What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?

[tonylang]

The LINE Scenario: A Thought Experiment;

Earth is gone. Complements of some natural occurrence, you name it. Perhaps a primordial black hole or giant rogue planet that happens to be passing through this solar system which sends the Earth into direct collision with Jupiter. Or perhaps there is an immense solar flare that perturbs Earths' orbit, sending our magnificent crucible for life careening into the sun. Result? All that you, and I, and your pet otter were, every cell and every DNA molecule, every atom that was on, or in the Earth, is now ionized nuclear fuel within the sun. The Darwinian evolved chemistry and biology that many fall back upon to describe life on Earth, particularly human life, has ceased to exist in this solar system. Along with its thermodynamically described chemistry and biological processes once used to describe the entirety of Earths' ecosystem.

Additionally, imagine if you will that there is life elsewhere in this universe. Let us imagine there exists at least one other evolved ecosystem (ECO-2) capable of hosting Darwinian life. Different from Earth but governed by the same laws of physics and biology and thermodynamic processes that manifested Earths' ecology. This planet orbiting a viable star may be located anywhere in this universe since the laws of physics are expected to be consistently applied throughout. Also for this anecdote, let us say that this other bastion of life is some 10 billion light-years from Earths' sun. A distance so vast it would take much longer than the age of the big-bang to relativistically travel that distance, assuming, of course, there were any classically defined remnants of ones' biology left to make the journey.

The question becomes; could you or I or any individual formerly hosted by Earth's ecology ever find oneself a part of ECO-2s' ecology? Is the nature of life in this universe such that one could at some point find oneself naturally born to ECO-2 in the form of a species indigenous (present or future) to ECO-2, just as we were born on Earth to species indigenous to Earths' ecology? If one adheres solely to the classically understood, thermodynamically described, relativistically constrained mechanisms to explain life writ large then you are forced to say no, and in so doing you would necessarily be Earth and human-centric as one discounts the rest of the cosmos. Because in nature, what is possible here is necessarily possible elsewhere, ergo; if you can live here, you can live anywhere. And yet, clearly, some aspect of what biologically, thermodynamically, chemically, defined ones' singular existence on Earth, must relativistically (Below the speed of light) travel to bridge the unbridgeable distance between your last physical location, Earths' solar system, and ECO-2s'.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Phi for All
unnecessary link removed

[tonylang]

Naturally invasive scenarios such as this don't reveal questions posed by individuals, but questions posed by nature. Such scenarios essentially ask; how could it be otherwise? Such questions reveal their own answers to any species sufficiently developed to comprehend and honestly confront them. The point of this scenario is the inescapable conclusion that each individualized instance of life must involve a non-classical, non-local, relativistically unconstrained, scientifically describable, naturally recurring component. This individualizing phenomenon must exist separately and distinctly from any local physical form and must be definable by some discretely quantifiable property of nature with degrees-of-freedom much greater than that of matter. Such a mechanism may also not be indigenous to this universe but instead is native to the underlying Hilbert-space, or 'Metaverse' if you will. This need for non-locality is necessary to instantiate individuality not just on Earth while it exists and is viable, but also within the systems and galaxies of this vast Higgs constrained universe, and throughout nature.

The only life that has ever existed on Earth is the living cell, in all of its forms. The aspect of being and individuality had by a single living cell is that which defines all life, no more and no less is required. This aspect, which instantiates the first person being of a single cell as a living individual every bit as alive as any multi-cellular creature, is the position of view (POV). All of the skills and talents that tend to distract from this fact are only emergent features of the host form. Beneath it all is ones' POV. In this universe, there isn't one implementation of life for mammalian forms and another for insects, and yet another for vegetation or microbial forms of life. Nature is an efficient system of cause and effect, and life is one holistic effect. It isn't my intention to change anyone's' mind on this topic. Rather, to expose open-minded readers to a new and practical way of thinking about a very old, perhaps the most personal of all ideas known to humankind. The recognition of a unique and scientifically plausible description of how nature governs not only species but the individual, you. There is a very good chance, as is often the case with such invasive ideas about nature that I and everyone who reads this volume would be long gone before either the capability or the courage to prove or disprove the LINE hypothesis is achieved. However, every first step is worth taking.

The natural processes that implement life are the same for the cell as it is for the bacteria as it is for a fruit fly as for a human being. It is folly for us to think we could only experience life in this very temporary, randomly emerged bipedal primate form. Further, your cells and molecules come and go continuously over the course of your lifetime. Nonetheless, you remain you. Then there are the other trillions of living individuals in millions of different forms all around us coming into being and going out of life continuously. I realized that the only form we need to consider in this regard is the single living cell. The answers that are true for the cell are the answers that apply to all life.

Furthermore, you and I and your pet octopus and every living cell are instances of life, each a temporary instantiation of some natural, empirically definable phenomena of nature. This instantiating phenomenon must have the relativistically unconstrained reach to establish individual life (you), biological or perhaps otherwise, on any planet orbiting any star or indeed in any viable environment in the cosmos or in existence where viable hosts may emerge. It is a tragic mistake to feel that this describes something that could not possibly be natural, but must be supernatural. While, as usual, natures' genius is a practical and ubiquitous, even if a bit unfamiliar implementation. There is a phenomenon known to science for some time that meets all of these requirements: Quantum Entanglement (QE). Einstein called it spooky action at a distance. Today we play with it in the lab as a mere tech curiosity. It is the most plausible mechanism by which individuality is universally instantiated.

