That´s probably because "I don´t like X, therefore I don´t believe XFunny how no one mentions the belief that God cooks people alive forever in a torture chamber he created for that purpose as a stumbling block.
Your opinions don't match my experience and are not relevant to how scientists think about the science they do.I can see for myself that we've wasted billions of dollars on a fruitless dark matter snipe hunt that was never warranted or necessary to start with. I can see for myself that all the null results are never used to "falsify" anything. I can also see for myself how much *misinformation* that the mainstream posts about EU/PC theory. I know how highly controlled the astronomy websites are too. I know *exactly* how "science" is being practiced in the real world as it relates to cosmology, and it's nothing like the brochure.
I didn't claim that EVERYONE claiming Christianity believes it. But those who do will tell atheists that their god does roast people alive forever and even say that atheists will roast if they don't repent.That's hardly true, by the way. Hell is not eternal torture, as I understand it from the Bible.
A prediction is a reasonable implication of your hypothesis. We already know the universe interacts with the human brain through EM fields - all our senses depend on electromagnetic effects. Sharing a potential means of communication, of itself, doesn't reasonably imply that communication should be expected, or that some specific outcome of any communication should be expected.It predicts a mechanism for an interaction between a living "high power' and the human brain, specifically the EM field.
But we already know the EM field is a potential mechanism of communication - we use it all the time; and we actively listen for signals of non-human origin.It predicts that the EM field is a potential mechanism of communication.
Your opinions don't match my experience and are not relevant to how scientists think about the science they do.
Let's charitably assume a static universe of 40 billion light years across, and ignore the signal processing time. If the thought-related activity in the cosmic brain is electromagnetic and remotely analogous to biological brain function, a minimum timescale for simple awareness of a supra-threshold stimulus would be roughly twice the distance across - something on the order of 80 billion years.
I qualified in biological science, but I've subsequently taken an interest in other areas, including cosmology. In none of the areas in which I've had experience of scientists talking about and presenting their ideas do I recognise the views you describe. In my experience, scientists are just people like everyone else, but they also have a strong incentive to question each other's work and expose errors, inaccuracies, mistakes, and frauds. Personal loyalties are more than balanced by competitiveness. I can't comment about your experiences because I know nothing about them.Unless you happen to work in astronomy, my criticism wouldn't necessary apply to your field of science. Regardless of your field of expertise, which of our "experiences" has merit, or do they both have merit?
My projection was explicitly ignoring signal processing time, and just considering the time for signals to traverse the 'brain' universe: "Let's charitably assume a static universe of 40 billion light years across, and ignore the signal processing time..."Since there are more circuits in the solar atmosphere than exist in my entire brain, why would "processing" need to take place over billions of light years?
I qualified in biological science, but I've subsequently taken an interest in other areas, including cosmology.
In none of the areas in which I've had experience of scientists talking about and presenting their ideas do I recognise the views you describe.
In my experience, scientists are just people like everyone else, but they also have a strong incentive to question each other's work and expose errors,
inaccuracies, mistakes, and frauds.
Personal loyalties are more than balanced by competitiveness.
I can't comment about your experiences because I know nothing about them.
My projection was explicitly ignoring signal processing time, and just considering the time for signals to traverse the 'brain' universe:
"Let's charitably assume a static universe of 40 billion light years across, and ignore the signal processing time..."
As I said, if you want to revise my interpretation of what you've posted, or be more specific about the function, or change the scales I suggest, please do so. I'm going on what I've gleaned from your posts - I acknowledge it may not be what you meant, so please correct any errors you find.
Are you now suggesting that the signal processing could be performed by individual stars rather than being distributed as patterns of activity across the universe, as in an analog of a biological brain?
This would require the stars involved to be receivers and transmitters of a large amount of information,
and significantly reduce the functional analogy with biological brains - and it wouldn't change the timescales I suggested. Do you know of any evidence to support this role for stars?
Any comment on the rest of my analysis?
I can't comment about your experiences because I know nothing about them.
That's how human brains work - when a stimulus is below the threshold of conscious awareness patterns of activation are local and short-lived, when it's above the threshold the patterns of activation are widespread and relatively long-lived.Why does the "awareness" of something have to "traverse the whole universe" in the first place? Some "signals" would take a great deal of time to traverse great distances, but I have no evidence that such is thing is even necessary as it relates to awareness and even "action" inside of our own solar system.
The 'speed of awareness' I'm using is the time taken for conscious (reportable) experience of a stimulus. The timescales of conscious awareness in biological (human) brains are pretty well established. Supra-threshold stimuli (e.g. auditory or visual) take a minimum 50–80 msec to produce basic conscious sensation, and identifying the nature of the sensation takes up to 500ms. The time varies with the processing delays in each activated area before onward propagation and the distances between activation centres.I'd rather not simply ignore it. Your questions have merit in their own right, and it may indeed take time for various types of information to "spread out" over time and distance.
Since I don't really know what the speed of awareness might be however, I have no confidence it's limited to the speed of light, nor do I have confidence that signals must go *everywhere*.
