4 ms·

What's the difference? If both systems can be modelled in a similar way, how does that not make them similar? I don't think anyone is trying to make an argumen

What's the difference? If both systems can be modelled in a similar way, how does that not make them similar? I don't think anyone is trying to make an argument that they are the same 'thing' ("hey, maybe the observable Universe is a 'thought' inside a cosmic brain!"), just that there are striking similarities in structure - which can only easily be seen by a comparison of models.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
olegkikin 9y ago
The differences are major. One is made of unconnected stars, largely governed by the laws of gravity, the other one is made of connected cells, governed by the laws of chemistry, electricity (and maybe quantum effects). The only rough similarity is the looks, and only if you dye the brain tissue in a special way.
- JBorrow 9y ago
  I just think that is why it is so interesting; that they share a similar structure even though they are formed in completely different ways may not tell us anything about the Universe but it is still something to note.
- ianai 9y ago
  I have a little hypothesis that I dreamed up a couple nights ago: Life is exogenous to the universe. That gives life it's meaning-to define what it is through it's impact on the universe. This is because the universe is in average empty and lifeless. The inanimate universe vastly outweighs the animate. Life could not ever overcome the average emptiness of the universe. But still it must try. It must try because if it ceases it becomes the inanimate. Life is that exogenous influence on the universe not attributable to any other physical or chemical process. If you simply cannot explain it then it may be life. Brain evolution over time is definitely dependent upon physics/chemistry - but it's also dependent on conditions at higher levels of abstraction. We know neurons change their associations every day based on many factors at the conscious and subconscious levels (observations/thoughts).
  - losteric 9y ago
    "Life" is just a particular arrangement of inanimate matter riding the wave of entropy, a complicated fire simmering away on the Earth's surface...
QAPereo 9y ago
>What's the difference? If both systems can be modelled in a similar way, how does that not make them similar? I think that this is a good question, and central to a lot of the confusion that stems from a casual reading of some modern topics in physics. It's the difference between a black hole in nature, which formed in a realistic process, and the Schwarzschild metric, which has a uniform sphere of "dust" collapsing from infinity, in an empty universe, without gravity, and no angular momentum or charge. The reason these models are used is because they can give insights and/or generate new tools to explore reality with. On the other hand, they're just maps, just approximations of systems which we couldn't hope to accurately model with fidelity. On one hand, you get some amazing insights when your models intersect with observations, but you also need to remember... "The map is not the territory."
- JBorrow 9y ago
  I'm somewhat confused. Are you saying that there is no relation between the structure of the large-scale Universe and the structure of Neurons? If so, then why do we get two models that come out looking very similar? Of course, it is unlikely that there is a physical, causal link between the two. But if I have two photographs of two different things and they look similar, is it not then fair to say that the way those two different things look is similar? [Edit: also - to be fair - it is not just models of structure formation (like the power law presented in the article) - we have pretty pictures of the large scale structure of the Universe as well http://www.sdss3.org/images/gallery/sdss_pie2.jpg http://www.sdss3.org/images/gallery/sdss_pie2.jpg]
  - brudgers 9y ago
    To use the photograph analogy, if a person uses a typical 35mm camera a photo of a duck will have the same proportions and color gamut as a photo of an iPhone and have a similar tonal range and if the focal length of the lens is the same, the field of view will be the same. The model is an instrument not the subject itself. A person cannot cook dinner in the kitchen of a blueprint.
    - JBorrow 9y ago
brudgers 9y ago
All models are wrong but some are useful. -- George Box The article does not demonstrate the utility of the (non-wrongness) similarities between the models. It address the "A cow is like a hammer because there is a 'b' in 'both'," possibility. Two models developed using similar techniques used in the discipline of modeling will have non-functional similarities.
- JBorrow 9y ago
  I don't think that anyone is trying to argue that the similarity between the power spectra is useful but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting. Also, the level of similarity between them is striking!
  - brudgers 9y ago
    To me, it's basically p-hacking. Because the it starts with human artifacts the similarity is more on the level of finding that two English language texts have similar letter frequencies and presenting it as an episode of Ancient Aliens. http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/19817 http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/19817
    - JBorrow 9y ago
      Eh, I disagree. Power spectra are a pretty standard thing to use to compare e.g. different structure formation models in Cosmology and I still stand by the idea that the two are strikingly similar (and how interesting that is).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

olegkikin 9y ago

The differences are major. One is made of unconnected stars, largely governed by the laws of gravity, the other one is made of connected cells, governed by the laws of chemistry, electricity (and maybe quantum effects). The only rough similarity is the looks, and only if you dye the brain tissue in a special way.

