The stumbling block for atheists.

[variant]

Not necessarily in every case. In this case however they're both current carrying environments and the flow of current on the left gives rise to "awareness" at the microscopic level. I certainly can't discount that possibility as it relates to the macroscopic level of reality.

A current across a structure like that is going to be experiencing some serious scaling issues. Are you supposing an axial discharge has an analog at a comparable speed in the universe (which would be problematically slow)?

There is plenty of reason to doubt such an idea, and I don't really see a compelling reason to accept it at a cursory level.

It would be if that was my "premise", but there's that small matter of having published papers galore that explain it from the perspective of circuit theory and pure empirical physics to add to the equation.

You've published papers that demonstrate that a structure that large can act like a neuron at scale?

That would be an interesting read if you are so inclined.

It's very typical in "science" that when trying to 'explain' an observation, another 'mystery" is added. Where does dark energy come from for instance? Adding almost anything to the equations tends to add 'mystery' to them.

Some people might do such things, but I thought you criticized them when they did?

The key is the part that comes afterwards, being able to tell if your modeling is correct or incorrect depending observations and predictions.

Well, I'm looking at it from both the level of physics and theism, sure. There's a bit more to it however, starting with about a hundred published papers by Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland, Anthony Peratt, Charles Bruce, etc.

Do any of them demonstrate that a structure that large can act like a neuron at scale?

I know that gravity exists because I experience it every single day of my life. The formulas to describe it have changed over time, and they may continue to change over time, but my "knowledge" of gravity isn't even related to mathematics, it's related to *experience*. That's pretty much true for everything else as well. I can "understand" some mathematical equations, but that isn't necessarily 'knowledge'. In some/most cases it's just 'theory". Even GR might eventually give way to QM formula for gravity. That won't change my 'experience" of gravity one iota however.

If you don't have any specifics that would demonstrate or disprove your point then the "alive" portion of your idea is just a matter of your preference and ascetic sense.

It's not a "problem" at all. I've got billions of potential power generators and circuitry galore. It's not so much of a problem as it's an "observation" and one that is consistent with laboratory experimentation. Birkland's solar model works in the lab. That's not a "problem", that's an "explanation".

It's the "how" you are glossing over. Without it, explanations are just assertions.

If you're looking for the physics in published papers, start with Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven in that order. The first two are totally free references, and most of the last one as well, although his book is an easier read because it's compiled in order and it's kinda pricey. Most of the chapters come from his other published papers however and most of them are freely available on the internet.

Do they demonstrate or theoretically model how a structure that large can act like a neuron at scale?

Sure, but that's a pretty 'weak' answer without evidence to suggest *everyone* has been delusional since the dawn of time.

Since the dawn of written language.

That sounds like an empirical dead end and not a particularly compelling "explanation". Gravity could be a "mass delusion" too I suppose, but it's hard to call that a "likely" possibility.

Well if you pay attention to the history of their explanations for other phenomena have been rife with error and delusions yes.

The difference in this "God" business is that it can be defined in such a way as not to be accessible to actual scholarship.

I'm not entirely sure because I have no idea if "awareness' has a speed limit even if circuity might. The sun for instance has more circuitry flowing through it's upper atmosphere than my entire brain, and that's just the circuitry that I can observe on the outside. The overall complexity of circuitry at level of a galaxy is staggering to even think about, let alone an entire universe of galaxies.

Well if it works in a similar manner to a brain then it would have a "processing speed" which is effected by the machinery. This would also effect the plausibility of that communication you've suggested.

Actually explaining how what you are proposing works is the difficult part, I know. That's my point.

Suns having "circuitry" though is interesting. The problem I would think would be that the kinds of neuronal nets we are familiar with that do produce awareness are fairly physically stable in a way I would not suspect a sun to be.

I'm not suggesting it's *only* possible if the universe is 'alive', but the similarity both in terms of mass layout and circuity is obvious. I can't just ignore that.

Well, we have to look at similarity vs dissimilarity when dealing with analogy.

Well, I'm not suggesting or implying that I personally have all the answers or that we'll have all the answers in my lifetime. I can however see a logical path towards achieving those answers over time based on the principles of pure empirical physics. I find that encouraging, even if there's a long road ahead in terms of fully "understanding" it all.

Sure sure, my reaction should be interpreted by you as me approaching your idea in the usual way I approach ideas, critically.

Me personally or can I add a few published references for you?

Feel free, but I am most interested in how you suppose such large structures to act like neurons...