[tonylang]

Today the world generally unites in a communal pride in the seminal achievement of Neil Armstrong, as the first among humankind to set foot on a cosmological body other than the Earth. In this achievement, we acknowledge the triumph of the human spirit, and intellect, to measure, understand, manipulate, and control the laws of nature, to implement a mobility of the living form through space-time, unlike any that had previously been achieved. Humankind, as a species, like many other hosts for life in Earths' ecosystem, has evolved a basic mobility of individuality implemented via our host forms functions and structures. This local mobility is evolved for movement through direct contact with the environment. Legs, wings, fins, flagella, are some of the means by which the physical mobility of the living individual is achieved by species on Earth. Additionally, humankind has realized great utility in further extending this basic capability with technology. Thus the mobility of individuality on human scales has been enhanced by wheels, airframes, engines, and rockets. Our thoughts often do not extend, or associate, this mobility of our physical form with either the local or universal mobility of our position of view. That is the mobility of our individuality. We have a very limited scope of extrapolating many of the implementations around us, natural or otherwise, even those that we conceive and develop ourselves, to a context greater than our immediate utility and practical concerns. However, with the accomplishments of NASAs' Apollo missions humankind has extended its reach beyond our usual scope. In so doing, we have opened a new realm of mobility of individuality that must be addressed and understood. Not only in technological terms but also for what the movement and relocation of Neils' position of view (POV) to the Moons' surface say to us, as individuals, about our living circumstances in this universe.

We take as a foregone conclusion that life can exist anywhere in this universe so long as the resources needed to sustain it are present. This is a very complacent assumption despite the likelihood that it may very well be so. It is not too surprising that we make this assumption; after all, there are no examples to the contrary in any Earth or near-Earth environment. In fact, one of the underlying tenets of our present-day scientific method, as implied by current measurements of the fine structure constant states that the laws of physics are upheld everywhere in this universe. This consistency offers a reasonably good basis for our certainty. Nonetheless, life can be quite complicated and has many requirements and influences that are well understood, yet perhaps there are other factors critical to life yet to be discovered. We know that most Earth life depends on proper sustenance (energy), water, oxygen, temperature, and pressure levels to be maintained at least in the near term. We also have a long-term need for gravity or an equivalent force. Nevertheless, life, as we know it, may yet have some undiscovered intrinsic dependency on properties in or near the area around Earth or around the Sun. Mission planners acknowledged this possibility when they sent the first-ever Earth life into space onboard a captured V-2 rocket on February 20, 1947. These original astronauts were a group of fruit flies, insects being as good a representation of Earth life as any other. This first volley into the unknown environment outside the Earths' atmosphere was extremely dangerous. Not just in terms of the technological or known dangers inherent to extraterrestrial space due to its lack of the known required resources mentioned earlier, but primarily because space could have proven to be fundamentally incompatible with a living entitys' instantiation, its being. So how do we know for near-certain that individual life can exist anywhere in this universe?

Interestingly, the best evidence to date for the universal mobility of individuality presented itself when Neil Armstrong pressed his boot into the soft silt of the moons' surface. Neil Armstrong surviving his "giant leap for mankind" suggests that life as we know it is not utterly dependent upon any resource intrinsic or unique to the Earth, or the very local space-time around it. For example, we could have evolved with a dependence on Earths' unique magnetic field configuration or on Earths' specific gravitational field intensity, or some other completely unknown and unrecognized property of either Earth itself or the space near to the Earth. If this was indeed the case the crew of Apollo 11, and the fruit flies before them, could have tragically de-instantiated, ceased to live, once they passed some threshold, or boundary, somewhere between the Earths' surface, and the moons' surface. Perhaps once the spacecraft passed some critical flux level in Earths' magnetic field, or once the Earths' gravitational field dropped below some essential level. Each of the unsuspecting astronauts, human or fruit-fly, could have simply extinguished. Immediately, or gradually, like light bulbs whose electric current had been turned off. Perhaps their molecular bonds could have just dissipated due to some unknown property of space. There may yet remain some irreproducible property of our sun unknown to us that is critical to sustaining Earth life. After all, Earth life has never been tested beyond the suns Helios-spheres. Presumably, each of these needs could ultimately be overcome and provided for by technology.

Nonetheless, the amazingly profound statement suggested by Neil Armstrong surviving his first step on the moon isn't only that we can overcome the technological hurdles of space travel, but rather that nature in this universe, permits individuality to exist elsewhere, and likely everywhere. That not only the physical form, but the individuals' first-person position of view (POV), that is, ones' being, ones' natural entanglement, ones' instantiation, is indeed mobile in this universe, and perhaps throughout nature. Neil Armstrongs' giant step for mankind suggests that the individual POV can exist not just where it was instantiated, where it entangled its host form, but quite likely anywhere in this universe due to the unrestricted instantaneous universal ubiquity of natural entanglement. On the other hand, the irreversibility of extinction and evolution, together with relativistic constraints, mandate that the individual cannot be instantiated, or rendered universally mobile by the physical forms, made of local collections of atoms in this universe, because unlike NASA, nature does not use spacecraft for the universal mobility of the individual.

Comprehending the reality of ones' living circumstances begins with the realization that Neal Armstrongs' first step on the surface of the moon, or perhaps Yuri Gagarins' first orbit around the Earth, or that the intrepid voyage of those first insects, demonstrated that the mobility of individuality exists in this universe. Mobility not defined by locomotion or travel of your current host form but by a fundamental property of nature with degrees of freedom much greater than that of matter. Realize that the instantiation of any individual, ones' position of view, may be hosted anywhere in space-time by any viable environment which happens to emerge naturally or artificially on any planet orbiting any star. These convenient environments also include the living hosts we refer to as; species. The obstacles presented by travel, involve the movement of the matter based components of the instantiated individual through expanses of space-time, small or large. Nature, in its implementation of life, circumvents this issue by implementing only the mobility of the POV. The component of the individual, which is temporarily instantiated by natural entanglement to a locally available form. Ergo, in nature, the physical host, the species, is always left behind.

[tonylang]

The LINE "Life Instantiated By Natural Entanglement" hypothesis presents perhaps for the first time, a practical scientifically plausible hypothesis for the natural implementation that governs the instantiation of the living individual as a being distinct from the evolution of that beings current species. It will introduce you to;


• The Instantiation Of Individuality: The natural process which establishes each instance of individual life, you.
• The Entanglement Molecule (EM); A primordial molecule, is hypothesized to naturally interact with the QE spectrum to entangle metamatter. It is the Alice in the process of natural entanglement and is utilized by the living cell to establish individualized life.
• The Position Of View (POV): That component of the instantiation process which defines your presence in your current host form within this space-time.
• The Metaverse: Hilbert-Space, the only real verse, and that from which this universe emerges.
• The Quantum Entanglement Spectrum (QE): The degrees of freedom which define the phenomenon of natural quantum coherent interaction. Einsteins' 'spooky action'.
• The Quantum Entanglement Frequency (QEF): Ones' immutable unique value of the QE degrees of freedom which instantiates your POV.
• The Cell and (Proto-Cell): The only life on Earth, natures’ entanglement circuit. The original instantiated living individual which implement all other biological hosts on Earth.
• The LifeID: A calculated value that defines ones' current unique QE connection, your LINE.
• The Entanglement Cells; Individual cells responsible for heterodyning their unique LINES in complex hosts to establish your LifeID.
• Metamatter: A non-local Weakly Interacting Cosmic Background Bose Condensate (CBBC) is hypothesized to be as necessary to life as dark-matter is to galaxy formation. Where the EM is the Alice, then metamatter is the Bob of natural entanglement.
• The Fidelity of Teleportation (FT): A calculated value that describes the individuals’ current reinstantiation prospects for your next life.
• The Monogamy of Entanglement: The property of the QE connection that enforces a singleton instance of individuality and the role of death.


The hypothesis in summary:

The most fundamental element of life is a molecule called the Entanglement Molecule (EM). This molecule composed of normal baryonic matter manifests the unique property of prolifically establishing a natural teleportation channel, which is a shared quantum coherent state, a quantum entanglement connection (QE), with a hypothesized form of matter called metamatter. Metamatter is composed of an undiscovered type of particle that necessarily resides entirely beyond this space-time, in Hilbert-space or the metaverse if you will. Metamatter is as essential to life as dark matter is to galaxy formation. Entanglement molecules in this universe are at all times entangled to particles of metamatter in Hilbert-space. It is their natural state to do so. Metamatter, as is possible with any natural entity having only subtle degrees-of-freedom within this space-time, is not subject to locality or relativistic constraints and so, via this QE connection, is non-classically, instantaneously accessible to entanglement molecules (EM) everywhere in this universe.

These entanglement molecules and metamatter are the Alice and Bob endpoints of each isolated, naturally occurring, QE connection established within every living cell that has ever existed. An entanglement molecule once arranged from its constituent atoms, not unlike the molecules in the ferrite magnet in a transistor radio, is instantly sensitive to available, uninstantiated QE degrees of freedom (DOF) of the QE spectrum, or quantum entanglement frequencies (QEF). It is the QEF that define the unique natural teleportation channel upon which to entangle available metamatter. Such isolated pairings existed on Earth for eons, and in this universe, for even longer before the naturally occurring circumstances arose, on Earth, and perhaps elsewhere, to provide a sphere of molecules that could be described as an early cell wall. Not all entanglement molecules were likely to encounter a cell wall, but those that did, enclosed by this barrier, obtained the benefit of an extra level of protection. This enclosure allowed them to develop beyond the typical. This basic entanglement relationship is the most fundamental manifestation of life. It establishes the position of view (POV). Over time other types of molecules joined with these proto-cells sometimes to their mutual benefit, sometimes not. Those that added no benefit or diminished the proto-cells survival prospects would not survive.

The QE connection gave surviving proto-cells something very special. It gave the otherwise inanimate molecular components on the inside of this early cell a form of intra-cellular communication. That is, the ability to interact at a distance, but more critically at that point, the QE connection gave the proto-cell the capacity to share or imprint internal cellular state information upon its entangled metamatter. Metamatter because of its extra-dimensional, non-locality and relativistically unconstrained nature essentially acts as a kind of cloud-storage for information accessible instantaneously from any location in this universe, and in any other as well. This universal cloud storage repository of information is the critical factor required to get evolution started. This natural cosmic background Bose condensate (CBBC) is what makes being possible anywhere in this universe. At that point, evolution existed only via random environmental contact between proto-cells with other structures in the primordial environment of early Earth.

Thus, the cell became natures' biological entanglement circuit. Each such entanglement pairing constitutes an instantiation of life, whether on Earth, elsewhere in this universe, or anywhere in existence. Consequently, life could now be hosted by any viable formation of cell(s) that may emerge anywhere in existence. Ones' instantiation is established at one specific QEF, a unique value of the degrees of freedom among the infinity of possible values on the quantum entanglement spectrum. A QEF that is unique in all existence to each individual and to no other, but only while that QE connection, ones' natural teleportation (LINE) channel, persists. These yet to be determined DOF's, perhaps frequency and others, on the QE spectrum, is the singular property in nature that defines each living individual. All other components of the instantiation process may change or be exchanged, but it is your QEF that positions you as the central and only target of your instantiation, of your life, and not someone else's. Change or retune ones' QEF enough, and you change the being, the individual. You are your QEF; you are not your cells or your metamatter.

It is very likely that the QE spectrum predated even the big bang. Your QEF is the immutable, the classically indestructible you. When entanglement molecules, contained within viable hosts such as the cell, located on any viable planet, orbiting any viable star, anywhere in existence, entangles metamatter at your QEF, that is where you will instantiate. That is where you will be. A place such as that is where you are right now. A place such as that is where you are likely to have been many times before your current instantiation. Places such as that are where you will inevitably reinstantiate many more times in your future. This is instantiation; this is life. You and I, and your pet otter, every insect, every cell and every organization of cells, all life anywhere in existence instantiates by this mechanism. While each cell entangles at a unique QEF, a few specialized cells in complex organisms, called entanglement cells (EC), have evolved to heterodyne, or combine their own unique QEF's. This combination of distinct LINE channels entangle metamatter at yet a different unique QEF, called a composite or emerged QEF, thus instantiating the emerged individual, you.

This composite degree of freedom called the QEF together with the metamatter it entangles is called the lifeID. No memories or behavior of the host body is carried or transferred by the lifeID. In nature, such properties are electromagnetic manifestations of the host species or vessel only. The closest cultural meme to the lifeID come via religions throughout human history having referred to this, using one word or another, as the soul. Once any QE connection is terminated, by sufficiently disrupting the cellular component (inducing death of the host vessel), the previously entangled metamatter becomes available for entanglement by other cells. However, this particular metamatter has been imprinted to some extent by its previous entanglement. Each generation of entanglement, each instantiation, each life, imprints information from both the host and QEF, to its entangled metamatter. The degree of this imprinting is yet to be determined.

This time-dependent, perishable imprinting of cellular state in metamatter becomes available to future cells that entangle this metamatter while simultaneously limiting its entanglement opportunities to cells of matching state. The passage of time decays the imprint left on metamatter causing a return to a state best described as stem-metamatter (to be discussed later in this volume). This transfer of cellular state information may impact cellular behavior and development and to the extent that this imprinted information manifests an advantage for the cell, may provide a survival benefit. This is the evolutionary mechanism used by early life that predated the development of the DNA and RNA molecules. With QE communication, ergo; life, the proto-cell became the laboratory of evolutionary innovation we see today from which emerged a great many useful cellular structures and processes, but most pivotally, a clear benefit to augment the cloud storage mechanism of metamatter with a more local, more expandable and flexible information storage mechanism which became RNA and eventually DNA. This was the birth of the modern living cell. Much is yet to be learned but the implications of this process are vast and pervasive.

The degree to which metamatter is imprinted by its entangled host and unique QEF will determine, after deinstantiation (death), the likelihood that your imprinted metamatter will, for a time, reject entanglement opportunities from dissimilar host cells (of even your same or similar species), in favor of entanglement with cells that contain your familial DNA. These are cells that are more compatible with its imprinting. Thereby increasing the probability of reinstantiating you into your former family line, or if less finely imprinted, to any random line in your previous species or if less finely tuned still, to another species entirely. Longevity may be a factor in this regard. Also when we discover the entanglement molecule in nature or within the cell, just as we eventually discovered the DNA molecule in the cell decades after Darwin presented his theory of evolution by natural selection, likewise this may allow us to develop technologies capable of detecting and tracking each individuals unique QEF in this life or across multiple instantiations. This will change the world, at the very least it will change the way we write our wills. As for practical implementations, discovering and using metamatter could change everything. Metamatter satellites would be very different yet similar to regular orbital satellites, even though they will reside outside of this space-time they'll permit instantaneous communication with any point in the cosmos. This will forever alter the human relationship not just to each other, but to all living creatures biological or otherwise. Also for the first time in human history, we could begin to take practical actions in life that would affect the individuals' reinstantiation prospects into ones' next life, thereby tailoring your next instantiation ahead of time, minus the mysticism and ideology.

[Phi for All]

On 5/19/2022 at 6:15 AM, tonylang said:

The answers that are true for the cell are the answers that apply to all life.

This is an assumption you need to support. On its face, it seems overly simplified, and easy to disprove, unless you change definitions to the point of meaninglessness. 

I also think you don't understand entanglement. You've invented some concepts that aren't mainstream, and then try to stitch mainstream concepts to them, and that's not good methodology. You risk filling the gaps in your knowledge with stuff you've made up, and it always sounds good because you used concepts that made more sense to you, but aren't necessarily correct. 

[tonylang]

 

"The answers that are true for the cell are the answers that apply to all life."

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This is an assumption you need to support. On its face, it seems overly simplified, and easy to disprove, unless you change definitions to the point of meaninglessness. 

Every individual is free too accept what they will in each instance of life. If one chooses to believe in god(s) or a cognizant thoughtful creator, or in the existence of 'something from nothing'  that is ones choice. However, the LINE hypothesis presents an alternative mechanism that describes the actual, natural realty of this universe. The statement you have chosen to point out is one of the more readily accepted premises upon which the LINE hypothesis is built. It is a  plausible premise because it has been scientifically shown with high confidence that living forms on this planet, you, are composed of or from trillions of cells. Also, cells are scientifically accepted to be at least one progenitor stage of life on earth. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I also think you don't understand entanglement. You've invented some concepts that aren't mainstream, and then try to stitch mainstream concepts to them, and that's not good methodology. You risk filling the gaps in your knowledge with stuff you've made up, and it always sounds good because you used concepts that made more sense to you, but aren't necessarily correct. 

If the extents of human thought were limited to only 'main stream' concepts, today we would still be throwing rocks at fish on the river banks to feed ourselves. Giordano Bruno would not have been burned alive for suggesting that those points of light in the night sky are other suns. Galileo would not have narrowly skirted the same fate and was instead arrested for life. We wouldn't know the names Newton or Einstein; Jesus would not have been crucified. The one thing they all had in common is they realized beyond the cognitive bounds of their current culture. Excepting the reality that describes ones living circumstances is never easy for a culture but is nonetheless essential. 

The LINE scenario implies entanglement not as proof but as a thought experiment that invokes one of the guiding principles of the human scientific method, that is; The Copernican Principle (CP). The CP suggests in this context; if you can live in one viable habitat (Earth) you can live in any other regardless of distance (i.e. 10B LY). If the suggestion that you and I and your pet octopus are instantiated on Earth by natural entanglement breaks with 'main stream' understanding then so be it. The scientific method assumes what we think we know for sure may be incomplete or entirely wrong. 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by tonylang

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, tonylang said:

However, the LINE hypothesis presents an alternative mechanism that describes the actual, natural realty of this universe.

This is an example of how redefining words in your own way causes problems in science. Actual means "observed", and that's what mainstream science is interested in. Natural means "according to nature", which again is tied to observations we've made so often that we can now predict what might happen in similar situations. But reality means "how things really are", and that goes beyond nature and observation. Reality is more of a philosophical concept.

For the rest, I'm not sure whether you're simply pointing out that members of a species are usually independently mobile, or if you're proposing some kind of cellular travel across space. Frankly, you write like this is a lecture rather than a discussion, and you have to cram everything into fifteen minutes. Your concepts are all over the place. Can you pick an aspect of this idea of yours and just have a conversation about it? Or do you have some evidence of the element you claim exists so we can examine that? Where does this element fit on the periodic table?

[tonylang]

 

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is an example of how redefining words in your own way causes problems in science. Actual means "observed", and that's what mainstream science is interested in. Natural means "according to nature", which again is tied to observations we've made so often that we can now predict what might happen in similar situations. But reality means "how things really are", and that goes beyond nature and observation. Reality is more of a philosophical concept.

For the rest, I'm not sure whether you're simply pointing out that members of a species are usually independently mobile, or if you're proposing some kind of cellular travel across space. Frankly, you write like this is a lecture rather than a discussion, and you have to cram everything into fifteen minutes. Your concepts are all over the place. Can you pick an aspect of this idea of yours and just have a conversation about it? Or do you have some evidence of the element you claim exists so we can examine that? Where does this element fit on the periodic table?

I appreciate your desire for immediacy on this topic but it is a huge topic, most of which I intend to present in this thread, one post at a time. This topic must be presented systematically for it to be understood and to maximize the possibility of being accepted. I can't promise any individuals acceptance of the LINE hypothesis, only the details that will lead to the needed empirical discoveries are on offer.

Testable Elements Of The Hypothesis;

One initial approach would be to seek evidence for, or against some fundamental aspect of the working hypothesis: Test for the existence, or lack thereof, of the proposed entanglement cells (EC) that establish and maintain life via the QE connection in complex hosts: Termination of the hosts' EC's and no other cells, should result in the termination of the subject.

Premise: Can death be induced without damage? Can an otherwise healthy living subject be terminated with empirically no physical damage contributable to subject termination? Baring any limitations of technical proficiency or of equipment in analyzing and identifying the root cause of subject death.

Axiom: There exists some absolute minimum number of cells that may be terminated in any complex organism whereby such cells may be scientifically established to be the root and only cause of death of the subject organism with no premortem adverse effects to other cells in the subject. Cells that meet these criteria are candidates for the theorized entanglement cells, and the collection has a high probability of including some or all of the subjects' proposed entanglement cells.

