Does the Human Brain Resemble the Universe? (unibo.it) 59
"Does the human brain resemble the Universe?" teases an announcement that an astrophysicist of the University of Bologna and a neurosurgeon of the University of Verona "compared the network of neuronal cells in the human brain with the cosmic network of galaxies...and surprising similarities emerged."
A Slashdot reader shares their report: Despite the substantial difference in scale between the two networks (more than 27 orders of magnitude), their quantitative analysis, which sits at the crossroads of cosmology and neurosurgery, suggests that diverse physical processes can build structures characterized by similar levels of complexity and self-organization. The human brain functions thanks to its wide neuronal network that is deemed to contain approximately 69 billion neurons. On the other hand, the observable universe can count upon a cosmic web of at least 100 billion galaxies.
Within both systems, only 30% of their masses are composed of galaxies and neurons. Within both systems, galaxies and neurons arrange themselves in long filaments or nodes between the filaments. Finally, within both system, 70% of the distribution of mass or energy is composed of components playing an apparently passive role: water in the brain and dark energy in the observable Universe.
Starting from the shared features of the two systems, researchers compared a simulation of the network of galaxies to sections of the cerebral cortex and the cerebellum. The goal was to observe how matter fluctuations scatter over such diverse scales. "We calculated the spectral density of both systems. This is a technique often employed in cosmology for studying the spatial distribution of galaxies", explains Franco Vazza (astrophysicist at the University of Bologna). "Our analysis showed that the distribution of the fluctuation within the cerebellum neuronal network on a scale from 1 micrometre to 0.1 millimetres follows the same progression of the distribution of matter in the cosmic web but, of course, on a larger scale that goes from 5 million to 500 million light-years".
The two researchers also calculated some parameters characterising both the neuronal network and the cosmic web: the average number of connections in each node and the tendency of clustering several connections in relevant central nodes within the network. "Once again, structural parameters have identified unexpected agreement levels. Probably, the connectivity within the two networks evolves following similar physical principles, despite the striking and obvious difference between the physical powers regulating galaxies and neurons", adds Alberto Feletti (neurosurgeon at the University of Verona).
A Slashdot reader shares their report: Despite the substantial difference in scale between the two networks (more than 27 orders of magnitude), their quantitative analysis, which sits at the crossroads of cosmology and neurosurgery, suggests that diverse physical processes can build structures characterized by similar levels of complexity and self-organization. The human brain functions thanks to its wide neuronal network that is deemed to contain approximately 69 billion neurons. On the other hand, the observable universe can count upon a cosmic web of at least 100 billion galaxies.
Within both systems, only 30% of their masses are composed of galaxies and neurons. Within both systems, galaxies and neurons arrange themselves in long filaments or nodes between the filaments. Finally, within both system, 70% of the distribution of mass or energy is composed of components playing an apparently passive role: water in the brain and dark energy in the observable Universe.
Starting from the shared features of the two systems, researchers compared a simulation of the network of galaxies to sections of the cerebral cortex and the cerebellum. The goal was to observe how matter fluctuations scatter over such diverse scales. "We calculated the spectral density of both systems. This is a technique often employed in cosmology for studying the spatial distribution of galaxies", explains Franco Vazza (astrophysicist at the University of Bologna). "Our analysis showed that the distribution of the fluctuation within the cerebellum neuronal network on a scale from 1 micrometre to 0.1 millimetres follows the same progression of the distribution of matter in the cosmic web but, of course, on a larger scale that goes from 5 million to 500 million light-years".
The two researchers also calculated some parameters characterising both the neuronal network and the cosmic web: the average number of connections in each node and the tendency of clustering several connections in relevant central nodes within the network. "Once again, structural parameters have identified unexpected agreement levels. Probably, the connectivity within the two networks evolves following similar physical principles, despite the striking and obvious difference between the physical powers regulating galaxies and neurons", adds Alberto Feletti (neurosurgeon at the University of Verona).
Yes (Score:5, Funny)
It's mostly empty space
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do scientists really have nothing better to work on than this absurd numerology?
First of all, the number of galaxies is now estimated to be over two trillion. There are no "connections" between galaxies that are analogous to neurons. And water does not play a passive role in the brain.