Sure. I'm doing my best for instance to *not* stray beyond the realm of laboratory physics, other than to perhaps "scale" various processes that we observe in the lab. That's pretty much a core tenet of EU/PC theory as described by Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland. The biology aspects will be limited due to the problems you mentioned. Even at the level of biology we're not entirely sure how circuits give rise to awareness. We have some idea, but not all the answers. I certainly don't profess to have all those answers at the moment either. Nobody however advocates tossing out biology as a whole simply because we lack some of those answers.

The biology wouldn't be thrown out because we do have a pretty good idea about the basics of how the process works, and what the basic building blocks are. What eludes us with proposed biological based awareness is the detail of how consciousness arises from it.

I think it is an easier problem because we have access to the subject in a way we don't have access to the universe at such a scale.

You'll have to elaborate. Is a proponent of "dark energy" not being a "scientist" when they can't explain where I might find an actual source of the stuff? I'm assuming that this 'science fail' problem applies to *all* topics, not just the topic of God?

Yes, I think that the "dark" parts of physics are fudge factors that exist in models. It drifts past science to the hypothetical.

Such ideas are sometimes useful in that they may point people where to look to find actual explanations.

It's certainly the current state of things for mainstream astronomers. That criticism doesn't apply to everyone however.

I think a lot of people are more ignorant than they care to admit.

I'm not asking you to do that. I'm suggesting that EU/PC theory offers you far "better" empirical explanations to various observations in space, with or without any theistic overtones.

Physics isn't a great strength of mine, so I am not sure it matters.

It "just so happens" to also offer you a clear physical definition of "God" if you personally wish to go there.

I am all for defining God in a tangible/falsifiable manner, but I doubt doing so would likely lead to an actual God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A current across a structure like that is going to be experiencing some serious scaling issues. Are you supposing an axial discharge has an analog at a comparable speed in the universe (which would be problematically slow)? ...

Yes. I went through this whole thing with Michael in another thread. It seems an exercise in wishful thinking from top to bottom.

Even if we allow a very superficial structural similarity between the cosmological 'web' and the connectivity of isolated biological neural circuits to suggest that the universe could be analogous to a vast neural network (that didn't evolve and has no body, etc.), how integrated or coherent could such a network be when the fastest signals travel too slowly to have yet traversed the whole structure since it began, and - given its expansion - never will?

 

[Maile78]

I'll have a look this evening, Maile. I know I have some articles in my Favourites, but there are also some cracking apologists on YouTube. The proofs have been accumulating lately at such a rate, I think you would do well to keep abreast of the articles and posts on the 'uncommondescent.com' website.

Thank you. I will check out that site!

 

[Strathos]

Yes. I went through this whole thing with Michael in another thread. It seems an exercise in wishful thinking from top to bottom.

Even if we allow a very superficial structural similarity between the cosmological 'web' and the connectivity of isolated biological neural circuits to suggest that the universe could be analogous to a vast neural network (that didn't evolve and has no body, etc.), how integrated or coherent could such a network be when the fastest signals travel too slowly to have yet traversed the whole structure since it began, and - given its expansion - never will?

Well that's assuming that information can't be transmitted faster than the speed of light. What about theoretical ideas like space warping, wormholes, or quantum tunneling?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well that's assuming that information can't be transmitted faster than the speed of light. What about theoretical ideas like space warping, wormholes, or quantum tunneling?

As I understand it, the claim is based on electromagnetic phenomena (electric/plasma universe ideas).

But in any case, if there was cosmological FTL 'neural' activity between galaxies, clusters, and superclusters, using space warping (cosmic strings?) or wormholes, it would be very obvious from the intense and ubiquitous gravitational lensing - the universe would appear very weirdly distorted - and it seems likely, as Hawking has pointed out, that the laws of physics wouldn't allow it. Quantum effects are typically unreliable beyond the micro-scale, and don't permit FTL transmission of classical information (e.g. useful for information processing).

 

[variant]

Yes. I went through this whole thing with Michael in another thread. It seems an exercise in wishful thinking from top to bottom.

Even if we allow a very superficial structural similarity between the cosmological 'web' and the connectivity of isolated biological neural circuits to suggest that the universe could be analogous to a vast neural network (that didn't evolve and has no body, etc.), how integrated or coherent could such a network be when the fastest signals travel too slowly to have yet traversed the whole structure since it began, and - given its expansion - never will?

Well, I would think to get the structure in that picture to carry a charge like a neuron, you would definitely need some sort of force that moves faster than speeds we currently think are possible.

Grey matter neurons can fire bio-electric charges at up .5 to 10 meters per second and they exist at a scale of 4 to 100 microns.

