What if stars, planets are "natural supercomputing systems"?

[martillo]

Forgive me If I distract your attention for a little but I would like you to consider (just for a little) some very unexpected possibility for stars, planets, moons...

Some times we don't find just what we are not looking for.

I know it would be hard to accept mainly at a first view but became to make sense someway to me since some time ago.

Here it goes:

What if the Universe is much more alive than we curently believe and stars are not just a "ball of fire" and planets and moons are not just "balls of some earth".
What if some kind of what we could call "natural supercomputing system" (I mean some kind of "harware/software" system) could exist inside some "superprotective sphere" inside stars, planets, moons and some kind of "software entities" could actually exist being what we could call their "Gods" or something like that.
What if a sophysticated "super system" exist in the Universe in which those "software entities" communicate (through some totally unknown communication mechanism) in some sort of "Universal network".

What if what we, humans, are doing here at Earth with computers and the internet is the same that those "intelligences" do naturally.

I apologize if this would be a too "fantastic" possibility.


Does anybody knows about some experimental evidence towards or against this possibility?
For example about collisions between stars, have some collisions between stars have been observed through telescopes?
Do the stars have some kind of "ellastic collision" where the two stars separate after the collission remaining quite as if they were before the collision or they "smash" one into the other remaining as one bigger star after the collision?
Is there some information about real collision between stars?
I made a search in the web but only found computational simulations of stars' collisions only (with theoretical assumed models of course)...

[thinking]

Forgive me If I distract your attention for a little but I would like you to consider (just for a little) some very unexpected possibility for stars, planets, moons...

Some times we don't find just what we are not looking for.

I know it would be hard to accept mainly at a first view but became to make sense someway to me since some time ago.

Here it goes:

What if the Universe is much more alive than we curently believe and stars are not just a "ball of fire" and planets and moons are not just "balls of some earth".
What if some kind of what we could call "natural supercomputing system" (I mean some kind of "harware/software" system) could exist inside some "superprotective sphere" inside stars, planets, moons and some kind of "software entities" could actually exist being what we could call their "Gods" or something like that.
What if a sophysticated "super system" exist in the Universe in which those "software entities" communicate (through some totally unknown communication mechanism) in some sort of "Universal network".

What if what we, humans, are doing here at Earth with computers and the internet is the same that those "intelligences" do naturally.

I apologize if this would be a too "fantastic" possibility.


Does anybody knows about some experimental evidence towards or against this possibility?
For example about collisions between stars, have some collisions between stars have been observed through telescopes?
Do the stars have some kind of "ellastic collision" where the two stars separate after the collission remaining quite as if they were before the collision or they "smash" one into the other remaining as one bigger star after the collision?
Is there some information about real collision between stars?
I made a search in the web but only found computational simulations of stars' collisions only (with theoretical assumed models of course)...

fantastic possibility it is

so far though no evidence of an shield that protect any computer from the dynamics of any stars has showed up though

[martillo]

fantastic possibility it is

so far though no evidence of an shield that protect any computer from the dynamics of any stars has showed up though
Good point.

I'm thinking that a "natural supercomputing system" of the dimensions of a star could need to radiate a huge amount of heat, liberating a huge amount of photons, and so the huge superficial temperature.
I mean I'm thinking in a "system" very different from the "dynamics of any star" commonly managed (as you cite).
Your point is "crucial" anyway...
A "too fantastic" protective "shield" as the main idea itself would be needed isn't it?
Anyway I'm considering it, you know, if some kind of "Primordial Intelligences" did create the Universe they would be "too fantastic" too and who knows what a "so fantastic intelligence" could have developed in their Universe for stars, planets, moons have intelligence inside.
I mean, your point is a good one but I do not discard the possibility just for it. May be that "too fantastic shield" is just something we could not imagine yet.
I think is a very interesting possibility to explore allthough it has many things to be answered properly as your point.

[spidergoat]

What's a supernova? A software crash?

[Dywyddyr]

Power surge ;)

[martillo]

What's a supernova? A software crash?
:) I don't have all the answers...

I was editing the previous post while you answered, please take a look.

[Dywyddyr]

So the entire topic is "What if..."
What if pixies rule the universe?
What if they're invisible and we can never interact with them?

This isn't even Pseudoscience, it's very poor science fiction with huge elements of fantasy.
Is there ANY evidence or observation that would lend any credence to the OP?
Or are you just posting daydreams you had while waiting for your coffee to cool down?