Re: (Score:3)
Do scientists really have nothing better to work on than this absurd numerology?
They're probably just sittin' around getting really, really high. :-)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like the lead-in to Deepak Chopra selling hundreds of dollars of new-age bullshit to senior citizen hippies.
Re: Yes (Score:3)
I think these belong to the caste of borderline fake scientists. Or maybe useless scientists. Which, by definition of the scientific method, is the same thing. And there lies the error. We take too many nutjobs seriously, lately. I mean all of p.c.ness* and Trumpness basically grew on is taking them seriously and putting the spotlight on them.
(* A PC is a Personal Computer.)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair this has been a problem long before Trump.
We have been fed the idea of the Scientist from Star Trek and other shows. As this some sort of Know it all, who just knows what to do when there is a problem.
Of course Star Trek would be really boring with Spock after coming up to a new phenomenon, planning a hypothesis for what it is, working with a team of other scientist and engineers to come up with ways to test it. Get results from the test see if they do match up, then going back to the drawing b
Re: (Score:3)
Spore Drive (Score:2)
Black Alert!
Re: (Score:2)
What you don't span the Universe in seconds when you are on mushrooms?
Re: (Score:2)
Do scientists really have nothing better to work on than this absurd numerology?
First of all, the number of galaxies is now estimated to be over two trillion. There are no "connections" between galaxies that are analogous to neurons. And water does not play a passive role in the brain.
Counting metrics are an all-time favorite with mediocre and bad scientists. They are useless in most circumstances and often outright harmful because they can and will be misleading. But they allow you to make nice plots and graphs with minimal effort and no understanding and hence are a good way to get your paper accepted. Because most paper reviewers are not very good at it either. I had numerous instances where papers did not get accepted because I pointed out serious fundamental flaws that none of the o
Re: (Score:2)
Well there isn't a License you can get to show that you are an official Scientist. There are degrees with Science in its name, but that still doesn't make you a Scientist. My College had options for a BA in Computer Science and a BS in Computer Science. The difference was two Math or Computer Science Electives vs taking 2 other electives.
There are a lot of people who call themselves scientist. They may even work in fields that use Science. But they themselves do not use the Scientific Method. And they ju
Re: (Score:2)
While the truth they just believed some unbacked claims that was a thought experiment at best, not actual Science.
A though experiment is science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you heard the theory that we're living inside a simulation?
or better yet Are we a figment of someones imagination?
Re: (Score:2)
Both valid possibilities, but as long as there is no perceptible impact, they are irrelevant and on the same level as a probably infinite number of other unlikely possibilities: They deserve no attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Like Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. ?
Re: (Score:2)
Born in a big bang, mostly empty space, lots of mysterious dark matter, things spinning around and not doing much...
I’d say that would be a yes.
Big Bang (Score:2)
No (Score:1)
nuff said
So, any brain? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
So, any brain? A deer brain? Dog brain? Whale brain? Mouse brain? What is this garbage and why is it on this site. Hey I once saw a cornflake that looked like a tree, how magical.
Let's just hope it isn't Donald Trump's brain.
Re: (Score:2)
So, any brain? A deer brain? Dog brain? Whale brain? Mouse brain? What is this garbage and why is it on this site. Hey I once saw a cornflake that looked like a tree, how magical.
Let's just hope it isn't Donald Trump's brain.
Your assumption is astounding.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A walnut looks like a brain too.
Organization, Not Processing (Score:3)
Sure, you can find brain-like organization in other contexts, including this one. But what makes the brain special is the communication and processing. If they shows that galaxies received signals from each other and sent signals based on the signals they received, then that would be huge news. Without that, it's just an interesting comparison and fodder for science fiction.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a third similar construct: the bellybutton. If you zoom in really close. No, really really close! Yes, then you will see elemental atomic particles floating around in a vast empty space, looking for all the world like celestial objects. In fact, your bellybutton is a miniature universe that deserves more respect than you've been giving it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is this pseudoscience? (Score:2)
I would say this is a slow news day article, but I don't want to insult slow news days.
