The Theory on the Instantiation of Life by Natural Entanglement.

[swansont]

 

Einstein called entanglement spooky action at a distance because it had, and continues to have no firm place in the standard model or any other model presented by modern physics.

 

Bollocks. Describing entanglement in QM is fairly straightforward, and many experiments have been done that rely on it. This isn't mysticism, and is unaffected by Einstein's reluctance to accept QM.

[tonylang]

The monogamy of entanglement is the law of nature that isolates an entangled state from intrusion by non participant, non indoctrinated entities. So how is it that the organelles in any given cell manage to share a common entangled state to the exclusion of other entities that may violate the cells wall? Isn’t the law of monogamy being violated? No, the law of monogamy isn’t being violated anymore than the law of gravity is being violated when we construct and fly 100 ton airliners carrying hundreds of passengers thru the atmosphere. As is always the case the laws of nature are never violated only manipulated and utilized to achieve a desired behavior. So it is in the living cell. To understand the living cells utilization of a common entangled state think of a cruise ship at sea, it either has an onboard wireless communications transceiver (ham-radio etc.) or it doesn’t. A ship with such a device may allow its hundreds of crew members each in possession of their own hand units (talkies) to communicate with one another but also it permits the ship as an entity to communicate and share its state information with the cloud that is the outside world. In this scenario the crew shares a common channel of communication which is isolated from intrusion by some common degree-of-freedom defined by some uniquely quantifiable aspect of the electromagnetic spectrum. Usually that property is electromagnetic frequency modulation combined with a layer of encryption derived from a private encryption key for added security.


In the lab today we understand the promise of entanglement as security encryption protocol primarily because of its monogamistic properties. We see that we may use the public and private key approach to encrypting and decrypting information securely. Likewise the cell utilizes a sort of private encryption key process to indoctrinate new entities manufactured within the cell from the cells own DNA to become participants, new organelles within the cell. This private key bestows upon newly minted entities a common shared degree-of-freedom defined by this individual cells’ specific quantum entanglement frequency (QEF). The QEF is a uniquely quantifiable aspect of the quantum entanglement spectrum. It is exposed only via the cells entanglement molecules which at this stage in evolution of earth-life have likely been fully incorporated within the molecular structure of the cell’s DNA.

It is through the utilization of the cells entanglement molecules that the individuals unique QEF is made available as a private key for the indoctrination of new cellular organelles. In our cruise ship analogy, consider a responsible crew member is tasked to program secure hand units (talkies) with the ships unique frequency and encryption key and then to distribute those units to each new member of the crew. This enables each new arrival to become a participating member of the ships staff thereby animating the ship as a self contained living organism. In the living cell it is hypothesized that a similar activity is undertaken when a ribosome manufactures a new protein line from its’ RNA and DNA within the cell’s nucleus. All new organelles are imbued with a common aspect of the entanglement spectrum. This property is exposed by the entanglement molecule within the cells’ DNA and permits the otherwise inanimate organelle to utilize the cellular natural entanglement connection to metamatter. In so doing the organelle is not entangled but like the crew members on the ship is in communion on some level with other cellular entities and also able to shares cellular state information with the universal cloud-storage of metamatter accessible by other naturally entangled host anywhere in this universe. No doubt today in the modern living cell this is a complicated process to describe and document but it is nonetheless recognizable through this analogy. This describes the natural implementation that is the predominant difference between a living entity and a non living one and the instantiation of the individual by natural entanglement.

[swansont]

The monogamy of entanglement is the law of nature that isolates an entangled state from intrusion by non participant, non indoctrinated entities.

 

Monogamy of entanglement? Isolated from intrusion?

 

What, pray tell, is the physics behind this so-called law of monogamy?

This private key bestows upon newly minted entities a common shared degree-of-freedom defined by this individual cells’ specific quantum entanglement frequency (QEF). The QEF is a uniquely quantifiable aspect of the quantum entanglement spectrum.

 

I can't find QEF in the literature. How do I measure it?

