Problem for Metaphysical argument

miles wofford

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2022
Messages
6
I’m 63 and terrible at math. Have a problem I can’t figure out. Working on a metaphysical argument on “infinity”.

At 11 million bits per second (the brain’s capacity) how long in time would it take to reach 7 octillion (the average human bodies number of molecules)?

Anyone care to help me with that! LOL
 
I’m sorry, I confused the info between Atoms and molecules. I Googled and get 7 octillion for Atoms, and the number 2 with 25 zeros following for molecules. Either would work for drawing the illustration and making the point in the argument.
At full capacity (no human comes close) our brain is capable of 11 million bits per second. What I can’t figure out is how long “in time” would it take the brain at 11 million bits per second to achieve a total of 7 octillion bits (comparing the number with atoms) or 2 with 25 0’s (comparing the number with molecules.
 
Thank you Dan, trying to rap my head around that. Looks easy LOL.

Trying to figure out how to do rate. 11 million/1 sec? Not making sense.

Promise I’m not a student. Who would ask such a crazy question. Graduated with honors in 1983 from Valdosta State University. Had a C- in algebra 101 and way proud of it.

Ended up with an MA in Lit and did some post grad work at UTEP. Dropped out. I’m a truck driver now. ?

I’d share the argument, but this is not the place for that. I just need a decent estimate of the time it would take for the brain to accomplish the task. Was hoping I could get an answer. It would be greatly appreciated. I’ll make sure to give y’all credit if I publish it! Though that’s seriously doubtful.

-miles
 
11 million bits per second (the brain’s capacity)
Hi Miles. It's my understanding that the body's sensory cells send an aggregrate of about 11 million bits of information toward the brain each second. I don't think the brain itself processes all of that information each second. (Signals may be processed along the way, particularly in the spinal cord.)

If you're talking about information traveling within the brain, how is 'bit' defined? When a neuron fires, is that one bit? If that neuron is connected to 1,000 other neurons, does the signal still count as one bit, even though it's received by 1,000 cells? (Neurons do not fire each time they receive a signal; some neurons require a little input, others require a lot of input, before they fire.)

In other words, I'm thinking that a significant amount of those 11 million bits end up preprocessed or handled locally.

Could you cite the source of the claim that the brain's information-carrying capacity is 11 million bits per second? I'm wondering whether they talk about the central nervous system. Thanks.

:unsure:

[imath]\;[/imath]
 
Working on a metaphysical argument on “infinity”. At 11 million bits per second (the brain’s capacity) how long in time would it take to reach 7 octillion (the average human bodies number of molecules)? Anyone care to help me with that! LOL
I write as someone with an undergraduate major in philosophy an postdoctoral work in the philosophy of mathematics. I have no idea what this question means: Problem for Metaphysical argument ???
You find that a study of Kant's idea of the synthetic A priori from his Critique of Pure Reason helpful,
Because you wrote about the brain there is a modern book by Stanislas Debaene. THE NUMBER SENSE It is sub titled How the Brain Creates Mathematics. Debaene is a real brain scientist who divides his time betweeen at the Brain Center in Paris and the psychology department of the University of Oregon. Section III is on Of Neurons and Numbers.
 
The references posted by pka concern interesting topics, yet their relevance is unclear to me. I don't think the OP is considering the emergence of human conciousness or how specific concepts come to "be" therein.

At its most general, the OP's question seems like distance=rate*time. How long would it take "bits" to travel from the brain to every atom in the body?

The notion of the brain sending stuff to the atoms comprising the brain and outside nerve fibers themselves notwithstanding, we need to start with a definition for "bits" and a confirmation of the given rate. Otherwise, I don't understand the point.

If this thread concerns a fantasy question, then no worries! Anyone interested may create their own definitions and fabricate whatever physiology, physics or data they like.

?

[imath]\;[/imath]
 
Sorry Gentlemen, hanging new fence today for the chickens.

Thank you pka for your response. Philosophy of mathematics! Wow, that's impressive. Never once read anything on it, but will now have to find something and get acquainted with it. Have read Kant and must admit he wasn't one of my favorites. Crazy, but one of my favs was Baruch Spinoza a great skeptic! And I love the enlightenment philosophers. Currently reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" .

