Physicists Find Evidence That The Universe Is A 'Giant Brain'

Originally posted by cartesia

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by purplemer

 

For brain function, you need a signal that can efficiently carry information from neurone to neurone. But the Universe is so large, even the fastest of signals, Electromagnetic signals, are not fast enough to do the job. So you may have neurones, but no signals or information transfer. If the Universe is a big brain, then this big brain is dead.

There is no minimum speed requirement for information transmission... it can take as long as it likes. eg light at lightspeed over a distance of lightyears.

With respect to Bells Theorem and EPR Paradox information can travel instantaneously despite any distance.

reply to post by Kashai

With respect to Bells Theorem and EPR Paradox information can travel instantaneously despite any distance.

Jonathan Livingston Seagull, I presume?

How can something that doesnt think create and house a being that thinks?

How can something non-intelligent create something that is Intelligent?

It all comes down to this. Before we are Human Beings, we are just Beings period. To Be, is to exist, to exist is to change and/or grow over time. Being is growth. The universe does not have time, it has growth. You never see a tree grow small, it always grows bigger. It doesnt stop, it continues unless it dies, still in death, it decays which is change and growth all in all. As we became Human, we stop Being. We become human being and adhear to rules created by man. What ever we believe in our minds, we grow that possibility, become that possibility. The universe believes what it is to be and grows to that of which it is. A human believes what he or she is and grows to that of which he/she is. The universe in the nutshell is simply Belief growing towards its becoming.

Believe, Be and Become.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Kashai

 

With respect to Bells Theorem and EPR Paradox information can travel instantaneously despite any distance.

Jonathan Livingston Seagull, I presume?

Thanks for the compliment friend

The conclusion I offered becomes even more plausible when considering the existence of more than 4 dimensions.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not sure why this thread was allowed to exist, but this has already been posted numerous times.

Large thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Also posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


and here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Off topic: Did you use the Alert function to notify the mods? If not, you should, perhaps.

Here's my take:

Your first link was from 10/11. That's over a year and four months ago. How many new members have joined since then? Revisiting an old idea provides new insight. (Note--Your first link was also posted in the SciTech Forum. Your other two links were from the PP&M forum. They are dated 11/08, and 1/13. The whole thread existence thing revolves around duplicate threads in the same forum, within close proximity in time, covering the same exact information.)

On topic: I'm still back on page three, and have reserved comment so far, until I get to the end of the thread, reading member comments on a rather interesting topic. I got sidetracked on reading about ELFs and the Schumann Resonance, coupled with the fact that "awake" mode in humans is about 12 Hz, and "sleep" mode in humans is about 7-8 Hz. Meditation can result in brainwaves that are closely aligned with the natural resonance of the earth. "Sleeping" naturally allows us to do this.

Sure, this may be a topic going back to 11/08, perhaps even further, but new ideas and new members always bring new perspective to the table.

It's a fascinating topic. Back to reading.

Sounds like an opportunity for a music break...



Also as mentioned earlier in this thread from another member...

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by purplemer

 

Well the Universe doesn't think,

How would you know if it did??

reply to post by Xcal2k3

How can something that doesnt think create

Wow. Awsome. Great perspective.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by purplemer

 

For brain function, you need a signal that can efficiently carry information from neurone to neurone. But the Universe is so large, even the fastest of signals, Electromagnetic signals, are not fast enough to do the job. So you may have neurones, but no signals or information transfer. If the Universe is a big brain, then this big brain is dead.

Ahhhh but you assume that we are aware of ALL the cosmology, mechanics, physics, etc. that the universe operates under.... I would say we don't know squat. We have our menial understanding, but we are but babes in the woods..... Good lord, the theory of parallel universes is just a few years old. Give us another 100 years of discovery and see what we come up with.... or rather have questions about.... It is always said, and very true, the more we discover, the more we don't really understand.

It gives a whole new meaning to the term "The mind of God".

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by Xcal2k3

 

How can something that doesnt think create

Wow. Awsome. Great perspective.

You think so??

I beg to differ.

Does gravity think? I do not believe so - and yet it creates tides Do rocks think? Again i do not think so - and yet rocks combine with unthinking gravity to create mountains.

It's the scale you guys are having a hard time with.

One is on the microscopic level, and the other macroscopic. While there's no direct relation between the two, it's easy to draw inferences from the similarities we see.

