The Theory on the Instantiation of Life by Natural Entanglement.

[tar]

tonylang,

 

1. How does this ID you are talking about, differ from the Eastern idea of reincarnation?

 

Regards, TAR

[tonylang]

Species Loyalty: Why should Mr. Zebra or any living individual seek to preserve its current species?


Every living entity possesses an entangled position-of-view. This axiom emerges from an understanding that nature must have only one implementation for life no matter what that entities visible appearance or structure or placement in space-time may be. This may eventually prove to be true only for earths’ particular genesis of life, but such an amendment would need to await our discovery of another unique genesis of life which demonstrates a non entanglement based implementation. Until then it remains prudent to assume that this natural entanglement is pervasive throughout nature. To the outside world each instantiation of any individual is a different unique instance of life, however to the individual, ones’ first person position of view is a singular and ongoing phenomenon of experience or the lack thereof, regardless of form or location of ones host. Persistent, retrievable memory spanning multiple instantiations is likely to be a very rare occurrence in living hosts. Nonetheless, nature provides a limited storage reserve of anti-entropic cellular state information imprinted in metamatter during the course of each instantiation, each lifetime. This information is accessible to any emerged hosts for life which utilizes natural entanglement to metamatter to instantiate a living being. It is hypothesized that the genesis of life in any ecosystem is bootstrapped by this universal cloud-storage reserve of anti-entropic cellular state information, and is made accessible by the entanglement molecule in a manner metaphorically similar to how a transceiver (ham-radio) may make information accessible to someone lost in the middle of a remote expansive desert. It is probable that the longer an individual’s lifespan the greater the influence of this stored imprint upon ones reinstantiation prospects is likely to be.


This may be the basis, the justification for species loyalty. Premise; is there any reason for any individual during any given instance of life to be loyal to ones current species besides a conscious immediate circumstantial need to survive? Many species demonstrate some partiality to their current species or host form. Why is this the case? Given that without the instantiation hypothesis most believe with varying degrees of certainty that ones’ current being will eventually cease to exist and this will be an eternal condition. However, the instantiation hypothesis mandates that there is a certainty of continued life, but not a certainty of form. Further, the instantiation hypothesis describes a mechanism which may influence ones reinstantiation prospects whereby the amount of imprinted familial metamatter in existence (entangled by family members with similar cellular DNA) positively biases ones prospects of reinstantiating into ones recent family line and thereby into ones recent species. How so? Cellular Natural entanglement is facilitated by any metamatter which is more similarly imprinted to the cellular state of the host cell(s) seeking entanglement. This is essentially a tuning relationship. Think of tuning a transistor radio to a specific electromagnetic frequency to receive a specific radio station which is broadcasting at that same frequency. Likewise a cells’ internal state which is largely dictated by its DNA and immediate circumstances is essentially a tuned entity.


So too is metamatter which has been imprinted over the course of a lifetime by cells of similar DNA and entanglement frequency (QEF). Compatible hosts and metamatter will therefore become more likely to engage in a natural entanglement relationship. Stem-metamatter is essentially un-imprinted metamatter and will therefore display no predisposition, or bias to entangle any specific host. In other words stem-metamatter will entangle any available viable host regardless of its form. If an individual’s metamatter is permitted to revert to a stem condition this suggests that this individual which has few or no compatible hosts in existence in the form of offspring or familial relations therefore has a statistically smaller probability of entangling a host from its former family line and an increasing probability of eventually (over time) entangling non-familial hosts in its former species. Further, with longer spans of time spent unentangled (dead, uninstantiated, not alive), this would increase the probability of entangling a host increasingly dissimilar to one’s previous host.


