# Universe/galaxy as a sentient lifeform. What do you think, possible?



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

Ok this has nothing to do with the Gaia Hypothesis and the likes, although it does follow a similar basis. I don't think that the universe on itself could be a living being, but could an hypothetical universal civilization -human or with mixed races- act as a sentient being? It's an idea that I've toyed with for some time. Let me elaborate.

The idea comes from the fact that we are nothing but the sum of all of our cells. Our body with all it's organs and functions is not really something that was created for a purpose, our organs were not created with that function in mind. It was everything a fortunate chain of events that led to the creation of what we are through evolution and pure luck.

In a similar manner could a civilization spread over billions of stars evolve to the point of becoming a sentient lifeform on itself?

If you have no idea of what I'm talking about or you don't know where to start from, let me draw some parallelisms so that you can understand why I even think about the posibility of such a lifeform:

Our organs are a "bunch" of cells that fullfill the same function, they cannot think, they do not fullfill that function because they can think of it, only through evolution and symbiosis with other parts of the body their function was achieved. A bunch of planets or stars containing civilizations with similar characteristics could form the organs of such a being. Of course those characteristics should be unique to that bunch of stars/civilization(s) and should be beneficial to the other "organs" in one way or another. Just think outside the box, I'm not interested in what characteristics would make each organ unique, nor if such a distiction would even be posible in a pangalactic civilization, just assume it is like that and continue. i.e it could be some material only possible in that region of the universe, or some tech, it doesn't really matter. Also notice that the intelligence of the civilizations or the civilizations themselves don't matter in this case. These civilizations are only important in that they provide some unique goods that are needed in the rest of the universe. Like the organs in our body, they are just fullfilling a function, regardless of the intelligence or self-awareness of it's members. In the big galactic/universal scheme of things their differences are nothing.

Intergalactic travels would form our blood. Again it doesn't really matter how that is achieved. Maybe for the purpose of comparing it to blood and following the criteria stablisehd for organs, the intergallactic "blood" could be formed by another race/civilization that is always travelling between the stars faster than light, trading all kinds of goods (Dune fans... hi ).

Finally, another -maybe unique- way of travel or transaction between the stars/galaxies/civilizations would be the nervous system. Just like our nervous system is nothing more than cells that communicate by synapses and I think it's a consensus in the scientific community that what _we are_ is based on those synapses rather than any state of the cells themselves, I think we could obviate the need for an organ and think of it as just a transaction of energy from one planet to others. For example a synapse could be the energy transfered from one planet to another when a TV broadcast was being sent. We have to think outside the box again and think that this broadcast is almost instantaneous and not based on electromagnetic waves which would take millenia to reach their target. Again like when discussing organs you have to look at the function and not the form. The function is to serve as a synapse, a bunch of synapses could form a concept... a bunch of concepts an idea and a bunch of ideas a conscience... That is, exactly the same way as our brain works, exactly like we are.

So what do you think? Could it be posible in a future or even just in theory? Or I'm completely mad?


----------



## scaminatrix (May 6, 2011)

Are you saying:
We have a conciousness;
We come from/evolved from the Universe (in the bigger scheme of things);
So the Universe could possibly have a conciousness?

If so, I agree.


----------



## pantherx12 (May 6, 2011)

Just like you say, if we can be concious, what's to say the universe isn't a loud of interacting objects which causes it to have conciousness.

I don't think it is. But it's as likely as life being formed in the first instance ( not likely at all, but it happened)


----------



## the54thvoid (May 6, 2011)

This isn't science.

You need a separate philosophy forum for this.

Science and tech should be based on things that have validation and testing, or at least theoretical testing.

The sentient universe notion is philosophical theology.  Not science. :shadedshu


----------



## pantherx12 (May 6, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> This isn't science.
> 
> You need a separate philosophy forum for this.
> 
> ...




Protip:

Not really dude, look at how things interact on a smaller scale, now up-scale. Note similarities, see potential. Then research.

This is what science is, you find the question you want an answer to and try and answer it. ( based on what you already know and is provable)

Just because we've got no sources or anything yet doesn't mean we can't discuss the potential.


As I said, look at how very small things interact with each other, if you can't see similar patterns and movements in space then you need to look harder : ]


By the by, people who spend all their time hunting for alien signals would probably be upset that you don't think looking at the implausible is not science. 
Those guy's are scientists regardless of what results they yeald. Personally I think money should be spent on more earth bound problems but heh.


----------



## Bundy (May 6, 2011)

Your description of science is accurate but this thread is philosophy


----------



## pantherx12 (May 6, 2011)

Bundy said:


> Your description of science is accurate but this thread is philosophy



Not if we start talking about the interaction between subatomic particles


----------



## Bundy (May 6, 2011)

Well start talking then


----------



## pantherx12 (May 6, 2011)

Bundy said:


> Well start talking then



That was me done in the last post 

It definitely isn't something I can discuss in text, I struggle with regular chit chat let alone articulating something as complex as Particle physics 

If we were in person it might be a more interesting conversation.


Will try something simple though, all physical objects are mostly nothingness, with particles spinning around each other maintaining the space. ( very simply put I know, as I said, I struggle with text!) there is potentiall that space functions in much the same way, and that the universe is part of something even bigger that the already incomprehensible size of known universe.

I.E a being, or an object.( but just as likely, it's not.)


I'm fairly open minded when it comes to science though, the stuff I've seen and known about already can't help but make me think " shit, universe is a crazy bitch" 

Sorry about you know, lack of sense.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

Bundy said:


> Your description of science is accurate but this thread is philosophy



No, I'm not interested in the philosophical side of it, although I also welcome it if it doesn't derail the thread too much. I'm looking for sientific answers, coming from someone who knows about neurology, psychology, anthropology, behavioral science or also distributed computing or whatever other sciences that may help understanding complex systems like the one mentioned and their viability.

It's like talking about the posibility of alien sentient beings or sentient AI, is it phylosophy? I don't think so. The only ones that see that way are IMO hampered by a religious education ("there must be something else, nature/ random evolution is not enough" kind of thing). Although I was rised catholic I'm not religious since I discovered the truth on science. So for me there's nothing phylosophical about it. The AI for example, *we *are nothing but a bunch of synapses, there's no mystic ingredient there, a soul, if there's anything similar to it at all, it's just synapses that once they reached a certain complexity they gave us a conscience.

So I'm asking do you think the same can happen in an universal scale? Like I said, personally I discarded the universe on it's own, because it's too uniform, it entirely depends on the laws of physics, like gravity and entropy and although that may very well end up in life, as in a bacteria or even pluricellular like a jellyfish, I don't think it would be complex enough to be sentient. But here's where different civilizations with different charactristics bring in complexity. So would that be probable?*

* maybe probable instead of posible seems less philosophical to you?


----------



## Bundy (May 6, 2011)

We would need to change our definition of what the universe is to incorporate your theory. The universe is everything, whether we know about it or not.
Perhaps we are speaking of multiverse? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Or Einstein-Rosen bridge http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406172648.htm

Staggering how complicated this shit can get IMO


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2011)

I thought about something similar before.  Basically, all high level though is remote from the bodies that do it.  The "static" that is apparently everywhere which has been blamed on the Big Bang could theoretically be the signal a supposed hive-mind could use to communicate with its subjects.  Our brains (and all brains for that matter) could be antennas and perform low-level processes while something else, somewhere else, is in effect, our conscious.  When someone is "brain dead," the connection is severed.  Perceived intelligence is relative to the strength of connection to the hive-mind.

The odds of this being true are virtually zero but it is not impossible (I wish it were).


----------



## pantherx12 (May 6, 2011)

I feel that a multi-verse is quite likely, I see the start of time the same way I believe the universe started, single point ever expanding etc.

Rather than a line or a loop or what time is a big sphere with all potential differences spreading out in every direction all at once. Only we only perceive one of these time lines at once. ( all speculation! ALL OF IT! lol but it's what I like to think)

And yeah, staggering isn't even close to how complex physics gets. But it's why I love reading about it and thinking about it. It's truly epic and awesome.



Elaborating on the above post, most objects give of signals all the time, radiations of various sorts.  So no need for static to be the only thing to think about.

Think about all the different signals and interactions that can happen between say two planets going by each other. So much data just from that. ( Have to take into account how gravity effects all those signals as well)

Just some thoughts, not really points.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2011)

True.  I just find it odd how they detect a "noise" everywhere in known universe and assume it is related to the Big Bang.  Why does it have to be?  The source could be as infinite as the universe.

Similar to the op, I've thought about that idea as well and drew similar conclusions: not impossible but improbable.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> True.  I just find it odd how they detect a "noise"
> everywhere in known universe and assume it is related to the Big Bang.  Why does it
> have to be?  The source could be as infinite as the universe.
> 
> ...



well the universe is used to label what we see as a "container" or everything.  we don't 
know the limits to what exists, and what we can see keeps on going, so we believe it is 
infinite.  

that could simply be our limit to what we can see, maybe it ends a few feet after our
farthest.

BUT, saying that the universe IS infinite, is not to say it is magical and has an infinite
 source.  it is to say that the universe contains more than we can count, and to all 
observation seems infinite.

now what i'm saying is, the universe, even if it HAS existed forever, is a container.  
everything inside it is not infinite, and has not existed forever.  including CMBR. it's also 
not entirely evenly spread, which lends itself to the possibility that CMBR had something to 
do with the creation of planets.

*as to the OP,* i do see the question as more philosophy. not in it's essence,  but in our 
current state of scientific knowledge.  the question is simply unanswerable in a scientific 
sense, the only thing left is guesses, etc.  unless we communicate directly, there is no way 
for us to verify it.  that's not science.

also, i tend to believe the universe is just there.  i believe there is life spread, but the 
universe itself is benign.  i don't think it has a consciousness.  i would gladly admit i were
 wrong were it possible to test it scientifically... but it's not.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

Well I think that given a certain level of complexity intelligence would just simply happen (like in our brains). So what I'm concerned about is if according to the different scientific disciplines, such a compexity could be posible as a subproduct of the interactions between the star systems or civilizations. 

The idea derives a little bit from the notion of distributed computing/intelligence in which a group of semi-intelligent and independent individuals can also form an intelligence greater than themselves without even requiring their awareness. i.e. hive mind on the bees.

All in all I think that we are in essence just a hive mind created by the interaction of our cells, which are nothing but unicellular lifeforms living together in symbiosis.

I think we can discuss this from a scientific point of view. Or maybe we (you and me or TPU members in general for that matter) can't. I know that I can't, really, but that's why I'm asking. I'm sure that someone must know enough about those matters so as to give at least an educated guess. And in the end isn't it the same we do when we discuss new technologies or the potential of the next CPU/GPU architecture?


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Well I think that given a certain level of complexity intelligence would just simply happen (like in our brains). So what I'm concerned about is if according to the different scientific disciplines, such a compexity could be posible as a subproduct of the interactions between the star systems or civilizations.
> 
> The idea derives a little bit from the notion of distributed computing/intelligence in which a group of semi-intelligent and independent individuals can also form an intelligence greater than themselves without even requiring their awareness. i.e. hive mind on the bees.
> 
> All in all I think that we are in essence just a hive mind created by the interaction of our cells, which are nothing but unicellular lifeforms living together in symbiosis.



i see, and there could be something to that.  but to me that describes ant colonies, and 
though they are alive - we don't know that they are sentient or intelligent.  if the universe
 resembles that, i wouldn't consider that sentient or conscious, it would simply be action-
reaction.

the thing that makes humans human, is that ability to think about things that are not 
happening in the now.  the ability to experience broad ideas, such as love and hate and 
beauty.  those are (likely) still naturally evolved, but we can't yet pin where that ability 
comes from.. so until we know where our own sentience comes from, how can we confirm
it in anything else?


----------



## theJesus (May 6, 2011)

TL;DR, anybody want to provide a summary?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 6, 2011)

I think this has the potential to be philosophical. Say we find a bunch of large scale interactions that mimic things we see in biology. By itself that wouldn't really be enough to call anything conscious. A philosopher though certainly could take it in that direction.