Per the OP, one is the neuron of a mouse, enhanced with dye. The other is a computer simulation. They look the same, so of course, they are.

Not really.

There are lots of structural similarities throughout the universe, because what works is often reused, in different variations. However, the simulated arrangement of galaxies doesn't have squat to do with an electroencephalogram of a neuron in a mouse's brain. While I'm sure a human brain has the same basic structure, there are billions more neurons.

Pictures don't factor in mass, nor gravitational forces, nor interstellar differences. When you realize that there are light years between galaxies, and nanoseconds between neurons, the scale comes more into focus.

The brain is a biological evolution. It got more complex, due to survival requirements.

The galaxies, simulated, resemble that structure, but honestly, the two are so many powers removed that a correlation is speculative at best.

Originally posted by Druid42
It's the scale you guys are having a hard time with.

One is on the microscopic level, and the other macroscopic. While there's no direct relation between the two, it's easy to draw inferences from the similarities we see.

Per the OP, one is the neuron of a mouse, enhanced with dye. The other is a computer simulation. They look the same, so of course, they are.

Not really.

There are lots of structural similarities throughout the universe, because what works is often reused, in different variations. However, the simulated arrangement of galaxies doesn't have squat to do with an electroencephalogram of a neuron in a mouse's brain. While I'm sure a human brain has the same basic structure, there are billions more neurons.

Pictures don't factor in mass, nor gravitational forces, nor interstellar differences. When you realize that there are light years between galaxies, and nanoseconds between neurons, the scale comes more into focus.

The brain is a biological evolution. It got more complex, due to survival requirements.

The galaxies, simulated, resemble that structure, but honestly, the two are so many powers removed that a correlation is speculative at best.

1.5. Quantum Choreography
An unresolved issue concerning replication is the matter of timing and
choreography. In the simplest templating arrangement one can imagine,
the formation of complementary base-pairs takes place by random access of
molecular components and will proceed at a rate determined by the slower
of two processes: the reaction time for pair bonding and the diffusion time
of the appropriate molecular or atomic building blocks. In real DNA replication,
the base-pairing is incomparably more efficient and faster because
it is managed by a large and complex polymerase with complicated internal
states. Very little is known about the specifics of the replicase’s internal
activity, but it seems reasonable to conjecture in relation to its function
that in addition to the normal lowering of potential barriers to facilitate
quantum tunnelling (and thus accelerate the process), the replicase also
engages in a certain amount of choreography, making sure the right pieces
are in the right places at the right times. The concomitant speed-up over
the random access process would have a distinct evolutionary advantage.
Although the complexity of the replicase renders its internal workings
obscure at this time, one may deploy general arguments to determine
whether quantum mechanics might be playing a non-trivial role in the hypothesized
choreography, by appealing to the general analysis of quantum
time-keeping given by Wigner. As he pointed out, the energy-time uncertainty
relation sets a fundamental limit to the operation of all quantum
clocks [Wigner (1957); Pesic (1993); Barrow (1996)]. For a clock of mass
m and size l, he found

T

reply to post by mr10k


Whilst I wouldn't call myself an atheist, I do say that there is not enough proof for God, ergo I do not believe in it/him/her at the current moment. However, I have not written anything off.

Therefore, if somebody says "the Universe thinks" or "the Universe does not think", the rational answer to that would be "unfortunately, there is not scientific evidence to back that up at the current moment" and not just completely write it all off.

The thing is, if one wants to be scientific and rational and intelligent, you don't just write everything off. Even before, rational scientists scoffed at the thought that there is some invisible force called "gravity" and wrote it off. Clearly, now we scoff at them for scoffing at gravity.

It would seem that just because one labels themselves as "atheist" suddenly they believe in nothing - whereas, they should actually be directed by empirical enquiry. This is why we have theories and hypotheses. Science does not claim to know everything - but rather, it is an attempt to explore the world and universe beyond. For all we know, a thousand years from now, Post-humans could have discovered that a "multiverse" exists - but already, "atheists" and whatnot have completely written it off.

In short, the stance of a rational-thinking and intelligent human is not to write everything off, but rather to explore. The intelligent man would say "there is no evidence, or not enough of it, that God exists". He wouldn't say "God doesn't exist" as the latter statement is as bad as saying "God exists".

Quantum Biology

Here, we return to the question we posed in the introduction to this short review, has nature already beaten us in leveraging quantum effects to achieve something an equivalent classical system cannot? Certainly nature can harvest energy extremely efficiently, sense weak magnetic fields and create human minds complex enough to even be asking these questions. Now preliminary evidence suggests that nature may also leverage quantum effects to enhance the efficiency, or functionality, of some of these amazing feats. There is some evidence of room-temperature quantum effects (superposition and coherence) on physically important timescales in the electronic excitation transfer process in photosynthesis. Theoretical models suggest that this may enhance the overall efficiency of this transport, although larger or more complex systems need to be studied in more detail to ascertain both how vital and universal this enhancement is.

In the case of the avian magnetoreception, if the interpretation of behavioural experiments on certain avian species is correct, then it could be that the ability of these species to navigate by the Earth’s magnetic field is transduced by a magnetically sensitive chemical reaction that relies on certain subtle quantum effects. Strong evidence in favour of this model could come from further in vitro experiments on candidate radical pairs that show anisotropic sensitivity to very weak magnetic fields, or more sophisticated behavioural experiments. Finally, there are already a range of other functional biological systems that may rely on processes that can be thought of as fundamentally quantum (although as yet in a less direct way than magnetoreception and photosynthesis).

The fact that there is even the possibility of a functional role for quantum mechanics in all of these systems suggests that the field of quantum biology is entering a new stage. There may be many more examples of functional quantum behaviour waiting to be discovered. In addition, there are several obvious broader questions that arise: can we learn from nature’s example and develop bio-mimetic quantum technologies for efficient energy harvesting, long-coherence-time chemical reactions and so on? Alternatively, if it turns out that non-trivial quantum coherent effects do not play a strong functional role in biology, then this begs the question ‘why not?’ Are all quantum effects destroyed or limited by the hot and wet biological environment, or do these quantum effects simply not provide a biologically significant advantage over classical equivalents?

Scource

Further reading

love it when science catches up with intuition.
Surely plenty of you here have had this thought.
Years ago i wrote the following..."Was mind created by some ultimate mind in order to better know itself through the collective reflections of an infinite number of lesser minds?"

Congratulations!

This topic and thread has been chosen to be discussed by the ATS LIVE crew this Saturday night between 6-9pm pst (9-12 est) as part of this weeks exciting "Turbo Topics" segment (if time allows us). We appreciate your time, research and effort in the posting of this subject.



We are running 256kbps through the ATS Player but we now run a 32kbps stream for those of you with slower connections and there are also options to listen via other players on our relay site at Illustrial Website. You can also connect to the low bandwidth stream by clicking here to listen to the ATSLive Radio Show on ShoutCast


For more information and past shows, be sure to check out the ATSLive Show Threads Here.

Hope you'll listen in to the show!
Johnny

Originally posted by WeAre0ne

Originally posted by McGinty
Or perhaps your brain is inside this universe and this very same universe is inside your brain.

My brain hurts

That is one common theory actually... Have you ever seen this Simpsons intro?

www.boreme.com...

The view starts out looking at Homer Simpson and the family, and zooms out to view the top of their house, then zooms out to view the Earth, then zooms out more to view the solar system, then zooms out more to view the galaxies, then zooms out more to start revealing the structure of the Universe which starts to look more like atoms, and molecules, and zooms out more to reveal that all of the Universe was inside Homers head... funny stuff.

You have my everlasting thanks for that clip. Whenever life stumps me i'll play it and laugh at the insane truth....

There has been a lot of confusion exhibited here. It is an error to infer that the universe IS a giant brain just because its large-scale structure is analogous to the morphology of the brain. Analogies exist on vastly different scales because the laws of growth are scale invariant. Just because these laws are universal does not imply that the universe IS a kind of brain and that God therefore exists. Such thinking is plain silly and philosophically naive. The evidence referred to in the title of this thread is NOT that the cosmos IS a brain (the false inference) but merely that its large-scale structure is analogous to the structure of the brain. Analogies are simply that - they should not be taken literally!. Of course, sensational titles get lots of publicity for the scientists making the discovery and it sad that this seems these days so often to be more important to them that the accurate reporting of the truth. So don't fall for this bogus, journalistic sensationalism.

Sorry but the only "evidence" for this is that a "simulation" some scientists ran "looks" similar to what a single neurone in a human brain does under a microscope which means absolutely nada.

Not threadworthy.