This natural implementation sheds some light on the demonstrated motivation of living individuals throughout earths ecosystem to procreate often at the expense of all else. Why should Mr. Zebra seek to preserve its current species? He isn’t really; Mr. Zebras’ DNA is in fact seeking to increase its chances of entangling similar metamatter by spreading copies of itself far and wide and in so doing it increases the individual’s, Mr. Zebras’ chances of reinstantiating into its current form. Any individual zebra or lion or ameba or human tends to subconsciously exercise this behavior even if it means eliminating any or most of its current species. On occasion this drive is seen to be partial to siblings and such but is largely self-serving. Seen from the outside, and in the absence of the understanding provided by the instantiation of life hypothesis, this behavior appears to be some sort of social loyalty of Mr. Zebra to zebras as a species, and is often described by a situational narrative or cognitive dedication to family and so forth. The truth is a more fundamental reality of natural cause and effect.

[tar]

tonylang,

 

So...no difference?

 

Regards, TAR

[tonylang]

tonylang,

 

So...no difference?

 

Regards, TAR

As I mentioned in another post it soon became clear to me that it was essential to begin consideration of these concepts with a clean slate and a steely objectivity accompanied by fundamental scientific principles. I needed to dismiss most of the prefabricated ideas popular in the world today and historically. Ideas that are mostly self-serving, agenda based narratives. To be clear this does not suggest an avoidance of any particular result. If my best considered, rational, logical, objective conclusions lead to a man with a crown of thorns, on a cross impaled and dying, then so be it. Further, if the instantiation hypothesis in its current form is reminiscent of any of countless ideas of resurrection or reincarnation or such, then so be it.

 

The historical nature of human understanding has never emerged from a lack of intellect but from a deficit of information. So it should come as no great surprise if our ancestor’s beliefs may not have been completely wrong and science today may not be completely right. Instead the reality we live and experience is a stunningly flexible and amazing hybrid implementation of nature which ironically incorporates necessary elements of several schools of thought. This hybrid implementation makes life possible; it makes you possible anywhere in existence. Such a truth would be embraced by few in their current instantiation but would be embraced more readily by those same individuals in their future instantiations. Progress by reinstantiation, today we call it mortality, has been one of the primary vehicles of progress for humankind since the beginning of human history.

Edited June 29, 2015 by tonylang

[tar]

Tony Lang,

 

It makes me possible anywhere in existence?

 

How? Do you have any mechanism in mind? Is a Sun an instantiation? An ant? A virus?

 

Is there any cause and effect, any reason why you could consider a reinstantiation a promotion or a demotion, progress or regression? Any choice in the matter?

 

I don't think you are being objective at all. I think its all in your head. You are making up the rules, not arriving at the rules by seeing how reality works.

 

Regards, TAR

[tonylang]

Tony Lang,

 

It makes me possible anywhere in existence?

 

How? Do you have any mechanism in mind? Is a Sun an instantiation? An ant? A virus?

 

Is there any cause and effect, any reason why you could consider a reinstantiation a promotion or a demotion, progress or regression? Any choice in the matter?

 

I don't think you are being objective at all. I think its all in your head. You are making up the rules, not arriving at the rules by seeing how reality works.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

This sounds as if you haven't read or comprehended any of this thread. If you are genuinely interested please refer to the original post.

 

To itemize the concepts being proposed;

 

1- In nature, whatever the design of ones' current host, you are not present solely as a result of it or its biology, technology or its chemistry.

2- Ones’ being ones’ individuality is in fact a position-of-view (POV) which is independent of ones’ form.

3- A POV is a naturally occurring solution of state established between this space-time and Hilbert-space, a space from which this universe emerges.

4- The hypothesized entanglement molecules (EM) exist entirely within this universes’ space-time while metamatter exists entirely within Hilbert-space.

5- The POV is the result of the naturally occurring sharing of state called natural quantum entanglement (QE) which temporarily exists between these two entities.

6- At some point in earth’s history these naturally occurring entanglement molecules joined with other structures to form the proto-cell, the progenitor to the modern cell.

7- This temporary QE connection between these two very different entities is established at some unique property or aspect of the entanglement spectrum perhaps frequency (QEF) at some value or finite band that is unique to each individual.

8- While this QE connection persists, the individual cell lives.

9- Every living cell maintains its own natural entanglement connection to Hilbert-space via its EM contained within the cell.