The picture of "the universe" comes from a computer simulation of what the large scale universe looks like and the scale of the thing on the image is mind boggling.

If the thing in the picture were carrying a charge as large as an neuron uses at the same relative speed adjusted for scale then it would probably be pretty obvious because it would kill us all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, I would think to get the structure in that picture to carry a charge like a neuron, you would definitely need some sort of force that moves faster than speeds we currently think are possible.

Yup.

If the thing in the picture were carrying a charge as large as an neuron uses at the same relative speed adjusted for scale then it would probably be pretty obvious because it would kill us all.

I don't know - I'd expect that even if we were too small to be directly affected by charge gradients at that scale, we'd still see their effects. But it's rather pointless speculation...

 

[Michael]

A current across a structure like that is going to be experiencing some serious scaling issues.

Scaling issues are pretty much par for the course in cosmology. No theory will be exempt I'm afraid.

Are you supposing an axial discharge has an analog at a comparable speed in the universe (which would be problematically slow)?

Why would you assume that it's problematically 'slow'? I assume you're imagining a need for centralized processing or something along those lines? Keep in mind that our own sun has more visible circuits in it's atmosphere than I have in my entire body, and those are just the ones I can visually observe on the outside.

I don't assume that it would necessarily be problematically slow, and I have no idea what the actual speed of 'awareness' might be, even if sensory input and output channels might be limited to C.

There is plenty of reason to doubt such an idea, and I don't really see a compelling reason to accept it at a cursory level.

We're going to have to objectively define the concept of 'compelling' sooner or later. Compelling compared to what? Unlike the most 'popular' cosmology theory, I'm not adding any attributes to the universe itself that I cannot find here on Earth, including awareness in a variety of different forms.

What makes any cosmology theory compelling?

You've published papers that demonstrate that a structure that large can act like a neuron at scale?

Me personally? No. Others have been writing about it for over 100 years however:

Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia

You'll find plenty of materials which are quite current too, not just papers from the last century.

That would be an interesting read if you are so inclined.

Google is your friend.

Some people might do such things, but I thought you criticized them when they did?

I don't criticize anyone for inserting/adding "mystery". I only complain when they start adding supernatural constructs to the equations. There's a distinct difference between adding an idea that leads to more questions (mystery) and adding a supernatural component.

The key is the part that comes afterwards, being able to tell if your modeling is correct or incorrect depending observations and predictions.

Well, true, but it becomes tough to tell what's a real "prediction' and what's a postdicted fit to observation. Most of current cosmology theory falls into the latter category.

Do any of them demonstrate that a structure that large can act like a neuron at scale?

I haven't been through every paper on the topic to answer that question, but I'm sure folks have tried.

If you don't have any specifics that would demonstrate or disprove your point then the "alive" portion of your idea is just a matter of your preference and ascetic sense.

A non living universe wouldn't necessarily "predict" a circuity system that looks remarkably similar to living organisms. A living universe might make such a "prediction" however.

A living universe might also predict a conscious interaction between human beings and a "higher power" too, which is something that humans have been writing about since they first started writing.

It seems like a living universe passes as least two "predictions/postdictions' that a non-living universe wouldn't even necessarily make in the first place. It's no longer just an issue of ascetics, it's a question of predictive usefulness.

It's the "how" you are glossing over. Without it, explanations are just assertions.

The how part in terms of "power" is fusion. The how part is in terms of circuit theory is best explained by Alfven and Peratt IMO.

I don't know why today has been so busy at work, but it's been busy. I'm going to need to stop here for a bit and I'll pick up where I left off when I can. In the meantime you might do some reading on Boltzmann brains. Presumably the only thing that "saves" us from Boltzmann brains is 'inflation".

“In the end, inflation saves us from Boltzmann’s brain,” Dr. Albrecht said, while admitting that the calculations were contentious. Indeed, the “invasion of Boltzmann brains,” as Dr. Linde once referred to it, was just beginning.

Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?

Apparently if I simply toss out a supernatural construct like inflation, intelligence seems to be "predictable", particularly in an infinite and eternal universe.

I'll be back.....

 

[Michael]

Do any of them demonstrate that a structure that large can act like a neuron at scale?

This article might be of interest to you. The structure of neutron stars is predicted to contain structures that do in fact look remarkably similar to structures in the human brain:

Humans and Supernova-Born Neutron Stars Have Similar Structures, Discover Scientists

 

[Michael]

“In the end, inflation saves us from Boltzmann’s brain,” Dr. Albrecht said, while admitting that the calculations were contentious. Indeed, the “invasion of Boltzmann brains,” as Dr. Linde once referred to it, was just beginning.