All that to say, I am working on a metaphysical argument (the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space) specifically, the supposition of an all knowing God. Not a topic appropriate for here! I'm simply trying to illustrate that idea in a different context. All knowing, infinite and eternal is all pretty darn huge. More huger (sic) than 7 octillion! I don't have a metaphysical problem. I would just like to make a point with a problem.

At 11 million bits per second, how long would it take to reach 7 octillion.
And Otis, thank you for your reply. I had to laugh, the problem is so bizarre and crazy it's difficult to simply put. I am not trying to find out how long it takes bits to travel from the brain to every atom. I wonder if they even know? The number 7 octillion is only for comparison. It happens to also be the number of atoms found in the human body. I will make that comparison in the argument.

The point of the argument is the unlikelihood that man can understand or even comprehend "all knowing". It's impossible. My wife and friends like where I'm going with this and suggested I find a FREE math website to help me build the one illustration in the argument. I haven't been in a class room in over 30 years. We didn't have google. We went to the library and used index cards! I googled, "how fast does the brain work" and got a number of sites that all said the same thing, 11 million bits per second (no one uses it all, not even a fraction). I googled how many atoms in the human body and pretty much got the same answer there too. I stand ashamed.

I don't know what a bit is. I couldn't tell you how to define it. I just know I've got 11 million per second shooting off in my brain and would like to know how long it will take to get to 7 octillion.
BTW ... we have 12 cats. I like your profile pic. :)
 
The number 7 octillion is only for comparison … in the argument [about infinite knowledge].
Hi Miles. Okay, I'd misinterpreted the statement "to reach" the quantity of human atoms.

The point of the argument is the unlikelihood that man can understand or even comprehend "all knowing".
Ah, that makes more sense! Thanks.

Well, 7 octillion is 7 thousand trillion trillion. That quantity itself is incomprehensible, ha.

So, topsquark pointed out: rate is a ratio of total bits per elapsed time.

\(\displaystyle \text{rate} = \frac{\text{bits}}{\text{time}}\)

To solve that equation for time (i.e., to obtain a formula for time), we multiply each side of that equation by the fraction (time/rate).

\(\displaystyle \frac{\text{time}}{\text{rate}}×\frac{\text{rate}}{1} = \frac{\text{bits}}{\text{time}}×\frac{\text{time}}{\text{rate}}\)

Do you see on the left-hand side that quantities [imath]\text{rate}[/imath] on top and bottom cancel, leaving just time?

Likewise, on the right-hand side, quantities [imath]\text{time}[/imath] cancel on top and bottom. That yields the formula for time:

\(\displaystyle \text{time} = \frac{\text{bits}}{\text{rate}}\)

Using Scientific Notation, your bits are 7×10^27 (seven octillion is 7 followed by 27 zeros).

Your rate is 11×10^6 (eleven million is 11 followed by 6 zeros).

\(\displaystyle \text{time} = \frac{7×10^{27}}{11×10^{6}}\)

We may factorize that fraction:

\(\displaystyle \text{time} = \frac{7}{11} × \frac{10^{27}}{10^{6}}\)

There's a property of exponents for simplifying a ratio of powers having the same base: Subtract the exponent in the denominator from the exponent in the numerator and raise the base to that.

\(\displaystyle \text{time} = \frac{7}{11} × 10^{27-6}\)

7/11ths of 10^21 seconds is still hard to comprehend, as an interval of time. We could divide it into trillion-year sub-intervals. How many would that be? Let's see.

60sec/min × 60min/hr × 24hr/day × 365.25day/yr × 1000000000yr/unit

That equals 3.15576×10^16 seconds per trillion years.

Dividing the time (for the brain to reach 7 octillion bits) by our trillion-year unit yields roughly 20165.1468 units.

In other words, the brain would need a trillion years to pass more than 20,165 times to approach 7 octillion bits. (Humans will be extinct long before that.)

But here's a thought experiment, for your infinite-knowledge argument. You'll agree that the brain has a finite storage capacity. Each new "piece" of knowledge creates additional pieces of knowledge because each new piece has relationships with existing pieces, and those relationships themselves become new pieces of knowledge (with each of those creating yet more "pieces" of new knowledge). At some point, the brain will be "full" and all remaining knowledge beyond that point will be effectively shut out from comprehension. (One reason our brains are not full now is the breakdown of unused circuits by neural processes while we sleep, increasing resources.)

