Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 1
48
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+26 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

According to a study published in Nature's Scientific Reports, the universe may be growing in the same way as a giant brain - with the electrical firing between brain cells 'mirrored' by the shape of expanding galaxies.

The results of a computer simulation suggest that "natural growth dynamics" - the way that systems evolve - are the same for different kinds of networks - whether its the internet, the human brain or the universe as a whole.


www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...




Kind of a weird thought. The universe being like a giant brain. Funny how the microcosm reflects the macrocosm and we get the same patterns in nature repeating themselves at different levels.

If the universe is a giant brain. I guess that would make us little cells or something. Would that make the laws of physics nothing more than biological habits that can change and evolve. I wonder what such a large brain would be thinking about.




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Well the Universe doesn't think, and it certainly doesn't look like that simulation would suggest it does, but they do share many similarities



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
We're not cells. We're thoughts. The cosmos is gods mind. The universe is his brain. We're simply a simulation within gods mind. Part of his imagination.

At least, that's what I concluded about a decade ago. For the last several years, I've been pretty meh about about. Maybe so, maybe not.


+12 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mr10k
 





Well the Universe doesn't think, and it certainly doesn't look like that simulation would suggest it does, but they do share many similarities


How do you know the universe does not think.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nomnom
 


You might enjoy reading Self aware universe Amit Goswami. I little heavy in places but a fantastic read..


+15 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Interesting theory.


And if it's anywhere near being true that would mean that Earth is a Brain Tumor.
It all makes sense now.

S&F

Peace



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
That makes "as above so below" a little more profound. So inside our little brains there could be galaxy's coming into existence and disapearing just like in space. It also may help explain where we go when we dream.
The truth is no doubt stranger than fiction.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Purplemer How do you know the universe does not think.
Because it’s mr10k’s religion (I mean assertion).
With Quantum Entanglement, plus the Double Slit Experiment, plus Hinesburg’s Uncertainty Principle baffling scientists as much they did when discovered between 60 and 70 years ago, it’s beyond me how people can claim with any confidence whatsoever whether this universe is self aware.

There is even a theory called Gaia Hypothesis
en.wikipedia.org...

It may therefore make sense to conclude something 3.5 times older than the Earth, and infinitely bigger might have self-awareness entangled within it.

It would be interesting if a thinking universe was (towards the latter stages of its expansion) capable of bringing a new universe into existence. However I think that’s what artificial intelligence will be capable of doing once it starts building kilometre size brains-processes on e.g. the moon-Mars.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 






3.5 times older than the Earth, and infinitely bigger might have self-awareness entangled within it.


Never thought of it that way before. It is a fair point and it makes sense.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
We are all small cogs in a giant machine.. everything has a presence and a purpose no matter how insignificant it may seem..



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Could quantum entanglement not be a valid method for transmitting information over vast areas of space. I would be surprised if the human brain does not work using such methods too.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by misscurious
 


I have always thought everything has a purpose too. Not so sure what our purposes is thought. Maybe we make our own purpose..



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

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.


you must take into account the difference in the perception of time that the bigger brain would experience. it would pass much slower for it,from our perspective, and plasma, photon, or magnetic connections would be adequate for its connections.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Is it such a shock that in nature the small mimics the large? or vice verse, we live in an ordered structured universe with laws of physic that effect all things, from the human brain cell to the galaxy as a whole.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I've always felt that the universe is just part of a much larger structure.

What we see through our telescopes is a not very exciting barren wilderness dotted with mysterious balls of fire (stars).

It doesn't seem to make much sense from our incredibly compromised vantage point.

If we could see the whole, then look back on this tiny part of it, it could be a forehead-slapping moment -

"Oh yeah.....I SEE now...."



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 





If we could see the whole, then look back on this tiny part of it, it could be a forehead-slapping moment - "Oh yeah.....I SEE now...."


The world of science tries to make as look at little bits and dissect them. It is reductionist in nature and stops us from seeing the whole. You do not need to understand how all the cogs work in a watch to tell the time.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I've seen threads by multiple members this past year say that very same thing. Where is their pat on the back!? Oh no, I get. It doesn't count unless a scientist confirms it or theorizes it, right?

Spiritualists, occultists, and others have been saying this forever. Science is just catching up to the inevitable realization that our spiritual leaders of dead past knew more about the nature of reality and the universe than they want to give them credit for. Our spiritual leaders have always been saying "as above, so below" for millennium. It's old news with science jumping up and down say - we discovered it. We discovered it! Again. Bull crap. They are just confirming what is already known and already expounded upon. What is more, their god complex seems to impair their judgement in thinking they came up with this all by themselves and are completely original. They aren't. They are full of crap, with people so bowled over by technology, that people basically just drop to their knees and start praising their new gods.


I'm in a mood today. Please forgive my unusual angst.

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
c'mon...how does that "simulation of the universe" actually represent the universe?
1....at what (angle, or "space"), in space, was it taken at?
2....what distances do the "connections" cover?
3...what are the actual connections made of, in the "simulated universe"... dark energy?...dark matter? VHF waves? VLF waves, gravatational waves?, gamma waves?
4....what perspective is the view coming from in regards to the "simulated universe"... earthbased?...satellite based?... galactic-center based?... some point, billions of light years away space?
the article itself remains me of "entertainment tonight" programming,... fluff...with vague psuedo-science proclamations.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 





I've seen threads by multiple members this past year say that very same thing. Where is their pat on the back!? Oh no, I get. It doesn't count unless a scientist confirms it or theorizes it, right?


I agree with you and it is nice to see people coming to the same conclusions from different places. Dont worry about being moody. A full moon approaches and it is a strong one..





new topics

top topics



 
48
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join