Practical Test: Perform controlled experiments using approved subjects, i.e., fruit flies, to terminate the minimal number of cells per specimen to conclusively induce death of the test subject. Carefully repeat and document the number and location of target cells per subject for each scientifically substantiated successful sample. Repeatability per species is mandatory as the specifics may vary from species to species or subject to subject. In qualifying samples the cells that are the root cause of death must be gradually minimized and physically isolated. Cellular damage must be limited to only the target cells for a duration beginning at the time of the target cells' death up to and including the time of confirmed subject death. In other words, for a successful trial, no cells in the subject other than the target cells may be adversely physically affected premortem.

Reasoning:

Postulate: Any natural phenomenon that can occur may by definition also reoccur and therefore there must exist some natural mechanism or process, understood or not, that describes its natural implementation. As far as life (Being) of the individual (regardless of species) goes there is one of two possibilities:

Scenario one: In nature (in this universe) each individual instance of life, each living being (you) are a singleton, a one-off occurrence unique in eternity both prior and future to one's current life. If this is indeed the case then there isn’t much more to be said on the topic. (This scenario violates the stated postulate.)

Scenario two: In nature, an individual’s being (you) are not a one-off singular occurrence but is a current instance of some naturally definable process or mechanism that may repeat given adequate circumstances. If this is indeed the case then the conversation ensues. Describe the natural implementation of the repeatable individual experience of being regardless of species, of life.

Scenario two is one basis upon which the LINE hypothesis is conceived.

Unfamiliar though it can be, only physics describes your presence in whatever environment one finds oneself. The question is; what are the actual physics that mediates how you instantiate on any particular randomly emerged planet among the untold number of planets that happen to be viable for life regardless of the distance between them, that can exist either naturally or artificially (ergo; A Mars colony)?

You were born to an existing species on this planet just a few decades ago. After you’re done here the same physics demands repeatability and will operate similarly again whether on earth, if it still exists and viable, or elsewhere. Clearly, neither Earth nor any species on it are permanent (ergo the scenario). Therefore science demands that other viable instances of planet and species must circumstantially fulfill the same requirements in your future. To doubt this is to be Earth and human-centric (ergo; religious). This natural mechanism must be non-local because planets and species are local but can emerge anywhere in space-time. Spooky as it may be, this mobility of individuality demands an empirical scientifically describable mechanism ergo: Physics.

[Phi for All]

34 minutes ago, tonylang said:

I appreciate your desire for immediacy on this topic but it is a huge topic, most of which I intend to present in this thread, one post at a time.

This is a science discussion forum. It works best when you treat it like a conversation around a table, rather than lecturing from a podium to an audience. 

I want to be able to stop reading when I encounter something questionable, ask a question, and get an answer before I read any more. I learn this way, a piece of information at a time so I can see if it fits well with accumulated human knowledge. I eat the same way, so it's like you're trying to make me fit a whole pizza in my mouth, instead of taking small bites to make sure it's not going to make me sick. 

[tonylang]

Presenting one piece (post) at a time is precisely what I intend to do but you keep needing to jump ahead. Human understanding of the individuals presence on earth is akin to a termites understanding of its presence in the mound. Humankind does not understand the individuals' relationship with the living host form nor how individuality inhabits this universe. You see, species evolve but you didn't. Ask questions please, but do so advancing one post  at a time beginning with the original post "The LINE scenario" because if you can't understand its implications or draw unnatural conclusions that fit conventional ignorance, whether religious or secular, then for you, the rest is moot.

With that said, in the LINE scenario, do you see the Copernican principle mandate that in nature,  while earth and its living forms are perishable, individuality isn't. Do you see that in nature any individual position of view (POV) can inhabit any viable habitat (like earth) and its indigenous living host forms in this universe no comets or spacecraft required? After all, you didn't arrive on earth by spacecraft. Or are you earth and human centric?

[tonylang]

At first the comprehension that ones’ first person individuality is abstracted, separate, and distinct from the evolution, development, and life of ones’ cells is a tough hurdle for the mind to overcome. Even as it is viewed from various perspectives, and in the absence of clarifying empirical evidence, it requires some time alone in contemplation and a steely objectivity to come to realize the truth of it. However humankind has had this problem before.

It is essential to recognize that maintaining life and maintaining an emerged individuality are both essential but separate functions of living hosts. The hosting of life via natural entanglement is an evolved property of inanimate matter whereas emerged individuality (Heterodyned by EC's) is an additional evolved skill of living multi-cellular organisms. The function of the entanglement cells (EC) in complex hosts is not to establish life in a multi-cellular organism. Each cell is already alive complements of the natural entanglement by its entanglement molecules (EM). Rather the role of the EC is to instantiate individuality, establish the position-of-view as the target for experience of the emerged being. This unique composite natural entanglement with metamatter is separate and distinct from the natural entanglement established by each of the other (non-EC) living cells that comprise ones’ host body. Ergo; in nature, you are not your body. This is why you can sever an entire leg or destroy a large portion of your brain, or drink beer and remain you. That is to say, maintain your individuality. This individuality is not about appearance or behavior or personality or intelligence or even consciousness, it is ones’ continued position–of-view via natural entanglement. You remain you because the emerged individual is separate and distinct from that of the trillions of non-EC cells that maintain its operation.