[tonylang]

“I can't find QEF in the literature. How do I measure it?”

 

It is quite clearly explained in this thread that the term QEF (Quantum Entanglement Frequency) is an abbreviation for a yet to be determined but specific degree-of-freedom (DOF) of the QE spectrum ergo (QEF). The concept of the role of the QEF in living hosts is hypothesized by, and is therefore unique to the instantiation hypothesis. For a discussion of DOF and their general role in state information transference or teleportation see the links below.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7540/full/nature14246.html

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1409/1409.7769.pdf

 

 

“Monogamy of entanglement? Isolated from intrusion?"

 

If you are genuinely interested I recommend that you google it.

Edited July 13, 2015 by tonylang

[Strange]

The monogamy of entanglement is the law of nature that isolates an entangled state from intrusion by non participant, non indoctrinated entities.

 

That is not what it is at all. You seem to read a few buzzwords and then invent your own meanings for them.

 

You could say it means that the more two particles are entangled, the less they can be entangled with a third particle. Which, as you can see, bears no relation to your version.

It is quite clearly explained in this thread that the term QEF (Quantum Entanglement Frequency) is an abbreviation for a yet to be determined but specific degree-of-freedom (DOF) of the QE spectrum ergo (QEF).

 

So it is something you made up.

 

The concept of the role of the QEF in living hosts is hypothesized by, and is therefore unique to the instantiation hypothesis.

 

As you have no evidence for this, it isn't really a hypothesis, is it. More of a WAG.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Strange

[Phi for All]

Again, I think we're seeing the results of not having a formal science education. tonylang has obviously read quite a bit on various subjects, but without the formal study, he has no way to connect all the links, the bits of data he needs to convert to usable information. He has to rely on making up terminology, which is frustrating for people who use common definitions.

 

A good education helps forge all the little links together into a chain. What we've got here are a few metal links connected with some kite string and wishful thinking to make a concept only one person on the planet understands. And since there are several obvious errors, one really has to wonder if tonylang would still think this way if he knew the mainstream science better.

 

I don't think he would.

[tonylang]

The monogamy of entanglement does indeed enforce the integrity and isolation of an existing entangled state such as the hypothesized position-of-view (POV), emphatic declarations to the contrary notwithstanding. It is in fact nature’s last line of defense against infiltration upon any entangled state. This effect can essentially be thought of as a self-destruct mechanism. The concept of defense by self destruction appears at times in implementations both technological and natural. In human affairs when vital information needs to be isolated or otherwise protected from infiltration at any cost we wire the asset for destruction with explosives or such. In nature the integrity of a law of conservation is often when such an effect is observed. In the case of an entangled state it is indeed when the conservation of information, one of nature’s fundamental laws, is threatened with violation is when the asset, the entangled relationship, forfeit. If one wired an asset to explode upon infiltration or upon specific violation then one would also need to broadcast this fact to interested parties for it to be an effective deterrent. Alternatively, one would need to erect obstacles of a defensive, offensive, and perhaps cognitive nature to actively keep out unwanted intrusions upon the protected asset. This is exactly what living hosts (species) are.

 

 

This evolutionary arms race to protect the individuals’ vital asset the POV began with a simple cell wall in the early proto-cell. This cell wall may be metaphorically compared to the posts of timber erected by early peoples that settled in a new land. They often erected a defensive barrier to keep out environmental threats and also to protect vital assets on the inside of the encampment. Today these walls have grown and evolved substantially both in nations and in the living cell. In the living cell and in any other host all systems are evolved to support in the protection of the POV the entangled state maintained by the entanglement molecules within the single cell. In complex (multi-cellular) hosts the POV is the entangled state maintained specifically by the entanglement cells (EC) which must be protected from intrusion or infiltration while sacrificing many other non-EC cells in due course.