Scientifically I don't think there's really anywhere to go with this currently. If everything happening in the universe is part of some large scale form of processing we don't have the ability to see it. We'd need total observation of everything in existence, or at least a significant portion more than we have now to begin to properly confirm anything.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

theJesus said:


> TL;DR, anybody want to provide a summary?



summary:

Universe/Galaxy as a sentient life form, what do you think?


----------



## theJesus (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> summary:
> 
> Universe/Galaxy as a sentient life form, what do you think?


lol, just the thread title, that works.

So essentially, we'd be like little bacteria or something.


----------



## pantherx12 (May 6, 2011)

theJesus said:


> lol, just the thread title, that works.
> 
> So essentially, we'd be like little bacteria or something.



In relation to the rest of space, we're not even bacteria  ( in terms of scale)


----------



## theJesus (May 6, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> In relation to the rest of space, we're not even bacteria  ( in terms of scale)


I know, but I couldn't think of a better word lol


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

I would have to say that the Universe is a living _"Thing"_ , If you look at what we know of now it is alive making new stars , Planets And the stars and Planets also die . I think that it has a living soul . A mind ( If you will ) that is creating and moving and expanding . 
Yes I think you could say that the Universe is a living creature with a conciseness .


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> Yes I think you could say that the Universe is a living creature with a conciseness .



can you see that?  

your views are confusing me.  you adamantly deny evolution because you can't
see it's effects. but you willingly say the universe a conscious being, with no evidence
to support it?

i am beginning to think you make up your mind ahead of time, and then pick and choose
reasons to believe and defend it, as those two views seem entirely different.



pantherx12 said:


> Sure he can, microscope + germ culture + small amounts of antibiotics
> ( not enough to kill them ) low and behold they become immune to the antibiotic eventually.



too true.


----------



## pantherx12 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> can you see that?
> 
> your views are confusing me.  you adamantly deny evolution because you can't
> see it's effects. .



Sure he can, microscope + germ culture + small amounts of antibiotics ( not enough to kill them ) low and behold they become immune to the antibiotic eventually.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> that could simply be our limit to what we can see, maybe it ends a few feet after our farthest.


We can only "see" approximately 7-10 billion light years.  Everything beyond that is more or less invisible.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (May 7, 2011)

The Universe is not directly sentient...i would more say: Its alive.
its consciousness is made up from the billions of trillions of lifeforms in it


----------



## wahdangun (May 8, 2011)

there already example on this in our earth, where multiple organism perform like a single being, its was ant, bees,


----------



## digibucc (May 8, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> there already example on this in our earth, where multiple organism perform like a single being, its was ant, bees,



yeah but that is not sentience, that is not intelligence.

that's pieces of a machine each doing their part.  they don't choose
to work together, that's simply the way it is.  you don't give ants
the quality of sentience, or believe they can contemplate complex
ideas like mortality and love, do you?

i would not consider a hive mind as  "alive".  it performs the same set
of functions over and over again, with no higher thought to affect it.

it may be a biological entity, but to assign it consciousness and sentience
i think goes to far.  it's possible, sure - but there is no reason to believe that
is the case.  it is much more likely it is simply a benign amalgamation.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 8, 2011)

digibucc said:


> yeah but that is not sentience, that is not intelligence.
> 
> that's pieces of a machine each doing their part.  they don't choose
> to work together, that's simply the way it is.  you don't give ants
> ...



But the thing is that ants' and bees' hive minds are composed of only thousands of individuals or set of pieces wrking together, I'm talking about billions of billions of star systems. And we are also just billions of cells, which have no intelligence at all on their own. The interaction between our cells is the most simple thing, but when together, when connected, they are us, with our superior intelligence and hability to create, to imagine, to dream... And there was no plan, no design, just the evolution working over the milenia until the complexity ended up creating us.