Every single cell which comprises your body is itself naturally entangled and is in nature a living individual, as is the emerged individual, you whose multi-cellular form and functions each non-EC cell help to maintain. This says nothing of your individuality. Further, this same implementation operates for leaves, trees, hair, internal organs, etc. each is clearly multi-cellular and is alive but may only be collections of individualized living cells that are held together, and perhaps on some level, function together. Such an association of living individuals may or may not have evolved the capacity to heterodyne to establish a secondary emerged natural entanglement connection to metamatter. That is to say, they have not become an emerged individual like a beaver or a dolphin, human or an ant. Making a distinction between the position-of-view of a cell or a simple association of cells and the heterodyned composite POV of an emerged individual is a tenuous endeavor fraught with uncertainty absent the principles described in the instantiation hypothesis. In earth-life it is the hypothesized entanglement cells that are the evolutionary components of living hosts responsible for this advanced feature of emerged individuality. These terms and distinctions are necessary because our eyes and instruments deceive us; the largest life-form in earth’s ecosystem the sequoia tree may very well not possess an emerged individuality whereas some of the smallest may.

Nature implements life by the same fundamental mechanism no matter the hosts' form. In nature, this sort of scalable, extensible implementation is the very definition of simplicity. It is the entanglement molecule that is hypothesized to fundamentally establish and maintain all life via natural entanglement in every living cell. One QE connection at some unique QEF is one individual. How this QE connection is established or maintained, composite or not, is irrelevant to nature's design. Earth-life offers one (carbon-based) approach to hosting nature’s implementation of life. Other planets may very well evolve other approaches. We may someday manufacture yet another. This implementation is what permits the universal mobility of individuality. Hosts for life and their constituent components whether single cellular or otherwise are local in space-time and have no natural universal mobility requiring physical travel (i.e. via comets or spacecraft).

[StringJunky]

Garbage.

[tonylang]

The LINE hypothesis is a plausible hypothesis for the axiom; Individuality exists and it is naturally mobile throughout this universe. Given the current state of scientific understanding the only exhibit of evidence for individuality that can be offered to you, is you. So it falls upon each of us to decide if oneself is an individual or not. Further, each instance of life, to any other instance of life, is only an extrapolation or an assumption of individuality currently based upon appearance and behavior. The affirmation of ones' own individuality, at least for most reasonable minded individuals can be accounted for. If we agree to the axiom that you and perhaps I as well as every other discernibly living entity is an individual instance of life then this conversation as challenging as it may be toward strongly held beliefs or ideologies may proceed.

No aspect of the modern scientific understanding of biology or its empirical descriptions is being challenged. The cell and the verifiable aspects of its biological evolution are as science currently describes them. The LINE hypothesis begins where the modern scientific narrative admittedly, voluntarily abstains and, traditionally, religions are permitted to fill what is arguably the most important of all voids, and likely the only void any living being may actually care most about. That is, the natural mechanisms governing the instantiation of life. It is for this reason that humankind has fought and prayed for a time far longer than science itself has existed. It is much overdue for the narrative to be extended not by mysticism or ideological entrenchment but by well reasoned, steely objective thought, because clearly not just some, but all of nature is ultimately science.

The LINE hypothesis suggests that each life is an instance of a specific individual. Also, the natural process that instantiates an individual to that host (i.e. species) is independent of the specific biology, chemistry (i.e. carbon, silicon etc.) or technological principles upon which such forms may be evolved, implemented or depend for function or for its local evolution. Therefore, any individual may instantiate (live) in any viable form in any viable environment in this universe. Ergo Earth is not special.

1-Individual life (you) is species independent.

2-The natural process that places you or any living being in the life they currently live is not dependent upon any particular chemistry, biology, species or form, evolved or otherwise. Just as for example, memory, or intelligence does not depend upon any particular brand or type of technology for its implementation. That is to say, memory is abstracted from its implementation. Likewise, in nature is the individual life abstracted from any specific implementation of host form, or species.

The belief that you are your body stems from a lack of an alternative perspective and supporting evidence as well as from tradition also from the powerful visual perspective imposed by sight and a prominent physical form. It is as much a misperception as was humankinds' long-held belief in the Earth-centric universe. Likewise, it is a very convincing visual misconception only made more so by the advent of biology and genetic science which describe the evolution and development of the physical forms presently on Earth. This misconception is further compounded by the very illogical belief, held even by educated individuals, that the function and operation of the brain defines ones' individuality in nature. Clearly, this last point cannot be so since most life forms on Earth do not have a brain and are not even multi-cellular.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, tonylang said:

The LINE hypothesis is a plausible hypothesis for the axiom; Individuality exists and it is naturally mobile throughout this universe.

I think therefore I am, is not an axiom, it's a question; that square has four equal sides is an axiom, whatever I believe.

Philosophy 101.

You need to learn more about philosophy, before we can discuss it's distribution in this universe...

[swansont]

On 5/18/2022 at 6:59 AM, tonylang said:

Is the nature of life in this universe such that one could at some point find oneself naturally born to ECO-2 in the form of a species indigenous (present or future) to ECO-2, just as we were born on Earth to species indigenous to Earths' ecology?

