Study Maps The Odd Structural Similarities Between The Human Brain And The Universe

Are Neural Networks About to Reinvent Physics?

The world as a neural network

Many other references are available in the same direction. 

So there are similarities between the mathematical models governing these two systems,  as related to the the fractal nature of the universe we live in (mathematical  similarities at different scales ). In future studies of these similarities (going beyond structural similarities  and into dynamical similarities )  would it be possible to ascertain some sort of intentionality,  purpose or meaning (in terms of our language, as related to the  notion of consciousnesss  ) related/associated  to the whole universe we live in? Atheists claim that religion is an invention of the human mind. In light of these mathematical similarities (and other future  developments ) could it be the case that "God" (a vaguely defined  concept at this stage of development  from a scientific viewpoint ) is as real as the universe itself?

"Reality is that which , when you stop believing in it , doesn't go away". Phillip K. Dick.

Mathematical fact is one of those things that don't go away easily.

  • 2
    Downvoting my question is fine, I couldn't care less, but the purpose of my question is to get an answer from presumably more knowledgeable people than myself. Answer appreciated. I am following the scientific method (hundreds of years old). What guiding principles are you following? (this is a question for the downvoters with no argument ).. – Cristian Dumitrescu Nov 22 '20 at 9:20
  • 1
    Being God "a vaguely defined concept at this stage of development from a scientific viewpoint", how can anyone discuss its existence or "reality"? – RodolfoAP Nov 22 '20 at 10:19
  • 2
    There doesn’t appear to be a hypothesis to dismiss. – Sofie Selnes Nov 22 '20 at 10:44
  • 1
    @CristianDumitrescu a) an hypothesis must be objectively and clearly defined, if not, it can't be considered to be scientific. Write it down. b) The reason for your "hypothesis" seems to be the existence of patterns. That is not enough. Most science already accepts their existence a priori. c) You need to include a clear definition of God. It is useless to formulate an hypothesis about something that can't be defined (for now, your question is: "does this thing that I don't understand and and I can't describe, exists, because I see patterns?") – RodolfoAP Nov 22 '20 at 10:50
  • 3
    God is a super-sensual concept. It, She, He, is of a spiritual nature, not material. As such, there is no 'proof' of God in science as science only measures objects within the sensual universe. In short, God is not something that is dealt with in the realm of science – Swami Vishwananda Nov 22 '20 at 12:26

Define your terms. God like soul, means all kinds things to all kinds people.

Do you mean an interventiinist deity that responds to prayer? It's unlikely anyone can find evidence of that.

Do you mean panentheism, or the god-of-the-philosophers? That is really a matter of redefining terms rather than any assertion of substance.

Cells have gathered together in humans to create something far beyond what any individual cell could. Cities can be considered as organisms. Before the heat death of the universe, might all the matter be drawn into a computation, that impacts the next iteration of the universe? It's possible, and would be a kind of deity. Emergent, rather than imminent, or pre-existing, though.

'All knowing', 'all powerful', are philosophically untenable superlatives though.

The term god comes with so much baggage, and so little clear content, I'd suggest avoiding it, and finding other more specific terms. Note how different the dharmakaya is to any Abrahamic deities.

What is a given definition, and framework, trying to achieve, is typically a ore important question, especially in a social context which all religiins occur in, rather than focusing on epistemic or ontological claims. I believe the general cynicism your question is recieving, relates to that. If there is a cosmos-spanning mind, it's hard to imagine how it could possibly care what any of us think about it.

  • There are many venues that can be pursued, like Davies' insight m.nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/… or various versions of omega point theories en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…. Personally I don't particularly subscribe to any of these thought processes , I just want to understand what a higher form of consciousness means. Thank you for your insight. – Cristian Dumitrescu Nov 23 '20 at 1:40
  • And if I was capable of clearly defining all the terms/notions in my question then I wouldn't need to ask the question. – Cristian Dumitrescu Nov 23 '20 at 1:53
  • I would be disappointed in a God answering prayers coming from people asking for material things, or an edge in their petty little worlds , but I would bow my head in the presence of a God who is open for information exchange (for lack of a better wording) with the most humble and insignificant entities in the universe living on a remote rock in the middle of nowhere, like us. – Cristian Dumitrescu Nov 23 '20 at 7:29
  • 1
    In other words I don't look at prayer as an ask/receive process but more of a synchronization process with the soul of the universe we live in. I know, highly speculative but I tried to answer your remark from your answer (about prayer). – Cristian Dumitrescu Nov 23 '20 at 7:49
  • And here I look at this synchronization process as talking place beyond the spacetime framework of our best present day mathematical models of the physical universe, with its relativistic light speed limitations of information transfer. – Cristian Dumitrescu Nov 23 '20 at 8:13

"So there are similarities between the mathematical models governing these two systems" (namely the brain and the universe)

Both the brain and the universe are physical structures, so there is nothing particularly improbable in the idea that they should share some similarities.