[martillo]

This isn't even Pseudoscience, it's very poor science fiction with huge elements of fantasy.
Is there ANY evidence or observation that would lend any credence to the OP?

Then you only take into consideration things that could be observable, the "empiricist way" only (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricist).
What about the "rationalist way" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalist).
I think both ways are important and must complement each other for everything at the end have sense.
Sometimes we begin with one, sometimes with the other, sometimes we combine both, there's no receipt to know new things.
May be I'm following the "rationalist way" first and I'm looking for evidence towards and against now but also how this possibility could open new doors. Is something under development...

[Dywyddyr]

Then you only take into consideration things that could be observable, the "empiricist way" only.
Oops, another baseless assumption.

What about the "rationalist way".
What about it?
What (if anything) is rational about your proposal?
Because it popped into your head during a bored moment?
Please, elucidate the deductive processes that went on which led you to this conclusion.

[martillo]

spidergoat:
What's a supernova? A software crash?
I forgot that I have solved this in the following way:
The stars have a huge temperature at their surface and they have gravity, then if they attract too much Hydrogen around you could reach some "critic mass" and what you obtain? A huge hydrogen bomb exploding.

Doesn't this make sense for you?

Note: I think the "natural supercomputing system" inside would survive anyway due to the "fantastic superprotective shield" they have which would also protect the stars on collisions between them.

And here is my question again:
Does anybody knows about some experimental evidence towards or against this possibility?
For example about collisions between stars, have some collisions between stars have been observed through telescopes?
Do the stars have some kind of "ellastic collision" where the two stars separate after the collission remaining quite as if they were before the collision or they "smash" one into the other remaining as one bigger star after the collision?
Is there some information about real collision between stars?
I made a search in the web but only found computational simulations of stars' collisions only (with theoretical assumed models of course)...

[draqon]

I bet you got the idea from HitchHikersGuideToTheGalaxy film.

[martillo]

What (if anything) is rational about your proposal?
Because it popped into your head during a bored moment?

No, it isn't a "sudden thought" now, of course it could have appeared this way at some time but long time passed since that. I have made my autocriticism before posting it here and as I said it became to have sense time ago. Now I thought it could be a "good" think to be analyzed by other ones and at the same time look for more evidence towards or against it. I have asked for one I think could exist since stars have been studied through telescopes for long time:
Does anybody knows about some experimental evidence towards or against this possibility?
For example about collisions between stars, have some collisions between stars have been observed through telescopes?
Do the stars have some kind of "ellastic collision" where the two stars separate after the collission remaining quite as if they were before the collision or they "smash" one into the other remaining as one bigger star after the collision?
Is there some information about real collision between stars?
I made a search in the web but only found computational simulations of stars' collisions only (with theoretical assumed models of course)...
Do you have some information about or not?


Please, elucidate the deductive processes that went on which led you to this conclusion.
I don't have a formal logic demonstration to the existence of the "natural supercomputing system" inside stars, planets, moons (if you are asking that).
It's a possibility I'm considering but that needs further development by me or by others that could be interested.
That's why I'm posting here.

The first process to discover something new in a rational/intuitive way is to speculate. Speculation is also present when we try to invent some new design for something for example. We speculate on possibilities discarding the bad ones, keeping the better ones and going on because some speculations leave to other speculations and a lot of things appear to be solved. May be at the end if all of the things are solved we can go back and trace a more linear and deductive path describing the process in a more easy way to be understood by others (a deductive line of reasoning).
At least for me the "rational way" follows this pattern and I think I'm in the middle yet.

[Stryder]

*If* the universe was to be a giant supercomputer, then the actual hardware/processing level would be atomic, not planetary.

Imagine the most refined Qbit system would be a neural network of components that don't require an abundance of energy to process, that could store data and never become obsolete.

You could suggest that if our sciences were to develop such a refined system, then the pinnacle of our sciences would be an Atom with it's particles and fields. Atom's are like a storage unit in the sense that they take a long time to have electron's "decay" from orbit. They don't require an abundance of energy to maintain the electron orbits or to maintain the storage of information. The atom itself doesn't store much information on it's own (Although their are many elements), it requires to be aligned in a molecule to actually have any meaningful "relationship" with data. (Relativity)

Of course this generates a rather interesting conundrum. *If* the pinnacle of our sciences is to create the atom (and it's sublevels), how did the universe that we exist in come about? and what if we tangent away from this pinnacle discovery because... "They already exist"?

