1 Your hypothetical cube is also many MANY times larger than the universe, assuming a "neuron" is made of more than one elementary particle. 2. you are not trying to record the number of elementary particles, you are trying to record ALL the variables and interactions for the total number of elementary particles.

@John No. There are 10exp14 neurons and the same number of connections. That is about 10exp30 elementary particles maximum (already a few orders to much). No there more connections but not that many to exceed the number of particles. By far not.

in fact your cube is at minimum (10^(10^14)/(10^83) times bigger than the universe. assuming a "connection" is made of only a single elementary particle.

@John In fact it suffices to draw lines between a square grid of 10exp14 neurons. Look at the number of paths...

lines are made of atoms, as are neuron paths, again your "cube" ends up containing more mass than the universe. and again if you want to record all the interactions of X atoms you need at minimum X nodes on your matrix.

@DescheleSchilder I am confused. Is every neuron directly connected to every single other neuron, or is it a "square grid" (which suggests each neuron is connected to, at most, four other neurons)?

@John If there are 10exp14 neurons visible (on the nodes of a grid) then again there are the same amount of lines. That makes about 10exp30 particled. A bit less than 10exp83...

@MJ713 I see what you mean! I made the grid in which there are connections only between the neurons indeed. But look at the number of psths already here.

That means every possible combination of nodes is an object. That means every node needs to include information about every other possible object in the set. That makes every node incredibly and impossibly Data dense.

@MJ713 Virtually all forms in the universe could dwell on that grid (asduming more than 1 path, say parsllel paths as in your brain).

@DescheleSchilder nope if there X nodes on your grid, there is a number lines equal to all the interactions between all those nodes. and again assuming 1 node equals one particle in the universe, you need a minimum number of nodes equal to the number of particles in the universe times the number of variables you need to track.

@Hershberger Every combination of paths (pattern) could just follow a path of least resistence which is unique for all. No need to compute.

@DescheleSchilder I still don't understand. You say "If there are [some number of] neurons visible (on the nodes of a grid) then again there are the same amount of lines." But this is not true. If you draw 4 dots on a piece of paper, and then draw lines so every dot is directly connected to every other dot, you will have to draw 6 lines. For 5 dots, you will need 10 lines. For 6 dots, you will need 15 lines... The number of lines/connections grows much faster than the number of dots/neurons.

@John Nope... Look at it like a check board. There are less atoms than in the whole checkboard. There is just a piece of the 10exp7x10exp7 checkboard carved away.

@I have no idea what you are trying to say with that analogy.

@MJ713 If you place the neurons on a paper (sorry my phone is so small.)with those vertical and horizontal lines (squared?), then the lines on the paper connect the neurons (on the crosspoints). How many paths between neurons are possible? Assume 10exp7 horizontal and 10exp7 vertical. There are quite a few different paths...

My girlfriend asks me to move my ass...Girls!!...

@MJ713 I do it fast one moment

After we get through this argument about the number of paths, we need to ask whether or not a path actually stores or represents useful information. This is an assumption you have made, and I would like to examine it instead of accepting it blindly. Or...maybe I will just go to bed, because I am tired.

In hindsight, maybe we should have started with the significance of paths