"would it be possible ascertain some sort of intentionality, purpose or meaning"

Why are you asking? It is obviously always possible (to) ascertain anything and this without any evidence at all. We see many people doing this all the time.

Take two strings of alphabetical characters. Suppose the first string is the original text of Descartes's Discourse on the Method, certainly one of the most meaningful philosophical texts ever written, and the second one a string with exact same number of characters, but whose characters are randomly determined.

We could compare the two strings, character for character. We would find that many characters occur at the same positions in both strings. We would also find identical substrings occurring at the same location or at different locations.

Given this, would it be possible to ascertain some sort of intentionality, purpose or meaning? No. All we need is to understand probabilities.

Same thing for the structure of the brain versus the structure of the universe. Similarities might be significant in terms of their respective structures and in terms of how these structures evolved, but any notion of intentionality, purpose or meaning can only be self-delusion or wishful thinking.

No one dedicated to following the scientific method would assert anything from mere similarities, however striking they may be. Scientists don't assert. They observe the universe, conceive of possible theories explaining what they have observed, and they keep observing the universe to try and find new facts that would falsify the theory.

This process requires that the theory in question should be possibly falsified. It is very easy for example to imagine the sort of facts that would falsify the Theory of General Relativity. By contrast, it is completely unclear how you could possibly falsify a notion of intentionality, purpose or meaning.

This is no science. No one follows the scientific method who indulges in asserting intentionality, purpose or meaning from mere similarities.

  • I agree @Speakipigeon , your arguments are sound, but make sure you don't throw away the baby wìth the bathwater. These mathematical similarities are not meaningless. – Cristian Dumitrescu Nov 22 '20 at 11:54
  • 1
    @CristianDumitrescu > "These mathematical similarities are not meaningless." -- I'm afraid people tend to confuse the deterministic nature of the reality we all share with it progressing towards a specific outcome. If you want, all things happen because of the reason, not for some reason: "Through [the Lógos] all things were made; without it, nothing was made that has been made." – Yuri Alexandrovich Nov 22 '20 at 13:44
  • "... in it was life, and that life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness didn't comprehend it." <== cause it's true – Yuri Alexandrovich Nov 22 '20 at 13:59
  • @Speakpigeon > "Given this, would it be possible to ascertain some sort of intentionality, purpose or meaning? No. All we need is to understand probabilities." -- and I absolutely appreciate the gesture, but.... not yet :) In this particular case, all we need to understand is the Theory of Evolution. – Yuri Alexandrovich Nov 22 '20 at 14:21
  • @YuriAlexandrovich May be you have a point, but I don't get it. "All we need is to understand probabilities" was in reference to my example with the two strings. – Speakpigeon Nov 22 '20 at 14:58

Any scientific theory will reflect "consciousness" insofar as it is conceivable by and structured out of consciousness. And indeed our own scientific rationality probably owes much to our ancient and ongoing contemplation of shapes, points, and lines in the stars.

In some vague Hegelian-Anthropic sense, we may find that physics, once advanced enough to include explanations of the physicist as well, will appear to have a recursive structure reflecting a similarity to the brains that conceived it. However, this is all pretty fanciful, and we do tend to see "patterns" everywhere we look.

The problem is that from any scientific standpoint, put simply, knowledge advances on the basis of falsifiable hypotheses capable of making predictions. God is not a falsifiable thesis, and by definition is unpredictable. A divine will is a free will, unbound by the necessities or laws enabling scientific prediction, hence capable of miraculous activities.

It is far more probable, I would suggest, that science will create the transcendental omniscient, omnipresent judge we have always imagined than discover this mega-subject pre-existing in the fractal structures of matter. But, hey, who knows?

  • "....science will create the transcendental....". Interesting, this is a modern interpretation of "self fulfilled prophecies " , if I understand correctly what you're saying. As we approach the technological singularity, this is not impossible, but I am still confident that we are way behind what the universe has in store for us. – Cristian Dumitrescu Nov 23 '20 at 2:36
  • In other words the universe has been there (in that particular spacetime threshold point) many, many, many times before. – Cristian Dumitrescu Nov 23 '20 at 3:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.