[martillo]

*If* the universe was to be a giant supercomputer, then the actual hardware/processing level would be atomic, not planetary.

I don't understand why even if "the actual hardware/processing level would be atomic" there couldn't be "natural supercomputer systems" at a planetary or stars level.

Of course this generates a rather interesting conundrum. *If* the pinnacle of our sciences is to create the atom (and it's sublevels)...
May be it could be your "pinnacle", not mine. If you want to use your time, mind and resources for that "paradigm" it's your decision not the "pinnacle of Sciences". For me it would be a waste of that things I mentioned.

[AlphaNumeric]

Have you been reading 'Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy' at all? Douglas Adams builds up an entire story around the premise the Earth, and all the things on it, is a giant supercomputer built to run a 10 million year long program to find 'The Question to Life, The Universe and Everything', as the answer is known to be 42.

His work is genius, extremely fun (not the film, that was crap) and quintessentially British. You're work isn't funny nor is it genius.

[Enmos]

as the answer is known to be 42.

Is a meaning given at all ?
I know breadwheat has 42 chromosomes.. :p

[Stryder]

I don't understand why even if "the actual hardware/processing level would be atomic" there couldn't be "natural supercomputer systems" at a planetary or stars level.


May be it could be your "pinnacle", not mine. If you want to use your time, mind and resources for that "paradigm" it's your decision not the "pinnacle of Sciences". For me it would be a waste of that things I mentioned.


My basis is actually on Neural Networking, in the sense that the Atom is a TAN(Tangent Adaptive Network) unit. In fact if I was given the opportunity, I would simulate the universe using this method of understanding to see how closely it resembles or fails to resemble our own universe. Of course there is debate on the method of simulation, I mean computers are useful for simulation but to do a real simulation would actually require to build a "material" TAN unit as opposed to the surrealness of simulation.

Incidentally, You thoughts are Surrealism as you've offered no reasoning on how to even contemplate measuring your assumptions.

[martillo]

My basis is actually on Neural Networking, in the sense that the Atom is a TAN(Tangent Adaptive Network) unit.
It has no sense for me.

Incidentally, You thoughts are Surrealism as you've offered no reasoning on how to even contemplate measuring your assumptions.
My work and my thoughts have nothing to do with surrealism.
I don't understand what you mean by "you've offered no reasoning on how to even contemplate measuring your assumptions".

[thinking]

“ fantastic possibility it is

so far though no evidence of an shield that protect any computer from the dynamics of any stars has showed up though




Good point.

I'm thinking that a "natural supercomputing system" of the dimensions of a star could need to radiate a huge amount of heat, liberating a huge amount of photons, and so the huge superficial temperature.
I mean I'm thinking in a "system" very different from the "dynamics of any star" commonly managed (as you cite).
Your point is "crucial" anyway...
A "too fantastic" protective "shield" as the main idea itself would be needed isn't it?
Anyway I'm considering it, you know, if some kind of "Primordial Intelligences" did create the Universe they would be "too fantastic" too and who knows what a "so fantastic intelligence" could have developed in their Universe for stars, planets, moons have intelligence inside.
I mean, your point is a good one but I do not discard the possibility just for it. May be that "too fantastic shield" is just something we could not imagine yet.
I think is a very interesting possibility to explore allthough it has many things to be answered properly as your point.

would not this shield need be to be re-newed at some point ?

[Xylene]

If there existed groups of entities who had reached the level of technological sophistication to be able to build giant supercomputers inside planets, or the level of social cohesiveness and organisational skill to bring this project into existence, wouldn't they have already worked out some more advanced way of communicating than relying on computers?

I'm just thinking that if your alien race is advanced enough in evolutionary terms, then you're probably psychic, and don't need computers to communicate with each other...:)

[baftan]

This is more or less what science is looking for: Patterns. Patterns provide working mechanisms for things. Up until know, no natural pattern indicates any organised computing system. But according to possibility behind the OP, we would not understand it anyway; it is like a bacteria figuring out what is a computer hard drive and how does it work.

Same is true for computer hard drive: Although it shares the same physical environment with bacteria, hard drive has nothing to do with bacteria. So they can both develop separately, without being aware of each other's existence, and sharing only atom level 3d existence.