Consider the implications of this statement as it relates to empirical physics and cosmology theory for a moment. According to Dr. Albrecht, were it not for a purely *supernatural* construct called "inflation", macroscopic forms of awareness are a virtual *inevitability* according to QM and physics in general.

Why in the *universe* would I even wish to introduce a 'supernatural" construct into the universe in the first place, and why would I wish to do so if that means that I might be overlooking the full empirical potential of the 'natural' universe? How in the world would inflation theory be a "compelling" alternative to empirical physics in that scenario?

 

[Michael]

Well that's assuming that information can't be transmitted faster than the speed of light. What about theoretical ideas like space warping, wormholes, or quantum tunneling?

Suffice to say that if there is a faster than light speed communication mechanism available in nature, a living macroscopic organism may have enjoyed the whole of time to figure it out, and figure out how to put it to good use.

Even if sensory input and output channels are exclusively limited to the speed of light, I really have no idea what the speed of 'awareness' might be. Is awareness actually limited to a single location inside the brain, or is it more of a quantum effect that spans a "distance' of some kind? I'm not even sure an FTL mechanism is necessary in the first place.

From the standpoint of science however, it's almost mind-boggling to think that were it not for someone introducing a supernatural element called inflation into the discussion of cosmology, a 'naturally forming' macroscopic form of awareness is a near inevitability.

I also tend to believe that the real cause of photon redshift in space is the same thing that causes photon redshift in the lab, namely inelastic forms of scattering in plasma. If that is in fact the real cause of the photon redshift/distance relationship, then we could indeed be living inside of an infinite and *internal* universe which has enjoyed the whole of time to create a macroscopic intelligence. So above, so below.

 

[Michael]

Well, I would think to get the structure in that picture to carry a charge like a neuron, you would definitely need some sort of force that moves faster than speeds we currently think are possible.

Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years - VLT reveals alignments between supermassive black hole axes and large-scale structure
Galaxy alignments traced back 10 billion years

The alignments of galaxies show *incredible* signs of order spanning billions of light years of distance. I certainly cannot exclude the possibility of such a force/carrier particle that exceeds C. If there is such a thing, a living macroscopic entity that spans the cosmos may have enjoyed the whole of eternity to figure out how to use it.

Even *if* I have to introduce *one* 'supernatural' force into the discussion (and I'm not conceding that point), such a theory would still contain *three fewer* supernatural constructs than current cosmology theory, and I would *still* find that more "compelling" based on a simple Occam's razor argument.

 

[variant]

Why would you assume that it's problematically 'slow'? I assume you're imagining a need for centralized processing or something along those lines? Keep in mind that our own sun has more visible circuits in it's atmosphere than I have in my entire body, and those are just the ones I can visually observe on the outside.

For any processing at the scales you mentioned. If the universe is made of neuronal circuits that large, then you have to move the info at that scale.

The sun as you put it is very tiny by comparison it would be coordinating with things mindbogglingly far away if the entire universe is a very large set of neuronal circuitry.

I don't assume that it would necessarily be problematically slow, and I have no idea what the actual speed of 'awareness' might be, even if sensory input and output channels might be limited to C.

Well, then the structural analogy you are making is pretty weak then.

Regardless you have to be proposing information transfer at a rate much faster than c, that is a point of agreement between us.

We're going to have to objectively define the concept of 'compelling' sooner or later. Compelling compared to what? Unlike the most 'popular' cosmology theory, I'm not adding any attributes to the universe itself that I cannot find here on Earth, including awareness in a variety of different forms.

What makes any cosmology theory compelling?

Evidence that it is correct. Things aren't nessisarily popular because they are well evidenced.

Otherwise I would accept your proposition that people generally believing in God's meant that it should take the idea that God exists seriously without being compelled to by evidence.

People are quite capable of believing things without being compelled to by evidence. Beliefs are just where people come to rest with their conclusions, we do so for all sorts of reasons.

Me personally? No. Others have been writing about it for over 100 years however:

Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia

You'll find plenty of materials which are quite current too, not just papers from the last century.

Google is your friend.

Yeah I said demonstrate, that's a hypothetical idea no more developed than your own.

I don't criticize anyone for inserting/adding "mystery". I only complain when they start adding supernatural constructs to the equations. There's a distinct difference between adding an idea that leads to more questions (mystery) and adding a supernatural component.

Supernatural like your super fast info?

Well, true, but it becomes tough to tell what's a real "prediction' and what's a postdicted fit to observation. Most of current cosmology theory falls into the latter category.