Another thought. Human senses have evolved specific structures for interacting with reality. As such, they are extremely constrained. That is to say, there is a LOT of stuff (knowledge) taking place within reality that humans cannot perceive (and never will). From my point of view, it's almost arrogant to think that a person could ever attain absolute knowledge. But, that's human nature. (Some people still think we're the pinnacle of the universe.) I'm glad you're on the right side of the question!

:)

[imath]\;[/imath]
 
Last edited:
It looks like an argument against a strawman. I've never heard anybody claim that since man can know everything, therefore there is no God. Assuming this is where you are going.

Also, if you are using certain concepts in your argument (e.g. bit), shouldn't you become familiar with them?
 
I have literally been laughing out loud and smiling for the last hour! All the while being greatly humbled. My ignorance abounds! Thank you so much Otis. Math is Greek to me! Your two additional thoughts have given me something to really think about today while hanging fence.

I am not arguing for or against the existence of god, Lev888. And your correct, I too have "never heard anybody claim that man can know everything." That's ridiculous. The idea I hope to put in better context is that every single thought of every man for the history of all mankind is INFINITELY less than any one single bit, or one single atom compared to "god's omniscience." It's impossible for man to know or understand an all knowing god. That's not to say there is no god. An "all knowing" creator would conceivably know exactly how many times an electron, proton or neutron ever made an orbit. An omniscient god would be completely present in each and every atom in existence, in all of creation. I'm getting way ahead of myself here.

The crux of the argument is the ridiculous social structures that we ignorant humans have constructed in our perceived realities around religious constructs. No news there! I'm simply hoping to place that valid critique in a different context.

I have to go hang some fence. Got goats and chickens escaping and don't want to feed the coyotes.
 
I have literally been laughing out loud and smiling for the last hour! All the while being greatly humbled. My ignorance abounds! Thank you so much Otis. Math is Greek to me! Your two additional thoughts have given me something to really think about today while hanging fence.

I am not arguing for or against the existence of god, Lev888. And your correct, I too have "never heard anybody claim that man can know everything." That's ridiculous. The idea I hope to put in better context is that every single thought of every man for the history of all mankind is INFINITELY less than any one single bit, or one single atom compared to "god's omniscience." It's impossible for man to know or understand an all knowing god. That's not to say there is no god. An "all knowing" creator would conceivably know exactly how many times an electron, proton or neutron ever made an orbit. An omniscient god would be completely present in each and every atom in existence, in all of creation. I'm getting way ahead of myself here.

The crux of the argument is the ridiculous social structures that we ignorant humans have constructed in our perceived realities around religious constructs. No news there! I'm simply hoping to place that valid critique in a different context.

I have to go hang some fence. Got goats and chickens escaping and don't want to feed the coyotes.
Ok. I assumed this was yet another proof of the existence of god. But I still don't understand the overall structure of your argument. Assuming god exists and he is omniscient and omnipresent, then sure, the amount of information this god possesses would be greater than what all humans know/knew. But I don't think it's obviously infinitely greater. For that we need to be sure that the universe is infinite either in spatial dimensions or time.
But my main point is that even if the above is true (god exists, etc), this is not very interesting. Of course the mankind's total knowledge is less than what could be potentially known about the universe. So what? We don't know what we don't know. We build social structures to the best of our knowledge and abilities. I don't see how adding the context of atoms and bits can help us in this regard.
 
Good afternoon Gentleman, and thank you for your help with this! I really appreciate the feedback. I'm not an intellectual. I can barely tie my shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house lol.

Otis, can I correctly say it would take well over a trillion years for the brain at its full capacity (11 million bits per second) to pass 7 Octillion (the number of atoms in the human body)?

A personal note; does god exist? I don't know. I believe there is, but can't prove it. To those who say there is and they can prove it; I say BS! If an omniscient, omnipresent god does exist I say it is infinitely impossible for all of mankind for all of history to even begin imagining such a being. This math problem is just a small illustration of that. A grey bearded ancient old man with bolts of lightning in his hands, heaven, ****, angels, devils, demons, and judgement day is all conjecture and has had its tragic consequences.

This started as a conversation with my Grandson and two of his friends. (This younger generation amazes me and their revolutionary spirit.) It's grown to include a few others and they are interested. It's been a conversation worth having.