 

 

Another apt metaphor for this idea is the starship enterprise on the popular iconic TV show star trek. Though the enterprise bristles with offensive as well as defensive and cognitive systems, both living and non-living, the last line of protection is to isolate or protect the information content inherent in the enterprise from infiltration. This is accomplished similarly by annihilating the ship. So it is that the well known self-destruct system of the enterprise is ushered into service at the last possible moment. Likewise the monogamy of entanglement as previously stated is nature’s last line of defense of the law of conservation of information in this universe. Make no mistake this is purely a cause and effect mechanism of natural law. Quantum coherence and its monogamistic properties are observations made in the laboratory and are given labels, names. No one should suggest at this juncture to know the fundamental underlying implementation in nature of these phenomena. However, plausible well considered hypothesis are welcome.

Edited July 14, 2015 by tonylang

[Strange]

The monogamy of entanglement does indeed enforce the integrity and isolation of an existing entangled state such as the hypothesized position-of-view (POV), emphatic declarations to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Perhaps you could provide a (peer-reviewed) citation to support your claim, instead of yet another emphatic declaration.

 

 

Another apt metaphor for this idea is the starship enterprise on the popular iconic TV show star trek.

 

Science fiction, probably is about the right level of support for this idea.

[swansont]

“I can't find QEF in the literature. How do I measure it?”

 

It is quite clearly explained in this thread that the term QEF (Quantum Entanglement Frequency) is an abbreviation for a yet to be determined but specific degree-of-freedom (DOF) of the QE spectrum ergo (QEF). The concept of the role of the QEF in living hosts is hypothesized by, and is therefore unique to the instantiation hypothesis.

 

 

So your hypothesis is based on another unsubstantiated hypothesis. Maybe you should establish the underlying idea before running with the larger one.

The monogamy of entanglement does indeed enforce the integrity and isolation of an existing entangled state such as the hypothesized position-of-view (POV), emphatic declarations to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

What is your evidence that this is true?

[tar]

tonylang,

 

You are back to this single cell thing, which does not seem required to me. How things going with the fruitfly, by the way. Did you kill it yet, without hurting it?

 

If this single cell thing is at the basis of your argument, you best find it, to proceed. Because it makes zero sense to me, as to why this EC cell is required in the first place. It does not even seem workable or possible, so the lack of such a cell would completely dash your theory. Since the failure to find this cell would falsify your theory, looking for it (and finding it does not exist) seems to be your best chance of falsification, so an exhaustive search of the fruit fly should be your main concern.

 

I don't think you have any basis to make continued flourishes around this basis (baseless in my book) premise, until you find an EC cell.

 

Regards, TAR

So this "spark of life" you think you are going to find in a single master cell, that controls the whole organism, and contains the POV consciousness?

 

I think not.

 

I think your search is as fruitless a search, as looking for the single spot in the brain, where "I" resides. It takes the whole complex to make an "I", in the same way as it takes a view to have a viewer.

 

You can not be separated from a thing, unless you have a thing to be separated from.

 

In my book life grabbed form and structure from a universe that otherwise tends toward entropy, and passed the pattern along to its offspring. Its the pattern that is the crucial part, the working complex, the machine through which a life that wants to continue its pattern emerges.

 

Exactly NOT your way, where there is a ghost in the machine. Where a soul floats around the place and inhabits hosts. Exactly NOT your theory.

Edited July 14, 2015 by tar

[tonylang]

TAR: "So this "spark of life" you think you are going to find in a single master cell, that controls the whole organism, and contains the POV consciousness?"

 

From post #21:

 

"The only life on Earth is the living cell. The lesser point being submitted for your collective consideration is that such attributes as consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, intelligence etc., concepts already defined by others, are emergent skills or capabilities arbitrarily ascribed by observers to particular emerged composite hosts (with EC) and therefore cannot be fundamental to natures’ basic implementation of life. Currently and for billions of years on earth %99.99… of living hosts for life were and continue to be either single cell individuals or non-emerged (no EC) collections thereof. To truly understand what life is and the mobility of its fundamental component; individuality, and the natural principles that govern and influence its instantiation, we need consider only the single living cell. Viewed as an individual, a property traditionally ascribed only to human beings, the single living cell forces us to come to conclusions we never would with our usual limited perspective."