So I think, no I'm 99.9% sure, that this could happen with star systems or civilizations. Philosophically IMO the answer can only be yes, because of the infinite of the universe, more so the multiverse. So I'm not interested in the phylosophical view, I'm just interested to know if from a scientific point of view it's probable, mostly I want to see If someone can give something concrete that would rule the posibility out. i.e ammout of stars is not enough (I know that is not the case, but it's that kind of thing I'd like to know about). Or someone versed on neuroscience could say, the kind of interactions that happen between neurons could never happen between civilizations, because of this or this.

I think it's easier that way, instead of trying to find out the limits of what would be posible, to just rule out what is not "posible"*/probable according to our limited knowledge. 

*Something we could say, according to what we know, "this is not posible", kind of like when we say that mass can't travel faster than light.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (May 8, 2011)

This is definitely more in the realm of philosophy than science and technology; unless you're proposing an experiment to test if the universe is sentient (or are asking for such an experiment).

I think you'd run into a paradox when attempting to determine if the universe is sentient.  I'd imagine it to be akin to a video game paradox I heard which, roughly stated:
you can't actually meet the person who made the game while you're playing it, because that person doesn't really exist in the game
In essence, I do not believe you could know if the universe is sentient unless you were able to step outside of the universe and observe the entire system.

Some other questions that come to mind that may encourage or discourage theories about this topic.
Is the universe quantized?
Is the universe deterministic?



Benetanegia said:


> So I think, no I'm 99.9% sure, that this could happen with star systems or civilizations.


You mean this?


----------



## digibucc (May 8, 2011)

@bene - we don't know that it's simply the number of cells that make the difference.  i would
be greatly surprised if it was.  we can' (horrible typo) pinpoint where in our brain consciousness lies, or what
physical structure is responsible for giving us sentience that other creatures do not possess.

you are assuming that the number of interconnected nodes is the only thing that makes a 
difference, i don't think so.  there are so many more processes and inter-relationships we
aren't even aware of, let alone hold an understanding for.

*as i said before, until we can say where our own sentience comes from, we cannot
possibly have a scientific discussion on whether the universe could have the same.*

and we are a long way off from understanding our own sentience.  there are still many who 
believe we will never understand it, and even others who believe there is nothing to understand.



streetfighter 2 said:


> You mean this?



isn't that the coolest?

 just for clarity's sake: it in no way says the universe is sentient, but rather the natural formation 
process works similar.  of course it doesn't negate the possibility, but this is just pointing out the 
structural similarity, not saying they would/could work the same way.


----------



## Kreij (May 8, 2011)

To say that the universe is sentient is to say that in its entirety it is self-aware.
The only way to determine this would be to communicate with it directly.
Humans, being a sub-set of what makes up the universe, would never have this ability, even given the fact that we fall into our own definition of sentience (which may or may not be correct).
This thread is pure philosophy at best. At worst it is anthropomorphic extremism.

There are no TPU rules for this section that prohibit scientific philisophical discussion.
Carry on.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 8, 2011)

Just because it cannot be proved or because we don't have mathematical models *yet* I don't think this simply falls down to be just a philosophical discussion. Last time I checked astronomy, neuroscience, and quantum physics are considered science and we are nowhere closer to know the truth about the universe our brain or sub-sub-atomic particles than we are about this subject.

Even the Big Bang is only "demostrated" by circumstantial and tangential evidence at best and it is considered as a valid one. I'm not asking for anything more tangible here.

Also, I suggest that everyone reads the OP again, because at no point did I say that the *current* universe could be sentient, I literally described a universe that meets a lot of the functions that our own cells fulfill. I said it in the very first line:



> I don't think that the universe on itself could be a living being, but could an hypothetical universal civilization -human or with mixed races- act as a sentient being?





streetfighter 2 said:


> You mean this?



Yes, thanks. I'm a fan of the Chaos Theory and fractals, so I think that repeating structures can indeed carry a similar function, and that they are created because of similar conditions, making cause and effect similar. I'm not saying that cells/neurons and the stars are different levels of a same fractal design, just that similar structures tend to be representable by similar equations and IMO that on it's own, represents a high similarity on the behavior of the elements creating that structure. Similar behavior does then give it high chances of being able to carry the same function.


----------