Again, Thank you for helping me. :)
 
I have stayed out of this because it seems based on total confusion. The rate at which some thing can receive information has nothing to do with how much information that thing can store. To put it in human terms, experience and memory are different : I cannot remember how many times I have kissed my wife, but I am relatively confident that I noticed each at the time of occurrence. In other words, rate of reception has nothing to do with capacity for storage.

At an earlier point in this thread, someone quite sensibly pointed out that it might be important to focus on what a “bit” means. Basically, a “bit” is the least significant element of meaning. In computer jargon, it means some physical something that can have only one of two possible states. For a bit to have any meaning beyond its state, an objective physical property, we require a code such as

000 means the number zero
001 means the number one
010 means the number two
011 means the number three
100 means the number four
101 means the number five
110 means the number six
111 means the number seven

Here we have three “bits” representing numbers, but they could represent anything. For example,

000 means lion
001 means tiger
010 means lynx
011 means cat
100 means elk
101 means human
110 means amoeba
111 means lettuce

What is the metaphysical relevance of physical processing rates of arbitrary codes?
 
can I correctly say it would take well over a trillion years for the brain at its full capacity (11 million bits per second) to pass 7 Octillion
Hi. I can't say whether that statement is correct because I don't know how your source has defined "bit" with respect to the brain. (I tried looking online, but I found contradictory statements and a lack of definitions.) Can you post a link to the source material you've used?

In computer science, a bit is the smallest unit of information that a machine can handle. The human brain is not built like a computer, and it does not operate like a computer. When I studied human zoology in college (about 35 years ago), we talked about neural function in terms of "operations per second". For examples, the brain of a couch potato watching TV would perform roughly 3,000 operations per second, whereas the brain of a professional tennis player in a heated match would perform 125,000 operations per second. Individual "operations" involve huge numbers of neurons (individual brain cells) all at once.

Many advances in neuroscience have since been made, but I haven't seen any articles about brain output in terms of bits. Accurate information is probably online somewhere; I just don't have the time for thoroughly researching it.

:)

[imath]\;[/imath]
 
Hey, again. Trip cancelled, so I had time to search a bit more. This is still not thorough, but I found a collection of references about researchers and theorists in health sciences working on the possibility of interfacing brain tissue with supercomputers, using a collection of technologies known as neuronanorobotics.

I learned that not only do brain cell bodies fire off signals (action potentials), but the extensions (dendrites) connecting to other cells also generate signals. It's estimated that the collective dendrites may generate up to 10 times as many signals as the cell bodies. From what I gather, all these action potentials need to be organized into associated units, and it's these units that are bits. In this sense, a single bit is like an operation in the brain, involving many signals (seems like a quantization of bits, heh).

The raw computational power of the human brain has been estimated to range from 10^13 to 10^16 operations/sec.

Merkle, R. (1989). Energy Limits to the Computational Power of the Human Brain. Palo Alto, CA: Foresight Institute.


The human brain’s functional action potential based information is estimated as 5.52 × 10^16 bits/sec.

Martins, N. R. B, Erlhagen, W., and Freitas, R. A. Jr. (2012). Non-destructive whole-brain monitoring using nanorobots: neural electrical data rate requirements. Int. J. Mach. Conscious. 4, 109–140. doi: 10.1142/S1793843012400069


Estimates for whole-brain electrical data processing rates range from 1.48 × 10^11 bits/sec. to a high of 3.2 × 10^29 bits/sec.

Sandberg, A., and Bostrom, N. (2008). Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap. Technical Report #2008-3. Oxford: Oxford University


From the same collection:

...wirelessly transmit up to ∼6 × 10^16 bits per second of synaptically processed and encoded human–brain electrical information via auxiliary nanorobotic fiber optics...

Miles, the 11 million bits per second rate you're working with is much lower than the rates above. The concensus within that group seems to be:

5,520,000,000,000,000,000 bits per second,

given by Martins, et al.

That's 5 quintillion 520 quadrillion bits processed every second.

Were we to use that rate (instead of 11 million per second), then the time to reach 7 octillion bits is significantly shorter: just over 4,018 years.

Using Merkels' lower estimate (10^13 bits per second), it's just over 22 million years, and Sandberg and Bostrom's rate (1.148x10^11 bits per second) gives almost 150 million years.

Clearly, it's not an exact science, yet.

?

[imath]\;[/imath]
 
Top