 

 

The entire point is that everywhere in nature the living cell, or its equivalent, is life and so is your pet poodle, as are you and all else that is alive. The greatest challenge of this topic is to realize what aspect of "being" is necessarily present in a single cell as well as in all forms of life. We may arguably dismiss consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, intelligence by most modern scientific definitions. When one fathoms this you would have discovered the natural entangled state and the position-of-view.

 

It is my desire to assist anyone with a genuine interest in doing so to at least comprehend the ideas and concepts being proposed by the instantiation hypothesis. Even if those persons will not now or ever accept those ideas. Dismissing ideas that one doesn't understand without making a genuine attempt to do so is a form of ideological protectionism and entrenchment. There is much too much of that in the world today. So, with your best understanding of what is being proposed please feel free to ask any clarifying questions germane to this topic. Clearly this is a hypothesis like any other that has come before. Few in history have actually either proven, or invalidated or even predicted all or even parts of their own ideas. I would very much like to be among the few to do so. However, I am fine with leaving validation or invalidation to future generations of researchers. The unacknowledged irony of the instantiation of life in this universe may be that one of you may be among those that do so in some future instantiation, either on earth or perhaps elsewhere in this universe.

[Phi for All]

It is my desire to assist anyone with a genuine interest in doing so to at least comprehend the ideas and concepts being proposed by the instantiation hypothesis. Even if those persons will not now or ever accept those ideas. Dismissing ideas that one doesn't understand without making a genuine attempt to do so is a form of ideological protectionism and entrenchment.

 

You are misinterpreting what people are replying with. We ask for substance, we ask for evidence to support your idea, and you claim we're "dismissing ideas that [we don't] understand without making a genuine attempt to do so". You make up definitions for words we know by other meanings, and when we ask for more clarity, you once again point to your idea to substantiate itself. Now you're even quoting your past posts, which is just about the worst thing you can do when nobody understood it in the first place.

 

The questions you haven't answered all revolve around supportive evidence and experimental mechanisms. How do we test this? What can you point to as something which verifies what you're saying, other than you just claiming it? And how in blazes are we supposed to make a genuine attempt to understand your idea in a scientific sense when you are redefining science, and then criticizing us for asking why?

[tonylang]

For one approach to testing the instantiation hypothesis please see post #14 on this thread : Posted 25 July 2014 - 07:29 PM

[tar]

tonylang,

 

You pointed me to number 14 twice now, and twice I have asked you how things were going with the fruit fly.

 

Have you been able to kill a fruit fly without hurting it?

 

When you remove this EC cell (which doesn't exist) that kills the fly, without damaging it, you now have a dead EC cell in your hand. What does this prove about where the fruit fly's ID goes. Could go to heaven, could go to hell, could go to planet X or into a kitten next door, just being conceived. What is this cells ID entangled with? Where do we find the other cell? Did the other cell come to life when you killed this cell, by removing it from the life supporting host? Is a live cell entangled with a dead cell (opposite spin) somewhere? Could we recognize this entangled cell, should we see it in the neighborhood?

 

So, for the third time, how is the fruit fly experiment going? I hope you are not waiting for someone else to do the experiment. You are the only one on the planet that knows what you are looking for. No one else knows how to do the experiment, or what success or failure, would look like. Cause its goofy.

 

Regards, TAR

[tonylang]

For interested readers I recommend that you research the general idea of; Monogamy of Entanglement;

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310037
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1867

[Strange]

For interested readers I recommend that you research the general idea of; Monogamy of Entanglement;

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310037

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1867

 

And, as expected, neither support your claim that it is a "law of nature that isolates an entangled state from intrusion by non participant, non indoctrinated entities."

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

tonylang,

You are required to support your claims with evidence as part of the rules of the forum. You have been given every opportunity to comply with this and have not. As a result, this is closed and you are not permitted to reintroduce the topic.