Right, it's a valid criticism of any model if the model requires constant adjustment or doesn't offer enough insight into what we're likely to discover next.

A non living universe wouldn't necessarily "predict" a circuity system that looks remarkably similar to living organisms. A living universe might make such a "prediction" however.

The patterns you are seeing would need to be unlikely or excluded in a non-living universe for it to be an either or kind of thing. Failing that we would need find a way to demonstrate that they are there for the reasons you suggest.

A living universe might also predict a conscious interaction between human beings and a "higher power" too, which is something that humans have been writing about since they first started writing.

Same point, we would need to know that the persistence of Human ideas about God would not exist if there isn't an objective God. Or, we could find a way to demonstrate that they are there for the reasons you suggest.

It seems like a living universe passes as least two "predictions/postdictions' that a non-living universe wouldn't even necessarily make in the first place. It's no longer just an issue of ascetics, it's a question of predictive usefulness.

Predictions in this sense have to be exclusive to demonstrate the theory.

The how part in terms of "power" is fusion. The how part is in terms of circuit theory is best explained by Alfven and Peratt IMO.

I don't know why today has been so busy at work, but it's been busy. I'm going to need to stop here for a bit and I'll pick up where I left off when I can. In the meantime you might do some reading on Boltzmann brains. Presumably the only thing that "saves" us from Boltzmann brains is 'inflation".

Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?

Apparently if I simply toss out a supernatural construct like inflation, intelligence seems to be "predictable", particularly in an infinite and eternal universe.

I'll be back.....

Again, this seems little better than conjecture that structures as complex as brains blink in and out of existence...

The brains we have the most knoledge of seem to have some pretty complicated physical circuitry that I do not think is likely to simply happen randomly in a gas cloud and persist for more than an instant.

You need more than the probability of very large numbers to construct aware brains IMO. Ours exist as part of a living system that saves information. Should I expect such a thing in stars, clouds of gas or the mega-structure of the universe?

Now, where we agree I think is that I think you could construct a consciousness out of differn't things than our brains, which is why I find the idea intriguing.

 

[variant]

The alignments of galaxies show *incredible* signs of order spanning billions of light years of distance. I certainly cannot exclude the possibility of such a force/carrier particle that exceeds C. If there is such a thing, a living macroscopic entity that spans the cosmos may have enjoyed the whole of eternity to figure out how to use it.

Even *if* I have to introduce *one* 'supernatural' force into the discussion (and I'm not conceding that point), such a theory would still contain *three fewer* supernatural constructs than current cosmology theory, and I would *still* find that more "compelling" based on a simple Occam's razor argument.

You've introduced something we haven't any evidence for regardless of if we decide it is "supernatural" or not.

How many more would be required to develop an entire cosmology along these lines is an open question, as you seem to only be addressing a single question about the universe.

If your ratio is 1 evidence free supernatural force per question, I would say the cosmology is plenty questionable.

Give me some time to Let me give you links a fairer read, I am a bit too exhausted today for much more.

 

[Michael]

For any processing at the scales you mentioned.

Why do you automatically "assume" that "processing" must take place somewhere other than inside our own solar system in order for the universe to be "aware" of something? Does every neuron in my brain need to be "signaled" by by my awareness, or is a localized sense of awareness itself sufficient?

If the universe is made of neuronal circuits that large, then you have to move the info at that scale.

Well, it may indeed move information at the speed of light, but I really have no idea what the speed of "awareness" might be. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions in terms of where "processing" must take place. If the universe is infinite and eternal, I'd assume that intelligence and awareness isn't limited to a single location.

The sun as you put it is very tiny by comparison

It might be tiny in comparison to the whole universe, but it's utterly *gigantic* in comparison to me. It also contains a lot more circuits too.

it would be coordinating with things mindbogglingly far away if the entire universe is a very large set of neuronal circuitry.

Again, you seem to be *assuming* a "distant" sort of awareness/intelligence. I'm envisioning something more 'all pervasive'.

Well, then the structural analogy you are making is pretty weak then.

Why? Like I said, even if I had to introduce some other form of energy that can travel faster that C, I'd still require *three fewer* exotic concepts than mainstream cosmology theory.

Regardless you have to be proposing information transfer at a rate much faster than c, that is a point of agreement between us.

While you can argue that inputs and outputs to "awareness" travel at C, you have no real way of knowing if "awareness" itself has any speed limit. Does it have mass?

Even if I do require such a device, it would tend to 'explain" how God presumably has greater "power" than we do, and has the ability to transcend time. It would be an acceptable extension if I really thought I required such a thing, which I don't.