DNA has been producing various possibilities of life and working through mutations and evolution. It is completely sensitive to its physical environment; heat level, atmosphere, tectonic plate movements, volcanoes etc. Yet this environment and its happenings do not care or work for life. They work according to their own planetery rules. If a galaxy will merge with one another, it does not care or know what will happen to life forms in one planet which is in the orbit around one of its billions of stars. It's like an animal thinking about its parasites or cells in its body.

DNA provides more material for a supercomputer system than rotating and collapsing gas giants. It stores the billions of years of experience and make experiments. Depending on environmental possibilities and using cell division mechanism, DNA populates any given period of environmental condition with new hardware models, what we call species. And billions of species have been sharing many organs which were developed by DNA throughout the history of life: Eye for seeing the light, ear for hearing the sound or muscles for gravity/body relation. And finally brain in order to make a "sense" for received information from environment. Almost all animals do that, including us.

But stars and galaxies, gravity and hellium, light and atom... They have not hinted a similar type of system behind their cycles. Maybe we still do not know how to look at them. Yet again, whatever it is, the whole DNA based life looks like a virus type insignificant alien existence when it is compared to galactic movements or expansion of universe. We can see the gamma rays from 13.7 billion light years away, that means universe also keeps the knowledge of history or leaves some records, but in a different way. Also maybe black holes are creating a gathering place for atoms so they do not easily dissolve within rapidly expanding universe.

When the term "supercomputer" implies calculation, processing and accumulation it is possible to search for analogies in nature. When the "supercomputer" implies the existence of "supermasters" and their "super orders" behind them; there is no evidence or pattern towards this direction. And our generation do not shout as "we want miracles", they shout as "we want evidence"...

[martillo]

If there existed groups of entities who had reached the level of technological sophistication to be able to build giant supercomputers inside planets, or the level of social cohesiveness and organisational skill to bring this project into existence, wouldn't they have already worked out some more advanced way of communicating than relying on computers?

I'm just thinking that if your alien race is advanced enough in evolutionary terms, then you're probably psychic, and don't need computers to communicate with each other...
I don't think so.
Following your line of reasoning then we would ask: why eyes to see?, why ears to hear?, why hands to touch anything or do anything?, etc, etc.
Then would be some kind of "brain" floating "somewhere".
I think it would be a too boring kind of existence.
I think that even being "software entities" running in some kind of "hardware" they would have those "features", I mean something to "see", something to "hear", something to "touch" (even if at the end everything would be "virtual")...

[martillo]

And our generation do not shout as "we want miracles", they shout as "we want evidence"...
The "empiricist way" isn't it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism). I think the "rationalist way" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism) has been forgiven lately.
I believe the two ways must work together complementing each other for at the end everything have sense.
And the rationalism way works based in rational deductions. I know you will ask: Then give me a rational deductive proof of the existence of such kind of things.
The problem which is not told about rationalism is that to find new "things" (I mean to increment knowledge) first is needed to speculate. Yes, speculation means to take into consideration new possibilities without knowing before if they are really true or not. After those ideas are checked with the known knowlege to verify consistence/inconsistence, the "bad" ones are discarded and the real true one is keeped.
This means we must put the brain to work and be prepaired to think in wrong things sometimes for a real true thing be discovered/determined after only. Even new words and language are needed to be developed sometimes to develop the subject.
At the end you could be able to trace some right logical deduction to demonstrate the veracity of some assertion.
But any case start with an speculation.
I think I'm at the middle yet.I considered the possibility of stars, planets, moons as some "natural supercomputing systems" with some "software entities" inside and it became to have sense for me from different "angles" of considerations.
I don't have the proof yet if that is what you want. If I would have it I wouldn't have posted here, I would have written a book.
I think is a very interesting new possibility to explore and may be to be developed further by others.

I have asked a question I think is crucial to continue considering this possibility and nobody answered:
Does anybody knows about some experimental evidence towards or against this possibility?
For example about collisions between stars, have some collisions between stars have been observed through telescopes?
Do the stars have some kind of "ellastic collision" where the two stars separate after the collission remaining quite as if they were before the collision or they "smash" one into the other remaining as one bigger star after the collision?
Is there some information about real collision between stars?
I made a search in the web but only found computational simulations of stars' collisions only (with theoretical assumed models of course)...
The lack of answer makes me continue taking in consideration the proposed possibility.
I don't know if this would be solved in a short period of time or if it would take generations to solve it. I think is something to begin to consider now.
May be you would think it is just a waste of time. It would be your opinion and your decision.