What do you think about Biocentric universe / theory of biocentrism ?
>>8167383
Wow! I didn't know the universe looked like that!
>>8167383
It's not a theory, just a poorly formed idea.
The large scale structures of the universe do not have any functions that neurons do. The structures also lack connection to other specialized cells
or does it
>>8167383
Even if the universal structure is part of some '''''living''''' thing, the fact that it looks sort of like a brain is not evidence for it.
>>8167383
Trash
>>8167383
Stupid. Information can't travel faster than the speed of light. Considering how big the universe it wouldn't be able to process much information even on the scale of billions of years.
>>8167383
>theory
You mean pseudoscientific conjecture.
>>8167405
great post, this is true because we've already already learned all that can be known at any scale
Not a framework for generating testable hypotheses, therefore not a theory.
>>8167685
just like how we won't last long enough to experimentally test for proof of evolution, so no matter how many hints we find, it's just a pseudoscience hoax
>>8167383
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OiRk56pNEk
>>8167724
Maybe people shouldn't post images unrelated to their posts then.
>>8167383
That's not 'the universe', it's an artistic representation of dark energy.
That's not what it actually looks like.
We have no idea what it looks like, because we cannot observe it directly.
>>8167383
Before people start freaking the fuck out about brain cells and the universe having the same structure. It just has more to do with how shit forms in a nutshell. Not DUDE SIMULATED REALITY LMAO
>>8167762
Not him, but, that is what >>8167724 appears to be saying.
I would suggest it is a tragically weak argument. Both structures have huge amounts of complexity not pictured that are completely different. We're looking at one small aspect. Cherry-picking extraordinaire. They also form in completely fucking different ways.
>>8167724
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe
Nothing about the theory suggests repitition of of structures is important or necessary.
Also, it's founded on misconceptions about qm and what constitutes an observer.
You should probably learn about the subject matter before you discuss it
>>8167824
I... I didn't even say the image had anything to do with the theory.
Is everyone on this board a turbo autist?
Is /sci/ being raided by /x/?
>>8167454
what is the great attractor?
>>8167405
>The large scale structures of the universe do not have any functions that neurons do.
Yet.
>>8167830
But you did say that repetition of structures was a key idea. And to hit on that - cyclicality, birth from death, fractals, etc. have all been obsessed over and studied and even worshipped. That shit just happens in nature bruh. It is pretty beautiful but as far as we know doesn't really carry any meaning or depth, nature is just good at being efficient and organizing shit neatly.
>>8168074
Or maybe we are just too small to observe their massive effects.
>>8167727
>That's not 'the universe', it's an artistic representation of dark energy.
It's not a representation of "dark energy"
, it is simply gravitational energy that is unexplainably there without mass. It could be as simple as primordial black holes causing these observational anomalies.
>That's not what it actually looks like.
pretty much if we saw in gravitational energy instead of electromagnetic.
>>8167762
>>8167774
>>8167824
BUT, can you explain how neural structure can take minutes amount of energy and somehow turn that energy into "thought", or "idea", or "feeling", etc.
Since this mechanism can't be fully understood yet, maybe a similar mechanism is happening to the matter that surrounds us on a yet unobservable scale?
>>8168132
minute amounts*
>>8167650
hmm, really makes you think
>>8167383
By mass, most of the universe is inanimate matter. But you don't see them getting high and mighty about it.
>>8167383
would make sense in terms of my understanding of that version of multiverse theory where every action you take spawns infinite universes for every action that could've been taken & your consciousness follows the paths where you don't die
then each person basically has their own kind of universe & everyone else are 'shadows' from higher dimensions, like the 3rd is a shadow of the 4th
then everything before you were born was kind of a reverse causality type of deal since events leading up to you existing would have to happen
though ofc I havnt thought that out enough & it's probably bullshit
atm I like the idea that the universe has no beginning or end & matter erupts from virtual particles in some circumstance
virtual particles being the particles that pop into reality for a short time & then disappear, commonly found in vacuums & some field interactions are mediated by them
The longer a virtual particle exists the more properties of real particles it obtains to the point where the only difference between virtual & real particles is the virtual ones don't stick around long
So it then doesn't take much of a leap of logic to say that these virtual particles, which come from nowhere & the longer they stay around the more they look like real particles, have something to do with the origins of matter
While "the universe is a big brain" is bullshit, I wouldn't be object to the possibility of relations in structure if there was some kind of link to efficiency or dispersion or some formula of structure that could be applied to multiple examples in the natural world, like some kind of unknown golden ratio or formation pattern.
>>8167915
underrated post
>>8167724
If we are in a brain can i be the part that mysteriously points out the G spot and hillary clinton can be my pineal
And bill can be bill noone bother bill i think he wants to play golf or start a archeological expedition
>>8167830
>theory
>not falsifiable
kys bub. this is crystal healing meme-tier facebook spirit science bullshit
>>8169167
>would make sense in terms of my understanding of that version of multiverse theory where every action you take spawns infinite universes for every action that could've been taken & your consciousness follows the paths where you don't die
That's the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and you're misunderstanding it. It doesn't say that every time a PERSON could have done something you spawn another world for each possible outcome, it's every time an observation of any kind is made a world is created for each outcome of the measurement. It doesn't have to be a human or sentient being making the measurement, as can be shown by experiment.
There's no "reverse causality", whatever that means, because in some worlds you come into existence and in others you don't, but that makes no difference to the laws of physics because there's nothing special about biological systems making measurements.
You're also wrong about virtual particles. they don't "jump into existence" and disappear later, they are purely mathematical tools used for approximating results in particle physics. Each Feynman diagram represents a particular integral, and the sum of all diagrams with a particular number of loops, say L, is equal to the Lth term in a Taylor expansion (in powers of
Planck's constant) of some scattering amplitude. Hence Feynman diagrams and virtual particles are just diagrammatic tools for approximating something far too difficult to calculate exactly.
It's true that the mathematical expression attached to a virtual particle line in a diagram is closer to that of a real particle when the time you let the virtual particle live longer, but you have to consider all kinds of virtual particles - those that live for a long time and those that don't - to get the correct result.
tl;dr humans aren't the only observers, and virtual particles are just a mathematical tool
>>8167724
Neck yourself you fucking retard
>>8167383
I think there is a consciousness within atoms, and therefore every brain cell has a consciousness.