 

Could you have DNA-based life? Sure. Would you get species that are exactly as they are on earth? No. There are too many variables that would have to be reproduced exactly for this to happen.

 

On 5/25/2022 at 8:28 AM, tonylang said:

The Entanglement Molecule (EM); A primordial molecule, is hypothesized to naturally interact with the QE spectrum to entangle metamatter. It is the Alice in the process of natural entanglement and is utilized by the living cell to establish individualized life.

You're just making stuff up here, using buzzwords

[exchemist]

On 5/28/2022 at 4:30 AM, StringJunky said:

Garbage.

Yes. This poster has been posting blogs like this for at least five years now, in various places. It has never made any sense and it still doesn't. He makes no effort to interact with readers who ask questions or make observations, just carries on blogging regardless.  

[tonylang]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

Could you have DNA-based life? Sure. Would you get species that are exactly as they are on earth? No. There are too many variables that would have to be reproduced exactly for this to happen.

 

You're just making stuff up here, using buzzwords

Nature and science both collude to create a history of ideas which many, during the course of one lifetime, or another, find repugnant, unbelievable, or just inconvenient. On those too numerous occasions when such resistance was permitted to stifle free inquiry humanity has suffered in more ways than one. If an idea is proven not to describe nature, such poof is just as enlightening as its confirmation. Developing ideas and then determining which ideas describe nature and which ones do not, by testing not by emphatic declarations is what defines the scientific process. 

 The notion held by many that an individual is alive and present in this form, in this place, at this moment, exclusively because ones particular body and particular species emerged where it has when it has, is very likely to be false. In nature it is likely that you have, can, and will experience life in any available form in any viable environment in this universe or in existence and the instantiation hypothesis may describe the natural mechanism that makes this possible.   

[Phi for All]

43 minutes ago, tonylang said:

The notion held by many that an individual is alive and present in this form, in this place, at this moment, exclusively because ones particular body and particular species emerged where it has when it has, is very likely to be false.  

Support this statement before making any others. You need to engage in discussion for this thread to stay open. What makes you think it's false to state that we exist because we observe it?

[tonylang]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Support this statement before making any others. You need to engage in discussion for this thread to stay open. What makes you think it's false to state that we exist because we observe it?

The answer, apparently being avoided I can see, is the original post of this thread; "The LINE scenario"

[Area54]

On 5/18/2022 at 11:59 AM, tonylang said:

If one adheres solely to the classically understood, thermodynamically described, relativistically constrained mechanisms to explain life writ large then you are forced to say no, and in so doing you would necessarily be Earth and human-centric as one discounts the rest of the cosmos.

This statement is flawed in at least two ways:

• Observations of "the rest of the cosmos" contribute to the "classically understood, etc." mechanisms. Consequently the rest of the cosmos canobt be discounted if one "adheres to" mechansisms that have been determined, in part, by observing the rest of the cosmos.
• Excluding a hypothetical possibility that lacks substance or support is not equivalent to discounting the rest of the universe.

Conclusion: the rest of your rambling can be ignored.

 

[Phi for All]

54 minutes ago, tonylang said:

The answer, apparently being avoided I can see, is the original post of this thread; "The LINE scenario"

In that scenario, the Earth is gone, so of course we don't exist. If this is your argument, it's circular and meaningless.

You waste time with this scenario that makes sense only to you, because you made it up using a limited understanding of science. You need to learn more before you use your imagination, otherwise you're just increasing your own ignorance. Try to squeeze good information into those gaps in your knowledge, and then you have the tools to use a good thought experiment.

[swansont]

On 5/31/2022 at 10:16 AM, tonylang said:

Nature and science both collude to create a history of ideas which many, during the course of one lifetime, or another, find repugnant, unbelievable, or just inconvenient. On those too numerous occasions when such resistance was permitted to stifle free inquiry humanity has suffered in more ways than one. If an idea is proven not to describe nature, such poof is just as enlightening as its confirmation. Developing ideas and then determining which ideas describe nature and which ones do not, by testing not by emphatic declarations is what defines the scientific process. 

Sorry, what's your point?

Stringing together buzzwords is not science. 

 

On 5/31/2022 at 10:16 AM, tonylang said:

 The notion held by many that an individual is alive and present in this form, in this place, at this moment, exclusively because ones particular body and particular species emerged where it has when it has, is very likely to be false.

Then go ahead and present evidence to falsify it.

On 5/31/2022 at 10:16 AM, tonylang said:

In nature it is likely that you have, can, and will experience life in any available form in any viable environment in this universe or in existence and the instantiation hypothesis may describe the natural mechanism that makes this possible.   

What is this mechanism and how can this be tested?

On 5/31/2022 at 7:39 AM, tonylang said:

This misconception is further compounded by the very illogical belief, held even by educated individuals, that the function and operation of the brain defines ones' individuality in nature.

What do you mean by individuality? There's a definition that refers to uniqueness, and another that refers to the uniqueness specifically of people and how they express themselves. If you can quantify the uniqueness of something, it would depend on how many different properties, aspects or qualities that something has. Multicellular life has more properties that can be different than if you consider single cells, just from the number of ways you can configure the cells.

But you can't use the other definition in this regard; that would be the fallacy of equivocation. How one chooses to express one's self requires a brain. If you think this is being applied to the first definition, you need to back this up with some citations/links.