Evidence that it is correct. Things aren't nessisarily popular because they are well evidenced.

True. Exotic forms of matter theories are "popular" right now, but they're entirely optional even in space. They're actually "required" in one otherwise falsified cosmology theory that I could *easily* live without. Nowhere else in physics is such a thing "required" to exist.

Popularity and empirical laboratory evidence do not always go hand in hand, even in physics.

Otherwise I would accept your proposition that people generally believing in God's meant that it should take the idea that God exists seriously without being compelled to by evidence.

You're going to have to define the term "evidence' here sooner or later, and we'll have to stick to rule system of evidence that doesn't exclude huge aspects of "science".

People are quite capable of believing things without being compelled to by evidence.

Sure. Some people hold 'faith' and that's just fine for them. Then again I believe in things like gravity not because of any particular math formula, and the "evidence" of it's existence is simply something I 'experience". The same is true of light. Some things simply exist and we can observe them and experience them for ourselves. We may not even all have the same set of 'experiences" to draw from.

Beliefs are just where people come to rest with their conclusions, we do so for all sorts of reasons.

Sure. A lot of them are quite logical and rational and likely to be 'correct' however.

Yeah I said demonstrate, that's a hypothetical idea no more developed than your own.

Demonstrate? How is it possible to do that in your opinion and I'll try to give it a whirl. How is any hypothetical concept 'developed"? Is dark energy theory "developed"? In what sense?

Supernatural like your super fast info?

Like I said, even if that's necessary to introduce, I've still got three fewer than mainstream theory. I get two more supernatural "wishes" and I'm still ahead of mainstream theory.

Unless you can demonstrate a speed limit of awareness, or the need for every neuron in my brain to be 'signaled" in some way, I really have no reason to introduce anything other than awareness and awareness shows up on Earth in may different forms. There's nothing supernatural about it.

Right, it's a valid criticism of any model if the model requires constant adjustment or doesn't offer enough insight into what we're likely to discover next.

Do you have any idea how many times big bang theory has been "adjusted" over my lifetime? It's been adjusted up the wazoo since it was first proposed as an explanation for photon redshift.

The patterns you are seeing would need to be unlikely or excluded in a non-living universe for it to be an either or kind of thing.

At the microscopic scale, what non living structures form the same patterns we see on the left side of that image, like neurons in that mouse brain?

Failing that we would need find a way to demonstrate that they are there for the reasons you suggest.

What other reason would there be?

Same point, we would need to know that the persistence of Human ideas about God would not exist if there isn't an objective God. Or, we could find a way to demonstrate that they are there for the reasons you suggest.

I'm open to suggestions.

Predictions in this sense have to be exclusive to demonstrate the theory.

That is *rarely* the case, if ever, particularly in cosmology theory. Photon redshift might be a "prediction" of LCDM theory, but it's also a prediction of a static universe theory that includes the concept of tired light.

Again, this seems little better than conjecture that structures as complex as brains blink in and out of existence...

It's a "conjecture" from the realm of physics, pretty much like any concept of cosmology.

The brains we have the most knoledge of seem to have some pretty complicated physical circuitry that I do not think is likely to simply happen randomly in a gas cloud and persist for more than an instant.

Actually the entire universe is an interwoven serious of circuitry according to EU/PC theory and Hannes Alfven. It's not a 'random' thing at all however, it's a simply a function of an electric universe.

You need more than the probability of very large numbers to construct aware brains IMO. Ours exist as part of a living system that saves information. Should I expect such a thing in stars, clouds of gas or the mega-structure of the universe?

I have do idea how to demonstrate "memory" in something which I do not control.

Now, where we agree I think is that I think you could construct a consciousness out of differn't things than our brains, which is why I find the idea intriguing.

It's intriguing to me as well. Keep in mind that both Boltzmann brain ideas and electric universe ideas predate me by at least a century. Birkeland actually demonstrated his theories in working models, but I see no logical way to demonstrate awareness in the universe itself, since I can't "control" it in any way.

If you fill the universe with thousand of trillions of electric suns, the circuits will simply work itself out over time, and it will be anchored by the heaviest objects.

Keep in mind that some of the the circuitry within our own solar system has already been observed:

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights | Science Mission Directorate
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun

All those macroscopic threads that we see in space are current carrying threads of plasma.

 

[Michael]

You've introduced something we haven't any evidence for regardless of if we decide it is "supernatural" or not.