JBorrow 9y ago
I just think that is why it is so interesting; that they share a similar structure even though they are formed in completely different ways may not tell us anything about the Universe but it is still something to note.
ianai 9y ago
I have a little hypothesis that I dreamed up a couple nights ago: Life is exogenous to the universe. That gives life it's meaning-to define what it is through it's impact on the universe. This is because the universe is in average empty and lifeless. The inanimate universe vastly outweighs the animate. Life could not ever overcome the average emptiness of the universe. But still it must try. It must try because if it ceases it becomes the inanimate. Life is that exogenous influence on the universe not attributable to any other physical or chemical process. If you simply cannot explain it then it may be life. Brain evolution over time is definitely dependent upon physics/chemistry - but it's also dependent on conditions at higher levels of abstraction. We know neurons change their associations every day based on many factors at the conscious and subconscious levels (observations/thoughts).
- losteric 9y ago
  "Life" is just a particular arrangement of inanimate matter riding the wave of entropy, a complicated fire simmering away on the Earth's surface...

QAPereo 9y ago

>What's the difference? If both systems can be modelled in a similar way, how does that not make them similar? I think that this is a good question, and central to a lot of the confusion that stems from a casual reading of some modern topics in physics. It's the difference between a black hole in nature, which formed in a realistic process, and the Schwarzschild metric, which has a uniform sphere of "dust" collapsing from infinity, in an empty universe, without gravity, and no angular momentum or charge. The reason these models are used is because they can give insights and/or generate new tools to explore reality with. On the other hand, they're just maps, just approximations of systems which we couldn't hope to accurately model with fidelity. On one hand, you get some amazing insights when your models intersect with observations, but you also need to remember... "The map is not the territory."

JBorrow 9y ago
I'm somewhat confused. Are you saying that there is no relation between the structure of the large-scale Universe and the structure of Neurons? If so, then why do we get two models that come out looking very similar? Of course, it is unlikely that there is a physical, causal link between the two. But if I have two photographs of two different things and they look similar, is it not then fair to say that the way those two different things look is similar? [Edit: also - to be fair - it is not just models of structure formation (like the power law presented in the article) - we have pretty pictures of the large scale structure of the Universe as well http://www.sdss3.org/images/gallery/sdss_pie2.jpg http://www.sdss3.org/images/gallery/sdss_pie2.jpg]
- brudgers 9y ago
  To use the photograph analogy, if a person uses a typical 35mm camera a photo of a duck will have the same proportions and color gamut as a photo of an iPhone and have a similar tonal range and if the focal length of the lens is the same, the field of view will be the same. The model is an instrument not the subject itself. A person cannot cook dinner in the kitchen of a blueprint.
  - JBorrow 9y ago

brudgers 9y ago

All models are wrong but some are useful. -- George Box The article does not demonstrate the utility of the (non-wrongness) similarities between the models. It address the "A cow is like a hammer because there is a 'b' in 'both'," possibility. Two models developed using similar techniques used in the discipline of modeling will have non-functional similarities.

JBorrow 9y ago
I don't think that anyone is trying to argue that the similarity between the power spectra is useful but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting. Also, the level of similarity between them is striking!
- brudgers 9y ago
  To me, it's basically p-hacking. Because the it starts with human artifacts the similarity is more on the level of finding that two English language texts have similar letter frequencies and presenting it as an episode of Ancient Aliens. http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/19817 http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/19817
  - JBorrow 9y ago
    Eh, I disagree. Power spectra are a pretty standard thing to use to compare e.g. different structure formation models in Cosmology and I still stand by the idea that the two are strikingly similar (and how interesting that is).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]