Thank you for your answer and urls, Joachim. Yes holographic idea seems interesting. Can we find links between hologram and complex networks? Best wishes

Dear Suresh, thank you for your explanation. So i think there are reasons to accept that the cosmos can be perceived as a brain? Can you give urls of your articles? I will try to read them. Thank you

Thank you, James. Yes it seems there is some kind of connection between microcosm and macrocosm, as expressed in phrases like: as above, so below ....

Yes, I see it too... The Galaxies can be compared with molecules, the stellar systems (as our Solar System)--- atoms, the planets---electrons.

I think the important matter is that growth and development cannot be adequately apprehended using the conventional mechanical "object and law" narrative. Rather, what we see resembles more a Heraclitean dialectic between self-organizing agencies and entropic decay. (http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/3rdWindow.htm). As regards the physical realm, see Eric Chaisson's "Cosmic Evolution" or Bejan's work that James mentioned. (Warning, however, the world is *not* simply the search for increasing efficiency [http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Dual.pdf].) The dialectic applies to all scales. Our conventional mechanics (including relativistic and quantum physics) is generally restricted to simplified, rarefied, homogeneous and weakly-interacting systems. Prigogine was indeed a pioneer in scoping out these larger views.

Thank you, Bocancea and Robert, for your answers. So, do you think that the analogy with complex networks is not correct? Best wishes

Dear Victor, No, I think the significance of networks has not been fully appreciated. The push with most network science has been to find mechanical explanations for topological patterns. In reality, networks are metaphors for something much wider -- the amalgamation of constraint with indeterminacy. Think of it, if one is at a particular node in a network, it usually is not possible to proceed directly to all other nodes. That is, direct transfers to some nodes are *constrained* from happening. At the same time, it is (in general) *indeterminate* as to which of the remaining possible connections will next be realized. In dealing with simple systems, the object has been to eliminate indeterminacy. In complex, self-organizing systems, to the contrary, some indeterminacy is *necessary* if the system is to improve in performance. Noise and indeterminacy cannot be pushed into the "boundary value problem". They are essential elements of the dynamics itself! Not to realize this is to misapprehend the notion of evolution (which all too many want to stuff, in Procrustean fashion, back into a mechanical box). The best, Bob

Dear Robert, thank you for your explanation, but i only get your idea roughly. Could you please cite a paper discussing your points, preferably an online paper? Thank you.

Dear Victor,

As pointed out by Suresh, your question has been answered in the affirmative by ancient Indian scriptures. It is not a coincidence. It is the very nature of the make-up of the universe. Sr Ramakrishna, the well-known Guru of Swami Vivekananda, paraphrased this by saying "Joi pinde, Soi Brahmande" in bengali language, meaning, whatever you find in this body, you find the same in the universe. Actually, it includes both structural and functional parallelism. The whole cosmos is reflected in every particle that inhabits it! How? It is a gigantic scale-invariant fractal-like structure which is given detailed exposition in the Vedas. But to scientifically comprehend such deep truths we may need many more years of further research and get our theories straight, may be after getting a final TOE of the entire physical Universe as we know. Your question is one of the most fundamental ones that we can pose. Fortunately, the answer is known. But the working out of the details is yet to be done completely.

Thank you, Rajat, for your answer. Yes it seems interesting to find parallelism between natural science and ancient text. Best wishes

Dear Victor,

Assuming that the structural similarities are real rather than coincidental, here is my extremely tentative explanation:-

My own research suggests that life is intrinsically associated with quantum coherent states within the context of a Fractal Catalytic Model. Furthermore, the theory suggests 'living states' are to be associated with robust macroscopic coherent solitonic structures in the form of Bose-Einstein condensates. Within this context the macroscopic 'metabolic state' of a brain cell is identical with this coherent solitonic structure.