I'm not clear what you mean by that - you talk as if awareness was some kind of stuff or signal, rather than a description of a brain process.I don't know the speed of awareness for a fact...
It sounds like you're dropping the structural and functional analogy with biological brains, in which case my analysis is moot.... or the limits of solar circuitry, nor would I assume that all information has to be processed over distant structures.
If you propose that solar 'circuits' are involved in signal processing, that implies input signals to process and resultant signals to output; i.e. information. If not, why mention them?They are certainly transmitters of energy and receivers of energy. I'm not sure how that correlates directly back to "information".
Because it's not analogous to the function of biological brains, as previously described.I don't know why you seem to think reduces the functional analogy.
It doesn't really matter; whatever information passes from one location to another - as it must for information processing to occur - it will take time and travel no faster than c.I don't really know for a fact what type of 'information" has to pass from one location to another either.
That's absurd - practically everything we know about astrophysics is amenable to verification and falsification.Astrophysics is probably the only branch of physics that excludes itself from experimental support and experimental falsification.
When did you last see something biological in the lab being affected by neutrinos, or tidal forces, or anything else that doesn't detectably affect biological material in the lab? That's a very limited criterion.I really wouldn't expect you to notice much difference until and unless we're talking about astronomy. When was the last time you saw something biological in the lab being affected by "dark matter' or "dark energy"?
As I said, my qualification is biological, but I've had experience of most other sciences, and taking an interest in cosmology, that includes astronomers. I find it quite implausible that one subgroup of scientists should behave radically differently from others. The fact that neither I nor any other interested observers of the field I know have noted it, but that it is clear and marked to someone with a clear bias against the mainstream in favour of a rejected model, speaks for itself.So we're both basing our opinions on our own personal experiences. Whereas I can accept that your experiences in biological related sciences is probably pretty much what you'd expect, that certainly has never been my experience of astronomers.
That's absurd - practically everything we know about astrophysics is amenable to verification and falsification.
When did you last see something biological in the lab being affected by neutrinos,
or tidal forces, or anything else that doesn't detectably affect biological material in the lab? That's a very limited criterion.
As I said, my qualification is biological, but I've had experience of most other sciences, and taking an interest in cosmology, that includes astronomers. I find it quite implausible that one subgroup of scientists should behave radically differently from others.
The fact that neither I nor any other interested observers of the field I know have noted it,
but that it is clear and marked to someone with a clear bias against the mainstream in favour of a rejected model, speaks for itself.
That's how human brains work - when a stimulus is below the threshold of conscious awareness patterns of activation are local and short-lived, when it's above the threshold the patterns of activation are widespread and relatively long-lived.
As I've already said, your posts suggested structural and functional similarities between your cosmic brain concept and biological brains. If this is not the case, perhaps you can explain why you drew attention to these claimed similarities.
The 'speed of awareness' I'm using is the time taken for conscious (reportable) experience of a stimulus. The timescales of conscious awareness in biological (human) brains are pretty well established. Supra-threshold stimuli (e.g. auditory or visual) take a minimum 50–80 msec to produce basic conscious sensation, and identifying the nature of the sensation takes up to 500ms. The time varies with the processing delays in each activated area before onward propagation and the distances between activation centres.
The activations don't occur *everywhere*, but conscious awareness of a stimulus is characterised by activity in widely separated areas. I simplified by taking a rough estimate of the distance a signal might propagate in moving between those widely separated areas. Multiplying by the maximum propagation velocity gives a very crude minimum time from stimulus to conscious awareness of it. In practice, the time would be considerably longer, due to processing delays and variable propagation rates.
There is no reason to suppose any signal transmission can be faster than light, and several good reasons not to.
In any case, if your cosmic brain functions via electromagnetic phenomena, as you suggested, its function will be subject to the velocity constraints of electromagnetic phenomena.
I'm not clear what you mean by that - you talk as if awareness was some kind of stuff or signal, rather than a description of a brain process.
It sounds like you're dropping the structural and functional analogy with biological brains, in which case my analysis is moot.
If you propose that solar 'circuits' are involved in signal processing, that implies input signals to process and resultant signals to output; i.e. information. If not, why mention them?
Because it's not analogous to the function of biological brains, as previously described.
It doesn't really matter; whatever information passes from one location to another - as it must for information processing to occur - it will take time and travel no faster than c.
It seems clear to me that your cosmic brain is untenable as any reasonable analogue to biological brains, and even more so under the known laws of physics in general and electromagnetism in particular.
If you want to claim it may be possible by invoking some unevidenced FTL influence, that's your prerogative, but it's also special pleading of the highest order.
But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses.
What a bizarre assumption to make. 99.9% of the universe is either dark matter or dark energy, neither of which can be detected by one's senses. And it is reasonable to speculate that there may be many other weakly interacting things which we have yet to detect and/or can not ever detect.
Because this position neither requires nor suggests nor necessitates the existence of a God?It that is your position on the topics of exotic matter and exotic energy, why are you an atheist again?