10- In multi-cellular hosts, like beavers and human beings, the emerged individuals’ QE connection is maintained by specialized cells called entanglement cells which combine their individual unique QEF to establish a new entanglement with metamatter in Hilbert-space unique to the emerged individual, you.

11- While ones’ heterodyned QE connection persists, you live.

12- The POV brings no experience or memories, but only that which may have an experience. Ones’ target for experience if you will.

13- The POV mathematically speaking is effectively a unique solution of state for the quantum state functions (Hamiltonians) of the surrounding environment.

14- Ones’ POV solution effectively collapses the surrounding environments quantum state to render the reality that the individual may experience with whatever senses are afforded to them by their current physical form. Whether one instantiates in the form of a single cell or a millipede, a sperm-whale or a human being.

15- Every individual life in this universe instantiates and reinstantiates by this mechanism

16- In nature there can be no promotion or demotion as these are clearly cognitive concepts and determinations made by instantiated beings based on culture etc..

Edited June 30, 2015 by tonylang

[tar]

TonyLang,

 

 

 

Yes I read it the first time. It made about the same amount of sense the second time.

 

I still have the same objections that I had initially. You are talking about something existing as an intact ID before there was even time and space. What this has to do with this universe, is not evident to me. You provide no way for me to check your claims. You just make them, as if in making them they are fact. Your claims appear to me to be, if I can borrow a phrase I have heard around here a few times, "word salad".

 

I have some objections to reincarnation, and I have some of the same, to your claims.

 

If you can not know what your ID was "last time" nor remember this instantiation, when you are in the next, and the whole operation is occurring in some other place than this universe, what, if any meaning does this have, for me, here in this universe?

 

None.

 

Regards, TAR

[tonylang]

If we imbued upon a group of the finest engineers from ancient Rome, or surrounding territories, the basic concept of mach speed travel and asked what would be their best considered approach for its implementation, it is likely these very knowledgeable among people may well debate for forty days and forty nights about the proper rope-hemps, and skins, and grains of wood or masonry, and treatments they could use to construct a device appropriate to the task of propelling a human subject through the air at this never before conceived velocity. They would in essence be conceiving of a catapult. While our ancient Roman friends, who are no doubt knowledgeable for their time, can be forgiven for their misconceptions due to the unavailability of required knowledge appropriate to the task, today where the true nature of life is concerned, those who claim to be scientifically alert may offer no such excuse.

We should not continue to pretend nature is classically defined simply because we find the quantum informational foundation of it unfamiliar. Absent the underlying quantum mechanical concepts and all they imply, most classical notions of entropy and anti-entropy or of enthalpy, and gravity and light and time etc., although useful in the construction of catapults and such, are eventually roads to an impasse. Today, chances are you are either in denial about the natural implementation of life, or what you believe to be true is far more unnatural and scientifically implausible than the instantiation hypothesis.

It isn't my intention to change anyone’s mind, but rather to simply 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 post would be long gone before either the capability or the courage to honestly prove or disprove the instantiation of life hypothesis is achieved. However, every first step is worth taking.

[tar]

tonylang,

 

But that is exactly like saying "you will be sorry you were not kinder" when you reach the pearly gates. It has nothing to do with testable, sharable, usable or avoidable reality. It is all in your head.

 

If there is an avenue of testable research one could proceed down to reach this improved knowledge you are claiming is forseeable, then suggest the tests.

 

You can't because you are talking about imaginary things, that are testable only in terms of how consistent they are to the proposition. There is not a way to link these imaginary things, to real things that everybody can touch and feel and see and hear and smell, because they do not exist out here where things can be sensed. The whole complex exists only in Tony Lang's theory, and in those minds entertaining the same figurative notions. They are thus similar to pearly gate ideas, and reincarnation ideas, and to the ideas that are come upon by humans in caves or mountain tops, or while high on mushrooms or LSD. They work only in the imagination, they do not work out here in the public, waking world.

 

Regards, TAR

[tonylang]

TAR: "If there is an avenue of testable research one could proceed down to reach this improved knowledge you are claiming is forseeable, then suggest the tests."

