Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical model uncovers brain-like functional computational architecture across cosmic structures, suggesting universal evolution operates via homeostatic information processing.
Building on the functional concept of time from my foundational papers — time as an ordering variable that sequences state changes, with the sequencing rate σ as a capacity limit and the stability condition λ ≤ σ - this paper develops a comprehensive cosmological interpretation: the universe is read as an information-processing system with a brain-like functional architecture. Stars serve as metabolism (low-entropy supply), dark matter as structural tissue (λ ≈ 0, pure architecture), dark energy as a homeostatic regulator (expansion as relief of the global integration load), intermediate scales - chemistry, life, brains - as the actual computational layer (λ σ, cyclically stable), and black holes as memory: places where sequencing ends (σ → 0) and information is not destroyed but archived timelessly and maximally compressed (Bekenstein bound). In connection with Smolin’s cosmological selection, black holes are simultaneously read as germ cells; I extend Smolin by an epigenetic layer: what is inherited is not only mutated constants of nature, but a capacity setpoint (λ/σ) that imprints the “baseline configuration” of the daughter universe. From this follows a pathology of universes (misimprinting, miswiring, sterility) and a criterion of health: laws that permit maximal information processing. The dimensionless constants α (binding) and Λ (expansion) are interpreted as two readouts of a single entanglement pattern (anchor: ER=EPR, emergent spacetime), whereby the coincidence problem of cosmology becomes the diagnosis of a balanced universe. Observers - we - are, in this picture, fragments of universal decoherence that integrate redundant environmental records (anchor: Quantum Darwinism): the places where the thought reads itself. The death of the system is not decay but total entanglement: maximal connection at zero distinguishability. The paper closes with an explicit invitation to falsification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raffael Kasprzak (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: