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

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"...
 
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")...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top