 

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

 

 

Heisenberg : “The history of physics is not only a sequence of experimental discoveries and observations, followed by their mathematical description; it is also a history of concepts. For an understanding of the phenomena the first condition is the introduction of adequate concepts. Only with the help of correct concepts can we really know what has been observed.”

 

 

The corner that many well intentioned practitioners of science become hopelessly jammed in is the corner where the pages of the textbook meet. The equations and bits of understanding that we gather need context. Practitioners of science should choose a topic or phenomenon of nature that interest them and with their best scientific understanding, and logic and powers of rational deduction, and most importantly a steely objectivity, set out to conceive of how nature may implement that phenomena.

Before Darwin any suggestion that life had anything to do with cells and undiscovered molecules (DNA/RNA) in the cell which dictated all that you are would have been scientific, what’s the word ‘woo’. Perhaps we are a bit more enlightened today. Unfortunately today it continues to be just as difficult to see nature form here as it ever has been in the past. I came to realize that at least where life is concerned we continue to be steeped in ignorance, mysticism, ideology, and denial despite the pivotally important course correction we acquired from Darwin’s insights. I came to see that any individual’s experience of life, of being, is as much part of nature as your species is and one is necessarily abstracted from the other.

You are not your cells or molecules or your atoms, in fact you shouldn't even call them yours. I came to see that the only life that exists is the cell in all of its forms and that the natural processes that implement life are the same for the cell as it is for 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 but nonetheless you remain you. Then there are the other trillions of living individuals in million of different forms all around us coming into being and going out of life continuously. I realized that the only form we need 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. Further, you and I and your pet octopus and every living cell are instances of life, each a temporary instantiation of some very natural, empirically definable phenomena of nature. This instantiating phenomenon must have the non-relativistic 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, nature’s 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 likely candidate for the life-force.

So how might this work? Upon understanding this we would have turned the page in the book of life that Darwin began and the eventual effect upon global enlightenment and religions everywhere would be profound. Imagine for the first time you could tell your young children generally, or eventually, specifically how the life cycle works minus the mysticism and ideology because at that point, it would just be science.

Edited July 1, 2015 by tonylang

[tar]

Tony Lang,

 

 

 

And how did the fruitfly thing go for you? Where is this master life ID cell, in a fruit fly?

 

The experiment contradicts your own premise. If the cell is the only living thing, then each cell should have its own ID.

 

The theory is just goofy.

 

How can you state that an ID can get instantiated on any planet, anywhere? What if the planet does not have the proper gravity and pressure and heat and surface or ocean and chemicals to support life?

 

How did life get supported prior elements heavier than hydrogen? How did life get supported prior space and time?

 

Either you need the whole complex (the Earth, the Sun, carbon molecules, water, something to eat, parents and such) or you do not need it. I say you need it. You say you don't. I don't think you have anything to hook your entanglement principle to, without the complex and history you need for life.

 

I am not a ghost in the machine type thinker. I am the exact opposite. Your premises and conclusions are nonsense to me.

 

Regards, TAR

[tonylang]

The classical ideas of thermodynamic entropy although essential in many practical technological applications, cease to exist at and below the atomic level. So attempting to describe the existence of life in these terms requires some implausible assumptions. Firstly one must accept that in nature individual life (you) is only defined at the cellular level where DNA is functionally implemented. In other words one must believe that nature does not have a mechanism or basis for distinguishing individual life once that individuals DNA has dissipated. This suggests that you and I and all instances of life begin and end with ones cellular DNA. This is logically and empirically inconsistent.

 

 

There are examples of living individuals with identical DNA, twins who are clearly not the same individual even when they are physically connected as are Siamese twins. More pointedly however, If any one or all of your trillions of cells were responsible for uniquely defining and distinguishing you from any other living being then separating even a single cell from your holistic body would cause you to lose your current identity (become someone else) or else terminate you as a living individual. However since all life in our ecosystem loses, replaces, transforms and exchanges our entire body mass daily over the course of a few short years, this also invalidates this belief.

