds are at the moment
Again, it would "seem so" because you're unfamiliar with this process; experience has come to show that certain paths only lead to certain places.
>randomly swapping letters like "Fe" with "Ir"
It's not at all "random" and has nothing to do with "feelings", it's simply logical as Fe is the chemical symbol for Iron; if we are living in a simulation, that would be just as much a part of the "code" as any other aspects of the simulation that we currently experience.
Further, I would argue that any human developments ("Ferium => Iron/Fe") made when we were NOT aware of the possibility of living in a simulation are "part of the programming" and therefore can be examined/used as "code".
Another example would be that substituting the atomic number "26" for "Fe"/Iron can be demonstrated to be part of the process of turning "Toyota" into "Supra" (which also involves the non-intuitive multiplication of some numbers which at first seem superfluous). Again ... "perfect outcome, no superfluous remainders, and "point B" is relevant to its origin "point A" ... "what are the odds" ...
> scientific evidence
I would argue that in the absence of the traditional scientific method proving itself useful in any way so far, perhaps probability theory is the best we can do at the moment for trying to figure out our odds of living in a simulation, and this method at least provides "something" which can be calculated, and that in turn is better than "nothing".
> universe is naturally expanding ... We don't need simulation theory to complete our model of the cosmos.
And what practical benefits has society derived from knowing this? Is the answer "none"?
What is being proposed is a model that can be used to demonstrate how different aspects of our section of the universe are inter-related and how they affect each other.
Would that not be more practical in the service of human endeavors?