I haven't introduced anything of the sort. You keep insisting that I have to, so I'll "entertain" the idea of you like. Assuming that a FTL mechanism does exist in nature, it would be a "natural" process too, but I have no compelling evidence for it.

How many more would be required to develop an entire cosmology along these lines is an open question, as you seem to only be addressing a single question about the universe.

I don't really see the need to introduce the first one, but I see no reason to introduce more than one. LCDM has four of them already, so even with 1, it's still a more "compelling' argument IMO.

If your ratio is 1 evidence free supernatural force per question, I would say the cosmology is plenty questionable.

Let's hear your second question before you get too carried away.

Give me some time to Let me give you links a fairer read, I am a bit too exhausted today for much more.

I hear you. It's been a long week.

Keep in mind that human beings tend to believe that God can "hear" their prayers, and they tend to experience God as "all pervasive". All I'm suggesting is that "awareness" itself is "all pervasive" because it's a function of the universe that we live in. I think your need for 'information' to travel faster than C to some distant location for "processing" seems dubious.

 

[variant]

Why do you automatically "assume" that "processing" must take place somewhere other than inside our own solar system in order for the universe to be "aware" of something? Does every neuron in my brain need to be "signaled" by by my awareness, or is a localized sense of awareness itself sufficient?

The structural analog to a neuron you showed me is beyond gigantic. Do you think there are other structural analogs in solar systems as well?

Well, it may indeed move information at the speed of light, but I really have no idea what the speed of "awareness" might be. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions in terms of where "processing" must take place. If the universe is infinite and eternal, I'd assume that intelligence and awareness isn't limited to a single location.

If we limit ourselves to light speed then the picture you were showing me is probably fairly meaningless. It will simply not be capable of acting like the thing you are comparing it to because of the scaling issue.

It might be tiny in comparison to the whole universe, but it's utterly *gigantic* in comparison to me. It also contains a lot more circuits too.

"has circuits" isn't really enough to justify anything, as there is no reason to call the brain "just a bunch of circuits" which would be an impressive oversimplification. You're basis for comparison so far was a picture of circuitry many orders of magnitude larger.

Again, you seem to be *assuming* a "distant" sort of awareness/intelligence. I'm envisioning something more 'all pervasive'.

I am working with the evidence as you present it. Again, your basis for comparison was a much larger "circuit".

Why? Like I said, even if I had to introduce some other form of energy that can travel faster that C, I'd still require *three fewer* exotic concepts than mainstream cosmology theory.

You've not presented an entire cosmology were that criticism valid, just a very weak justification for why you think large scale awareness is possible via physical means.

While you can argue that inputs and outputs to "awareness" travel at C, you have no real way of knowing if "awareness" itself has any speed limit. Does it have mass?

We're talking about physical mechanisms for phenomena you are proposing, issues of what I don't know, don't really tell me anything.

You can propose things that move faster than are currently known to be physically possible, but again, it's conjecture.

If we allow un-evidenced conjecture to fill in gaps and problems in our theoretical descriptions of phenomena, then we've moved beyond science into a world of fantasy.

Even if I do require such a device, it would tend to 'explain" how God presumably has greater "power" than we do, and has the ability to transcend time. It would be an acceptable extension if I really thought I required such a thing, which I don't.

God is the conclusion you are trying to reach, we call this fallacy begging the question.

True. Exotic forms of matter theories are "popular" right now, but they're entirely optional even in space. They're actually "required" in one otherwise falsified cosmology theory that I could *easily* live without. Nowhere else in physics is such a thing "required" to exist.

Popularity and empirical laboratory evidence do not always go hand in hand, even in physics.

OK, so, I'll count this as another point of agreement.

You're going to have to define the term "evidence' here sooner or later, and we'll have to stick to rule system of evidence that doesn't exclude huge aspects of "science".

Well first one would have to define what they mean by God in a way where we could make observable predictions that would likely to happen if it existed and unlikely to happen if it did not.

Then we would have to make observations that tended to confirm it's existence.

Sure. Some people hold 'faith' and that's just fine for them. Then again I believe in things like gravity not because of any particular math formula, and the "evidence" of it's existence is simply something I 'experience". The same is true of light. Some things simply exist and we can observe them and experience them for ourselves. We may not even all have the same set of 'experiences" to draw from.

Gravity and light are fairly compelling, even if you don't really understand them.

What people call "God" is usually so ill defined it is basically meaningless.

Your "universal awareness" differs, which is why I find it an interesting take on the idea.

Demonstrate? How is it possible to do that in your opinion and I'll try to give it a whirl. How is any hypothetical concept 'developed"? Is dark energy theory "developed"? In what sense?