When considering the problem of how such macroscopic coherent structures emerge and are sustained it is noted that when Bose-Einstein condensates collapse they do so fractally! If we run an imaginary film of a condensate collapse backwards in our heads it is reasonable to jump to the conclusion that in order to create a macroscopic coherent state it might first be necessary to create a fractal 'scaffold'.

The suggestion is that the image of the dead brain cell is revealing the 'classical' artifact of the fractal scaffold necessary for the emergence of the macroscopic coherent state associated with a 'living metabolic state'.

We might speculate that the cell structure that is revealed by the image might be characteristic of Bose-Einstein collapses generally.

If the above suggestion is true then the similarities between the images of the brain cell and the universe might be providing evidence that the Big Bang (or at least some aspect of the Big bang) might be best understood as a transition (or collapse) from a unified coherent state to a classical state.

Indeed, the so-called BOSONOVA (if it is a real phenomenon) and the collapse of the Bose-Einstein Condensate generally, might be a useful model to investigate the structure and evolution of the early universe.

PS - Of course, we can look at things the other way and ask - is the observed structure of the universe evidence that it is re-condensing into a coherent state? Perhaps LIFE is the beginning of this' re-unification' (or re-condensation) process??!!!!

Davia, C.J (June 2006), "Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Metabolism and Cognition", in Tuszynski, J.A, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (The Frontiers Collection), Springer, pp. 255–292, ISBN 978-3540238904

Thank you, Christopher. Your idea on possible connection between brain and bec is very interesting. I will read your article soon. Do you have other papers discussing bec? Thank you and best wishes

Dear Christopher, i have one question: if our brain is fractal, does it mean that our memory is also fractal? Thank you

Victor,

I am particularly pleased with the work that I have done on the problem of time. I have used quantum coherence to re-investigate the problem of phenomenal time.

How Long is a Piece of Time? Phenomenal Time and Quantum Coherence. Toward a Solution Vimal (Ram Lakhan Pandey) & Davia (Christopher James) Quantum Biosystems, 1(2) 102-151, Editor Massimo Pregnolato

PS - there is much work being done (not by me) on the subject of fractal aspects of cognition. And also - see fractal aspects of music and literature composition.

Thanks, Christopher, for your paper. Best wishes

Dear all, allow me to share a summary of our discussion. Hopefully this file will stimulate further discussion on this issue. best wishes

Dear all: I just have read this discussion and would like to say that I have a paper published in the Astrophysics and Space Science, also is here in RG and in the arXiv. The paper deals with the existence of a Bose-Einstein condensate in the cosmic background, in line with the brain-like ideas you have been discussing. The title is "Cosmic Background Bose Condensate (CBBC)". Its total energy is of the order of the total energy known to be in the visible universe.

Dear Antonio, thanks for your comment. Your paper seems very interesting, would you mind to give the exact urls of your papers? Otherwise, you can just upload and share your paper will replying this message.

Sometime ago i have an idea to check whether the universe can be considered as bose einstein condensate, and i think the CMBR can be seen as a signature of such bose einstein condensate in its entirety. What do you think?

Best wishes

Victor: Here is the reference of my paper in the arXiv: arXiv:1306.3468, "Cosmic Background Bose Condensation (CBBC)" by Antonio Alfonso-Faus and Màrius Josep Fullana i Alfonso. URL: xxx.lanl.gov physics, tick "find" and use my name.

The CMBR does not seem to be in a condensate state. For condensate states (degeneracy) one needs low mass particles (I propose the lowest quantum of mass 10^(-66) gr), very low temperatures (in this case about 10^(-29) ºK, very low compared with the 2.7º of the CMBR) and a very high number density (10^122 in this case). The CBBC could be related to the dark energy.

Victor: Here is attached the paper

Sample of the Universe

In our thinking capacity, our brain is capable to store the eternal picture of the cosmic world and that is why the brain of mankind may be brain cell the sample of the universe.

See into- at https://shahidurrahmansikder.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/universe-brain-cell/