Thirdly, this untenable notion violates the principle of re-occurrence of natural phenomena which states that for any natural phenomena to occur there must exist natural mechanisms which by their existence will also permit that phenomena to reoccur given appropriate circumstance. In other words whatever caused the big-bang can cause other big-bangs. Whatever causes nova and super-nova can cause other instances of both. Whatever caused and permits life here can and probably has caused life elsewhere. Further, whatever caused you can cause you again. The universal basis for this postulate of consistency in the laws of nature is the observed consistency of the fine structure constant in this universe.

Any individual life that can occur can reoccur. This last point mandates that you do not end with your DNA/RNA or with your thermodynamic, entropic biology. That nature must indeed have mechanisms known or unknown which serves to define or instantiate you from all other existing or possible instances of life, and such a mechanism must be an essentially immutable and reoccurring property of either this universe or of nature. This feature necessarily exists below the cellular and molecular level into the quantum realm.

Edited July 3, 2015 by tonylang

[tar]

Tony Lang,

 

Well wait. According to your theory Albert Einstein should reinstantiate. Where and when might that be? How would we know? Why would we care? Where was he 20 BC?

 

I am afraid you are looking for immortality and there is very little evidence that that is what has happened, is happening or will happen...to anybody. We have zero evidence that the same ID pops up for a second round somewhere. And were your theory to be correct, this particular instantiation of you is not the first time you have been instantiated, and there is zero difference between what would happen if you knew about the quantum ID or you did not know about the the quantum entanglement ID. It makes no difference to WHAT would happen, if you knew the score or remained oblivious.

 

What can we do to change the scheme? Can we do it better or screw it up? Can we master it and control it? What difference does knowing what you know make to anybody but you.

 

Regards, TAR

[tonylang]

TAR: "… If the cell is the only living thing, then each cell should have its own ID."

 

They do…It is a fundamental and frequently stated tenant of the instantiation hypothesis that all life is instantiated by natural entanglement. In each and every cell this is established by the cells’ entanglement molecules (EM) and is referred to as its: QE connection.

 

In complex hosts like you and I and the fly on the wall and in any complex host which have evolved entanglement cells (EC) or equivalent, which are cells evolved to combine their own individual QE connection to establish a unique composite QE connection, such an emerged QE connection is called the: LifeID

Absent this LifeID an organism is essentially a collection of individual living (naturally entangled) cells.

 

This second point is the basis for the proposed empirical test of the instantiation hypothesis. Isolating and terminating only a subjects’ EC’s is hypothesized to terminate the subject with no contributing systemic damage.

 

The point is that life is implemented by natural entanglement regardless of the biology chemistry or technology or location of any viable host, i.e. planes fly and so do sparrows and so do fruit flies, because each utilize the fundamental physics of flight determined by the natural laws of this universe irrespective of the hosts’ biology, chemistry, technology or specific location (of a viable environment) in space-time.

 

 

“Well wait. According to your theory Albert Einstein should reinstantiate. Where and when might that be? How would we know? Why would we care? Where was he 20 BC?”

 

Nature is not defined by its usefulness to humankinds’ (or any hosts’) culture or civilization, but understanding often guides humankind in unexpected directions both cultural and technological.

 

Further, ones’ first person position of view, your instantiation is relevant to the outside world (other individuals, society, the hive etc.) only via the individuals’ host forms’ appearance and behavior which cease to exist when any living being deinstantiates (dies). However, for the individual ones appearance and behavior is of marginal consequence if not ultimately irrelevant, you are what you are and where you are in space-time, at least until the ability to exert influence over the instantiation process is attained. Therefore, for the individual each instantiation is the continuation of a singular unique trajectory of living individuality through time, a trajectory of experience, or the lack thereof, shared by no two individuals. A separation enforced by a fundamental property of natural entanglement; the monogamy of entanglement. Made possible by a naturally occurring primordial molecule the entanglement molecule.

Edited July 3, 2015 by tonylang

[tar]

Tony Lang,

 

Nope. Does not compute.