Let's keep to the ideas you are trying to pass off as valid. My purpose here is not to attempt to justify mainstream physics, and I would be ill prepared to do so.

Disembodied brains are purely hypothetical. We have neither evidence or justification that any such thing exists and a hypothesis from the 1900's doesn't help demonstrate that they are even possible.

What you seem to be lacking is a good idea of how brains actually work, or how they would possibly form disembodied.

Like I said, even if that's necessary to introduce, I've still got three fewer than mainstream theory. I get two more supernatural "wishes" and I'm still ahead of mainstream theory.

But no, you don't as I have pointed out have a full cosmology simply by having one hypothetical idea that doesn't seem to square with what we think we know about reality.

Unless you can demonstrate a speed limit of awareness, or the need for every neuron in my brain to be 'signaled" in some way, I really have no reason to introduce anything other than awareness and awareness shows up on Earth in may different forms. There's nothing supernatural about it.

So, you want to use an analogy to neuronal frameworks and circuitry as your basis for saying disembodied awareness is possible and also throw out everything we know about how neurons and circuits work?

That's an interesting trick.

Do you have any idea how many times big bang theory has been "adjusted" over my lifetime? It's been adjusted up the wazoo since it was first proposed as an explanation for photon redshift.

Even if the big bang is entirely as flawed as you say, it doesn't support the idea that your ideas are correct. You have again lapsed into a logical fallacy.

At the microscopic scale, what non living structures form the same patterns we see on the left side of that image, like neurons in that mouse brain?

If we take that to be true they would actually have to function like them to demonstrate your point.

What other reason would there be?

We don't know why the universe is structured like that so any number of reasons are quite possible.

That is *rarely* the case, if ever, particularly in cosmology theory. Photon redshift might be a "prediction" of LCDM theory, but it's also a prediction of a static universe theory that includes the concept of tired light.

It's a "conjecture" from the realm of physics, pretty much like any concept of cosmology.

The weaknesses of cosmological conclusions are not particularly interesting to me.

Actually the entire universe is an interwoven serious of circuitry according to EU/PC theory and Hannes Alfven. It's not a 'random' thing at all however, it's a simply a function of an electric universe.

I think it would be fairly difficult to find some grounding for the idea that gas clouds are ordered for effect like a living brain.

I have do idea how to demonstrate "memory" in something which I do not control.

That's the rub, actually showing why ones ideas are true.

It's intriguing to me as well. Keep in mind that both Boltzmann brain ideas and electric universe ideas predate me by at least a century. Birkeland actually demonstrated his theories in working models, but I see no logical way to demonstrate awareness in the universe itself, since I can't "control" it in any way.

If you fill the universe with thousand of trillions of electric suns, the circuits will simply work itself out over time, and it will be anchored by the heaviest objects.

Keep in mind that some of the the circuitry within our own solar system has already been observed:

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights | Science Mission Directorate
Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun

All those macroscopic threads that we see in space are current carrying threads of plasma.

The circuitry isn't the problem here it's the function.

I have reason to think that a living system might self order brains as part of a biological system, but I don't see a way of ordering the things you are talking about.

 

[variant]

I think your need for 'information' to travel faster than C to some distant location for "processing" seems dubious.

Well you presented me with only two points of evidence, 1 that people believe in God, and 2 that some structures in the universe look like neurons.

1 Can certainly be true if God doesn't exist.

2 Seems to make little sense if you don't expect the universe to actually generate awareness like a complex set of neurons does.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well you presented me with only two points of evidence, 1 that people believe in God, and 2 that some structures in the universe look like neurons.

For point 2 it's worth noting that some structures in the universe look like some structures in neurons. It's more of the cargo-cult speculation that tries to relate apparent structural similarities to functional equivalence while ignoring the overall context; e.g. certain ways of imaging neuronal connectivity in the brain resemble certain ways of imaging computer simulations of the universe therefore they probably have the same function (!).

Even the quoted article suggests the structural similarities reflect a deeper correspondence:

“Seeing very similar shapes in such strikingly different systems suggests that the energy of a system may depend on its shape in a simple and universal way.”​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You've published papers that demonstrate that a structure that large can act like a neuron at scale?

Me personally? No. Others have been writing about it for over 100 years however:

Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia

You'll find plenty of materials which are quite current too, not just papers from the last century.

Boltzmann brains have no specified scale other than the minimum configuration plausibly required for conscious awareness - generally accepted as on the order of the size and complexity of a human brain or less. The idea of a cosmic-scale Boltzmann brain is contrary to the whole rationale for Bolzmann brains.