Chess Online

Play online chess!

From	Message
dmaestro 05-Mar-21, 14:22	Pantheism finance.yahoo.com This new theory offers support for a pantheistic view of Reality.
stalhandske 05-Mar-21, 20:34	First of all, it should be realised that this work has been published in a forum without the usual peer review. I will need to read the paper, but from the description of it I don't see a breakthrough in understanding. So far, it sounds to me like a "theory of theories", which - I am sure - makes mathematical sense, but may not increase our understanding.
bobspringett 06-Mar-21, 14:12	DM 13:22 I take one critical quote from the article:- <“We discuss a possibility that the entire universe on its most fundamental level is a neural network.> Straight away I become sceptical of the claim. My main objection is that the "Entire Universe" on its most fundamental level is opaque to the human mind. The best we can do is build models of it that more-or-less approximate how it behaves. Science is one such model, the various religions are others. Most of them are of some value in some circumstances, but none of them can completely and perfectly go so far as describe the BEHAVIOUR of everything, much less what it IS. If the article had said instead “We discuss a possibility that the entire universe CAN BE THOUGHT OF AS a neural network" I would be more receptive, and allow that it could serve as a technique useful in specific applications.
stalhandske 06-Mar-21, 20:18	Bob 14:12 I agree with your last two sentences. I also agree that the Universe is still quite opaque to the human mind, and further that it is described by models - so is just about all of the natural sciences. Those models are the theories and hypotheses based on observations and exeriments. However, I have difficulties agreeing that various religions are such models. At least, I'd say they aren't even comparable to the scientific models. I hasten to add that this statement of mine does NOT mean that the religious views would have less value! Only that the principles and rules are so different between the two that they cannot be compared - at least not in the sense briefly stated above.
bobspringett 06-Mar-21, 20:26	Stal I take your point. By describing them as 'models', I was meaning only that they are a conceptual framework that helps order our understanding, instead of everything being a pile of unrelated observations. These need not be 'scientific' observations, because reality is bigger than the Scientific Method can handle. As you say, the 'principles and rules' are different.
apatzer 08-Mar-21, 22:38	This is interesting... Is it possible that it simply is a repeating pattern? Human Brain’s Neuronal Network Has Similarities to Cosmic Web. www.sci-news.com
stalhandske 08-Mar-21, 22:47	<This is interesting... Is it possible that it simply is a repeating pattern? > I have to say that whilst interesting, I think it is more or less obvious! A 'neuronal network' is a system where different parts interact with one another in an orderly (but often comolicated) manner. Of course, that is true of the Cosmos as well. I don't see how this proposal is unique, except that it brings in the brain, which attracts interest!
riaannieman 17-Mar-21, 02:36	If the cosmos was sentient, a being with consciousness, I would say that it could be compared as like. But the cosmos is not conscious, therefore it cannot be compared to a brain. The fact there are structures and objects which reminds us about the neural networks of the brain is coincidental. It is like cloud spotting or seeing features in rocks- some clouds remind us of something familiar, some rocks look like a recognizable entity, but neither are, and so the structures in the cosmos are not part of a massive neural network, nor should it be thought of as such. It is still wondrous to see, and much can be learned from it. But it can never be thought of as conscious, or alike to to a brain, human or not.
bobspringett 17-Mar-21, 03:16	I come down on Riaan's side here. The human brain is pre-programmed to see patterns, even when they are illusions. I suspect that conspiracy theorists have a hyper-active 'pattern detection subroutine'. This is understandable; in the wild, seeing a threat that doesn't exist would trigger a closer look, and correction. But NOT seeing a threat that does exist could be terminal. That's also why we see faces in random shadows and outlines, etc. Safer to err to that side. But step 2 is the check more closely.
brigadecommander 17-Mar-21, 05:01	patterns within patterns, within patterns how many patterns and faces can you see in this phenomena. I see patterns of thousands of organisms, and even a God. Maybe we all see different things. Let me know what you see.;www.youtube.com
stalhandske 17-Mar-21, 10:06	<But the cosmos is not conscious, therefore it cannot be compared to a brain.> I don't think the original comparison between Cosmos and Brain (here = Neural Network) is at all directed at function (consciosness)! It is merely a comparison between two 'systems', on the way they are organised. Both are organised following strict physical principles and laws, forming a 'network' where any component is linked to any other component.
apatzer 17-Mar-21, 10:49	More and more scientists are asking "Is the Universe itself, alive?" What defines alive? What qualities does something have to have to be considered alive? My head already hurts lol...
brigadecommander 17-Mar-21, 14:03	Who knows We are in ourselves a Universe of Billions of organisms. All living things are made up billions of organisms Maybe each individual Universe is alive. And on their plane of existence they interact like we do with each other!! How's that for way out there?? Click twice on the image;apod.nasa.gov See what i am suggesting.?
bobspringett 17-Mar-21, 15:27	The Universe alive? Have any of you read 'Star Maker' by Olaf Stapledon? It was written some time before the Second War, but it was probably the single biggest step forward Science Fiction made since the invention of writing. Sir Arthur C. Clarke considered Star Maker to be "probably the most powerful work of imagination ever written", and Brian W. Aldiss called it "the one great grey holy book of science fiction". The language is a bit dated mow, but it is well worth reading. In it he talks of Dyson Spheres (a generation before Dyson), genetic engineering (a generation before Watson and Crick) and a wide range of other brilliant insights. And the ending will leave you gasping. To say how will spoil it, except that it touches on the topic of this thread. The sci-fi trilogy I'm currently polishing is dedicated to Stapledon, and quotes from another of his books (Last and First Men) to conclude the second volume.
mo-oneandmore 17-Mar-21, 18:41	Pantheism Theory??? I saw it as conjecture with a spike of crackpot, myself.
stalhandske 17-Mar-21, 21:50	<We are in ourselves a Universe of Billions of organisms. All living things are made up billions of organisms Maybe each individual Universe is alive.> In some ways this also boils down to the key question of 'what is life'! When one looks at the fundaments, life isn't really separable from 'non-life'. It is rather a special and improbable case of it that therefore occurs rarely. Of course, when it does (has the chance to) occur it has the intrinsic tendency to develop and evolve into more and more complicated forms. All of this development, however, amounts to a build-up of an entropy minimum, which is basically against the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. It is possible only as long as there is free energy to 'feed' it, but the 2nd Law will inevitably break it down at one point in time. To bring a God - or pantheism - into this equation is anyone's right, but I think it is an unnecessary complication. Of course, in one sense it is a simplification because then 'anything is possible' as gods have that capability, but I think such ideas just brings us away from reality.

GameKnot: play chess online, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.