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

reply to post by swan001
If you look at the distance between electrons or any such thing relative to their size, it is almost like a solar system, perhaps there is life there to, just too small to see...

Not this story again...?!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It also looks like mycelium so is the universe a giant mold?

I'm an Atheist.

I thought you were, which is why I joked with the words religion-assertion. Atheism is not a religion because it doesn’t possess any rituals, but like religion it’s an assertion, and just like religion it’s also (psychologically speaking) a faith to many of its believers.

IMO, The universe does not think because the Universe is not an organism.

It not being an organism as found on Earth does nothing whatsoever to change the probability of it thinking or not.

I think I’d be wrong to assert “the universe does think” but there is certainly evidence it may. I will assert (because it’s true) that at the microscopic level much of it behaves just like a computer program, and this even extends to how water flows, and even how wages in human cities correlate to their size.

To me, those are part of natural laws of physics, which, again to me, are not something that are being infinitely imagined on a day to day basis.

When I was religious I thought the laws were static, and now that I’m spiritualist I believe they are static.

Matter of fact, being religious would actually point towards that sentiment, as opposed to against it, with regards to an 'omniscient and unseeable entity that we are a part of'

That’s true, which is probably why you felt the need to immediately assert the universe is not being self-aware.
However it being self-aware would say little about what it thinks of us –in fact (given it's vastness) perhaps not very much, and given humanities record perhaps not very well either.

The universe has just achieved self-awareness that it is the universe, through the humans on Earth.

Kind of makes you wonder what that stuff inside our heads is translating doesn't it?

Originally posted by mr10k

Originally posted by WeAre0ne
reply to post by mr10k

 

Do you think? Are you aware?

Are you not a part of this Universe?

The Universe isn't just me, and I'm just made of much smaller particles. So you tell me, do those particles think?

edit on 24-2-2013 by mr10k because: (no reason given)

All the particles in the Universe, all matter, all energy, including you, are a part of the Universe. All of those things combined come together to create life and consciousness. That can not be argued. The Universe is alive and conscious as long as you and all other living things are alive and conscious.

Originally posted by mr10k
So you tell me, do those particles think?

Those particles individually do not think, but as a whole, when they work together, they do create thoughts. The Sun, Earth, Moon, and other planets alone do not think, but as a whole, when they work together with the particles that form your body, they create thoughts.

The Universe is your body, the planets and stars your vital organs, without them you would not exist just like without your heart and lungs you would not exist.

So yes, it can be argued that your particles do think. Don't you think?

The Universe is not only a giant brain, but it is made of several billion functioning brains just on planet Earth alone.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Yes and for the record mold is a living thing

Proving what the universe is either way, depends on much more information mankind has at present. Science is for the for the most part and what it comes to nature uses Inductuve Reasoning as opposed to Deductive Reasoning. You see scientist today apply the same type of reasoning that with respect to nature that has been applied since, well before science began.

There is no real reason to conclude that the Universe is not conscious as those who claim otherwise are
engaged in a leap of faith.

I find the topic fascinating especially in relation to human consciousness having the potential of having a fractal relationship, to a greater whole.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Concluding that because something looks like something that is alive it must be alive is just plain silly. Many things look like other things but that does not make them the things they look like. There are clouds in the sky that look like faces but guess what? they are not really faces..

It would take a very 'special' leap of faith for an adult to even begin to consider otherwise based on nothing but looks.

Structures form in similar ways but not all structures are alive and there is no reason to consider they are by form alone. Some crystals form like trees for example but one is a living thing while the other is not. That's scientific reasoning..

A science-based theory on this very subject has been around for the last twenty years, developed by an English mathematician and mechanical engineer called Ron Pearson. It would take a fair amount of detail to explain it here, so all I'm going to do is give a very brief, and very over-simplistic description of it, but I'll provide links at the end of the post for those whom would like to pursue it further.