What's even the point? You found a vague analogy that makes you feel good, in a new age bullshit way? Congrats! Now go start a cult. Church of the Holy Navel. Thy Gazers praise thee!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there is a deep meaning about that, but still interesting.
Basically, the idea is: if the human brain and the universe follow a similar structure, then they may be characterized by similar equations, so maybe neurologists and cosmologists can try out stuff from each other. Even if it is purely coincidental (as it likely is), that's a thing to try.
A similar idea is used by scientists to model light with sound waves. Light and sound are very different, but they are guided by similar equations. No
Abstract away enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's the old joke about theoretical physicists only knowing three numbers: 0, 1, and infinity. Looks like it applies here.
Re: Abstract away enough... (Score:2)
Oh, come on. Surely we can reduce zero and infinity to just one number! With all other numbers gone, we can finally erase that painful sore... the shame of mathematics ... and make 1/0=infinity. Done! :D
Re: (Score:2)
Well 0 and Infinity have a lot of similar properties.
A number divided by zero is in essence infinity
You take a number and you times by zero you still get zero
You take a number and you times by infinity you still get infinity
You are handed a Zero Dollar bill or an Infinity Dollar Bill. Both will be in essence worthless. The Zero Dollar bill you will not be able to trade for goods and services as it isn't enough. The Infinity Dollar bill will not be accepted, as they will not be able to provide adequate ch
Why is a raven like a writing desk? (Score:2)
EOM
Re: (Score:2)
Because neither are made of cheese.
Hey, you asked...
Re: Why is a raven like a writing desk? (Score:2)
Or course! Like the humble duck, they are both made of wood!
The petrel, on the other hand, is made of cheese! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So in other words... (Score:2)
Similar to brain (Score:1)
but not as tasty
So is our universe a Hawking or a president? (Score:1)
Pick one.
The beauty of Mathematics (Score:3)
It is not uncommon to find similar structures, small or large, throughout nature. Many are often the result of surprisingly simple mathematical equations. This is where mathematics becomes alive and shows us the most beautiful structures.
And the ugliness of mathematics (Score:3)
is that you abstracted those things to uselessness, so the statements you can apply to both, give us no insight usable in life anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. Only because we look for similarities are we able to find these and it allows us to draw parallels - sometimes quite literally and not only figuratively. So do we keep finding the Fibonacci numbers throughout nature for example. The study of these numbers has given us further insights in return in all of these areas.
The universe is more complex than any brain (Score:2)
... because if a brain exists, it must exist win the universe. QED.
Re: (Score:2)
does the brain of the one (Score:1)
who came up with this metaphor resemble a pile of shit?
qualitative analysis, which sits at the crossroads of journalism and fantasy, suggests that that diverse physical processes can build structures characterized by similar levels of smell and consistency.
Confirmation (Score:2)
This just confirms that we live in the eye of a blue eyed giant.
NO (Score:3)
The universe is much larger, a can be modeled as a stale piece of fairy cake. The human brain is best modeled as a series of interconnected tubes, made of cheese.
Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
One property of fractals is self-similarity. A fractal will appear the same and have the same spatial properties at different scales. The universe is filled with fractals (or things that are nearly fractals), both spatial and temporal.
The brain is good at imagining patterns (Score:2)
Pattern matching is part of what brains do. Sometimes they find coincidental patterns, and its amusing but its not "real". If enough people observe enough things, they will find unlikely similarities between unrelated things.
Spiral galaxies and hurricanes look similar but are driven by completely different physics.
There is no reason to think that the large scale structure of the universe should look like a brain. The physics driving them is completely unrelated.
Not even wrong (Score:5, Informative)
I looked at the paper:
1) The simulate the galactic connectivity, it's not real data
2) They use proximity of neurons instead of their actual connectivity to define "connections"
3) They ignore long-range neuronal connections
4) It's published in Frontiers that will publish anything so long as you pay the OA fees
27 orders of magnitude.. (Score:1)
African continent shaped like human head (Score:1)
OMG (Score:2)
The next thing you know, somebody is going to look at this and come to the conclusion that the universe is self-aware.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it rather intriguing how nobody misses the rest of the universe's body. It's unusual for Slashdot readers to be this focused on just the brain.