Based on what? Patterns in language? You have not proven any correlation between your findings and simulation theory whatsoever. You can ignore the scientific method, sure, but without direct evidence of correlation nobody will care. The reason you can't think of a practical way to compute this is because your assumption has no calculable basis.
> but I don't see stuff like this anywhere on the internet
Such a shame the hard, provable sciences are the ones that get traction.
> The logic holds up and the odds of ALL THAT falling into place "just so" by random coincidence
It doesn't fall into place. You put it into place, and you have no deterministic theory of how it works besides "knowing it's right". That's the opposite of logic.
> Please let me know how figuring out the rate of entropy at the edge of the universe affects day-to-day life of the vast majority of people on planet Earth
Science isn't about coming up with the most revolutionary theory of how things work. It's about proving the most feasible answer as correct beyond a shadow of doubt.
> Now what do you have to say?
If I spell "dog" backwards it makes "god". Is it time for a new religion?
No comments yet.