Before the so-called 'big bang', the universe was simply a semi-stable mass of broiling positive and negative energies. This is before the sudden expansive growth and cooling which brought about the presence of the larger particles of quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, and photons. These two energies that Pearson termed the primaries would collide as particles and annihilate, and within the annihilation process there is a breeding that occurs where more (but equal amount) of positive and negative energy particles are born out of the annihilation. These are not instances of getting more out than what you put in, but the summing of the intrinsic energy of each type of particle and the kinectic energy wave smashing them together. The kinetic energy wave is what supplys the extra energy and when summed with the intrinsic energies, you are able to get out more of the same in equal amounts, so that the conservation of energy is maintained. It rewrites the dictum that energy cannot be created or destroyed, into it can only be created or destroyed in equal and opposite amounts.

It is this breeding that is driving the expansion and growth of the universe. Where does the 'mind' or 'brain' aspect come into it?

Staying at the most primal level of creation, half of the collisions will be between same type energies, positive to positive, negative to negative, and from these impacts no annihilation process will take place, they will simply bounce off each other like billiard balls; the other half of the collisions occurring will be between positive and negative energies, and thus an annihilation process takes place, and as a consequence breeding, too. At some point, these semi-stable processes became unstable and triggered the expansion and growth of the universe (which we term the 'big bang'), and a more varied creationary process which brought about the quarks, and other sub-quantum entities.

Underneath all of this, the primal creationary breeding process is still ongoing, but there is a further consequence to the breeding process. As the primal energy particles annihilate each other out of existence during collisions, it leaves behind a tiny filament-like shape. This filament is not made of material, but has to be considered as 'flow patterns' in the flux, and as these filament build up they group together and form 'T' junctions to each other, and eventually, build up a matrix along which quantum wave energy can flow. It is this matrix that acts like a neron network, and the 'T' junctionings act like switches, controlling how the energy waves move about the matrix, it is this action that brought the matrix into a conscious state, and overtime (billions of years) intelligence. This is as close as we are going to get to understanding the creator in the universe.

Like I said, this is a very clumsy over-simplification of the theory. To fully appreciate the theory itself, you need to go to the links I provide and read it for yourself. This theory allows for post-mortem conscious survival after death.

www.survivalafterdeath.info...

www.survivalafterdeath.info...

reply to post by PhoenixOD


I have no actual problem with your point outside of the fact i disagree with it. This issue of appearance as to if, or if not the Universe is conscious? Does not preclude the conclusion (and in relation to critical thinking), that the possibility exist, that Universe is aware of its own existence. And no, if i look at a cloud and see Donald Duck that has nothing to do, in relation to understanding the Universe as a form of life. Can you relate to the number of Earth like planet that theoretically exist in a Universe, that is 13.7 billion years old and at the very least, is about 40 billion light years wide? What effect does non-random behavior have upon reality in respect to Bells theorem, which is a response to EPR paradox?????

If in fact the Universe is a bunch of mold it must exist in an environment that can support the existence of mold.

Respectfully and in relation to science, when it comes to nature to base a conclusion on inductive reasoning?

Is to preform a "leap of faith".

I think it is hilarious reading the replies on this topic...

It's amazing watching the Universe debate with different parts of itself about whether or not it is capable of thinking.

I would argue that and in respect to function, that, at the very least there are 100 trillion earth like planets in the Universe as we understand it. That have in fact, conscious life which, at the very least is equivalent to mankind as we are today. To be very specific and in relation to Electrons effect upon space-time, in relation to Electron spin as it orbits the nucleus? We in fact have a non-random effect, produced by conscious behavior that has an effect upon quantum states and in relation to EPR Paradox.

I would further and again cite Bells Theorem in this regard.

Given this is, it is correct to conclude that the Atheist point is mute....

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by jude11
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

I agree with that one..😆

Humans must be the cancer cell on this piece of neuron. Maybe some white cells will come and cleanse it.

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...

Well, I ALSO have something to say. The idea that my mind and the cosmos are "one"? That my individuality is lost in the great all so I might as well forget any assertion that I am not an individual? Therefore I have no individual rights? That suits the corporate police state just fine I am sure.

pressure from the money backers to produce results make scientists say the dumbest things.

Man this explains creation better than most posts trying to support evolutionary development.

Well done. Awesome find.

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.

That would make us a Cancer in some beings body.

Originally posted by mr10k
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

In a way the universe DOES think, because YOU are the universe thinking about itself.