. I’m not talking to you now …
. Are you people that weak to need support from another side other than you.
. Time will teach you …
. You are aware of wasting your time and still I can press the anger button, and keep you leaned here.
. I call it spiritual poverty.
. Namastê 
It’s called “consensus”.
Hello everybody. In my consideration we are indeed generating images of the God and for describing or framing shares of our existence, behaviours, etc… We designed hips of images of divinities. However by being our brains as multicellular beings like smaller reproductions of the Universe inside our microscopical frame. I think in certain manner of speak, we are indeed made by him as smaller reproductions of himself inside this membrane or existential frame, from his overall body of eight membranes.
[quote=“santiago, post:43, topic:5453, full:true”]
Hello everybody. In my consideration we are indeed generating images of the God and for describing or framing shares of our existence, behaviours, etc… We designed hips of images of divinities. However by being our brains as multicellular beings like smaller reproductions of the Universe inside our microscopical frame. I think in certain manner of speak, we are indeed made by him as smaller reproductions of himself inside this membrane or existential frame, from his overall body of eight membranes.
Are you suggesting the universe is God’s brain or God’s creation? These concepts are mutually exclusive.
The problem with any form of abstract agency is the physical pattern from which “intelligence” emerges. In all biological organisms it is the brain or neural network from which intelligence emerges and is a “reducible complexity”.
But God is the causal agency for the creation of the universe and is an “irreducible complexity”. Hence the concept of God is paradoxical and can only be a product of imagination.
just skimming your posts and I can see a number of rule violations. Contribute, discuss, respond, or be banned.
– Your friendly neighborhood mod
Why eight? Why not seven?
Our latest matematical developments are talking about eight membranes, or dimensional frames. Those are also seen as eleven dimensions with our four dimensions generating our initial frame or membrane. However the other membranes could be multidimensional.
Now I just want to said: I’m living in Port Orli Vanuatu. I’m using mobile connection and I’m redacting all with my phone. It is quite difficult, moreover I’m not native English speaker. Thereafter my connection is prepaid for few mega during few hours. Not every day I have connection and it’s quite limited. I will try to catch the rhitm for answering you all.
Hello, My point is. In case Reallity is a multidimensional frame of dimensional frames. By it’s membranes or dimensional frames sparking or friction. It gets generated here inside our existential frame of four dimensions or membrane our Universe in a big bang, or at least some people perceive its generation like that and I quite agree with them, or at least I don’t have any complain about. Thereafter by being as the latest astronomical studies identifying the Universe is running in a quite similar manner than a brain, where the atoms are the star systems, the galaxies are neurons and the Universe as a whole seems to run in a quite simmilar manner than a brain. So they are seeing this. However we shouldn’t forget than we are the irrelevant here. We as a whole are just a fungus stick in a single electron size particle. Furthermore our recent studies also are demonstrating than a fungus thinks and takes the led by its own. So besides the brain is indeed an organ is concentrating on a really small space lots of electromagnetic activity, the rest in smaller degree is also handling it. A fungus don’t have brain, however as I said there are indeed some experiments that are empirically proving is thinking. For all related science papers you can take a look to Anton Petrof YouTube channel. I learned there. However the point of the fungus I studied first by myself, thereafter I step with his channel and I observe their conclusions.
There is no need to get roude. I’m doing my best. I can transmit my point just redacting my ideas with a single finger by using a mobile. I beg you a bit of patience.
I made no comment on your language skills. You called people names. That’s rude. I pointed out we have a rule against that. That is not rude.
I’ll check out those YouTube recommendations, but I don’t think the universe is like a brain. There is nothing other than brains that have ever shown any sign of consciousness.
[quote=“santiago, post:48, topic:5453”]
Thereafter by being as the latest astronomical studies identifying the Universe is running in a quite similar manner than a brain, where the atoms are the star systems, the galaxies are neurons and the Universe as a whole seems to run in a quite similar manner than a brain.
I know exactly what you mean and once I had the same perspective. i.e. the universe is one gigantic brain. But that concept is not tenable. The universe is much too violent to support a sentient organism, regardless of size. Intelligence does not function that way.
That was until I read MaxTegmark who proposes that the universe is a mathematical construct and as such behaves in a quasi-intelligent manner which often appears to be a product of a motivated agency, but is actually a product of spacetime geometry, which itself is already a mathematical term.
Note that the universe was created in energetic Chaos and that from the chaos patterns emerged spontaneously from simple energetic values into quarks, atoms, atomic elements, and evolving into ever greater complexity over a time time-span of some 13.8 billion years.
This slow and gradual evolutionary process argues against a sentient creator agent, but does support the proposition that a slow mathematical process of natural selection of advantageous properties in accordance with some regular ordering process. That process would have a fundamental mathematical ordering aspect of:
input → function → output in accordance with mathematical permissions and restrictions.
Max Tegmark has a lecture at the Royal Institution, on YouTube ;
Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters
Max Tegmark,1,2 Anthony Aguirre,3 Martin J. Rees,4 and Frank Wilczek2,1 1 MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 2 Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 3 Department of Physics, UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA 4 Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 OHA, United Kingdom (Received 1 December 2005; published 9 January 2006)
We identify 31 dimensionless physical constants required by particle physics and cosmology, and emphasize that both microphysical constraints and selection effects might help elucidate their origin. Axion cosmology provides an instructive example, in which these two kinds of arguments must both be taken into account, and work well together. If a Peccei-Quinn phase transition occurred before or during inflation, then the axion dark matter density will vary from place to place with a probability distribution.
By calculating the net dark matter halo formation rate as a function of all four relevant cosmological parameters and assessing other constraints, we find that this probability distribution, computed at stable solar systems, is arguably peaked near the observed dark matter density. If cosmologically relevant weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) dark matter is discovered, then one naturally expects comparable densities of WIMPs and axions, making it important to follow up with precision measurements to determine whether WIMPs account for all of the dark matter or merely part of it.
@santiago, I was looking back over your response and noticed I was confused. It was anandhaqq who called people names. So, now I can’t figure out why you said, “no need to get rude”.
Hope you enjoy the forum and stick around.
Yes of course, I really appreciate your welcoming and yes, there is tension due to external causes and it was a bit confusing my introduction.
Yes of course, there are other people are making their own studies and are taking their own conclusions. However I think, we could agree in all of them are under development and the possibility I was pointing out is also there.
[quote=“lausten, post:51, topic:5453”]
I’ll check out those YouTube recommendations, but I don’t think the universe is like a brain. There is nothing other than brains that have ever shown any sign of consciousness.
Well, Tegmark proposes that there are quasi-intelligent patterns that exhibit some form of self-referential awareness. Might that be called a form of consciousness?
When a biochemical compound eats rocks or a metal, can we call it predatory, i.e. it searches or hunts for food?
A single-celled slime mold exhibits remarkable searching skills. It has no brain or neural network, but it does possess microtubules that allow it to walk as a pseudopodia and solve mazes and even has a sense of heat and cols and time. Is that consciousness?