 

If each cell has its own entanglement molecule, that has its unique history throughout spacetime, then you, with your million or billion of cells has a billion different unique histories, so your master complex individual Tony Lang ID makes no sense, as this particular collection of Earthbound molecules, never existed anywhere before, and never will again. Not in Tony Lang form. Not that has Tony Lang's parents and was born in the hospital in the town in the country on the planet on the date that Tony Lang was born. And each time a skin cell dies, that ID goes off to get reinstated on Planet Zircon, and some other ID that was just a cell in the hair folicle of a Quiching on Veralzibub, takes its place, changing the history of the IDs that make up Tony Lang. You can't have it both ways. Either the history of the cell's ID is paramount or the history of the Tony Lang is paramount...and I don't think YOU get to decide, which its going to be. Whatever is true is already true, and what you "think" about it, is not going to be the deciding factor.

 

I repeat, that your theory is in the realm of dreamland, and can take any form and follow any rules you dream up. This is not a waking world based set of universal laws and principles you are talking. They don't work out here in the waking world. They don't fit, they do not add up. There is only one place where they work out. In the space between your ears.

 

Regards, TAR

Tony Lang,

 

I described an idea litmus test back a while ago in some thread. How many things would have to change, for your idea to be correct? If the answer is more than zero things, you might consider the possibility, that you are dreaming the thing up and it has little to do with fitting the world, and only to do with fitting you.

 

Regards, TAR

(unless of course if it is within your power to affect the required changes)

Edited July 3, 2015 by tar

[tonylang]

Just to be clear, the primary point being proposed by the instantiation hypothesis is that ones’ individuality, your position-of-view is uniquely defined by, and only by, your specific value of some quantifiable degree of freedom (i.e. frequency, spin, angular momentum etc.) of the entanglement spectrum, your QEF.

 

Your QEF is the universally mobile, relativistically unconstrained, immutable, indestructible you. Your QEF is you, not your metamatter or your matter or any of your trillions of cells. Each of your cells is a living individual entangled at its unique QEF to their host (cell) by the same natural mechanism as are you to your host. Your current POV, in this life is instantiated to your current host (body) only because this host EC’s (also living individuals) heterodyned their own QEF’s together to entangled metamatter at your unique QEF. One day in your future after your current form has deinstantiated, this same QEF, your QEF, you, will once again reinstantiate to yet another available perhaps evolved host somewhere in this universe or some other. At that time, unless tought otherwise, you will most likely be as you are now, unaware of your circumstances and convinced that your present being is all that you ever were or will be, but once again you’d be incorrect.

 

Natures’ means of populating this universe, not only with naturally evolved biological forms, but also with naturally instantiated individual POV’s, is likely the only answer to Humankinds' dreams of far flung interstellar or intergalactic relocation. Once we master the elements of reinstantiation of the individual we will see that our bodies are not required for relocation of the individual within this universe. True to natures design the host body is always left behind. Relocating only the individuals’ position-of-view is the only viable means of moving through a vast universe permeated by a Higgs field. Controlling the instantiation of life will permit us a degree of influence and self determinism we do not have when nature handles ones instantiation.

 

 

In theory, with the proper understanding and technologies, one could instantly, selectively reinstantiate to available preferred hosts in any viable ecosystem, located anywhere in this universe. It is preferable if not likely that this would one day become a round trip endeavourer, but until then it would serve as a means of assuring ones continued participation in the human experience on or near Earth. Also, although controlled instantiation may not preserve the individual’s endearing qualities such as memories, personality, or behavior it does however offer some degree of control over one’s prospects for life which some may regard to be better than none at all. Any advanced species that share this universe with us will no doubt already understand this.

[tar]

Tony Lang,

 

Nope. You are moving back and forth between knowing and being oblivious. And you are claiming this ID can go anywhere in the universe and currently the operation is controlled by nature (whatever ID nature has) but "in the future" knowing how it works will allow an ID to chose a vacation spot for a lifetime and then come back to Earth and catch up on the news.

 

IF such a situation is what we have, why did we not know this, until the other day, when Tony Lang thought of it? How does Tony Lang know if TAR already knew this, and is on his 192,422nd instantiation, and ranks the Earth as the number 345th best planet to live on?

 

You are just making it up. You have no evidence. You have no mechanisms that you can show us, how they work and let us in on the secret so that we can check out the 10 best places to live in the 10 best viable life forms. You can not tell us natures current decision making process and how we can bypass it or master it, or overrule it. Its just dream talk. No substance, no rules, no mechanisms, just wishful thinking.

 

Here is a difficulty. The whole of the universe, currently is out of reach. Even neighboring planets on the other side of the Milkyway are currently experiencing now and we will have no connection to this now, there, until 100,000 years from now, here. If I am right, in my muses, every part of the universe is doing what its doing now, for the first time. The arrangement of the entire universe, has never been like this before. When we look out and see a quasar that existed 10 billion years ago we are looking at a thing that is already history, there is not a place to transfer our POV to that looks like that. That area of space has had 10 billion years to evolve and is currently doing something that we (on Earth or around here somewhere) will not know about for possibly ever, since that area of space may currently be outside the area where light currently emitted will ever reach the Milky Way.

 

So, if I am right about that, which seems consistent with what we know about reality, then your claim that you can relativistically go anywhere you want has a problem. Namely, if you want to go somewhere you can see from this POV, you have no way of getting the travel brochure that shows what kind of weather the place is having this century. Even close places, a few light years away have only sent us 2 year old news. So your round trip hopes are garbage.

 

Regards, TAR

So you claimed the transfer is done relativistically, which I suppose is at the speed of light. But I have just pointed out that that speed, given the immense size of the universe, is too slow for any round trip hopes, so what, are you now going to claim that you meant that the transfer would be done at superluminal speeds, and that there is no distance to an ID, as well and it can go anywhere it wants , even outside the observable universe, and to it there is no time either, and that it can go to the quasar and be a hydrogen clump if it wants?

 

If in your theory, you have to ignore space and ignore time, ignore this universe and any matter or metamatter in it, I would say that basically you are talking about something that has no bearing on this reality.

 

So what is the point? Why not just subscribe to an Eastern religion and believe in reincarnation. They have been aware of the situation for 4 thousand years. They have all the "rules" worked out and documented.

 

Regards, TAR

[tonylang]

The only life on earth is the living cell. Pondering this inescapable fact with inflexible objectivity will eventually lead capable minds to profound revelations as one realizes that a single cell is, in nature, as alive and also equal not only to a human being but also to any other living form. If, for some reason of circumstance, no other living forms had emerged on earth besides the living cell, life in this universe would be no less present and real and lifes’ natural implementation in this universe would be no different than it is with the proliferation of host forms we see around us. This leads to yet another inescapable fact of life in this universe; In nature if each human being is an individual then so too is the single cell. Therefore in nature all forms of life are individual instances of life on earth, in this universe, and by extension everywhere in existence.

 

 

 

This latter point begs the question; in nature how then is individuality defined in the single living cell? How is it implemented in this vast relativistically constrained universe permeated by a Higgs field. where life may emerge in any viable environment. This latter point eliminates the biology and chemistry and technology of the physical component of the living individual as the defining property of uniqueness for each individual life. You are not your body. Interestingly enough, most of humankind throughout the ages, across many religions and belief systems correctly suspected this to be true. The problem has been to see that such an implementation could be and is a practical, real, eventually measurable implementation of natural law. Different from the science of lifes’ physical forms only in its unfamiliarity and its inaccessibility to our immediate senses and standard fair of instrumentation. However, with new insight comes new technology.

 

 

 

Proof, control and manipulation of the instantiation process is likely a far flung prospect for humankind which, as always, is more readily embraced by future instantiations of individuals who are exposed to these ideas from childhood as we were taught modern concepts of evolution and genetics which challenged our instantiations in centuries past. As always progress will no doubt require new flexible minds able to bridge the significant deficits in our understanding of many unfamiliar and hitherto unsettling aspects of life and of nature some we are yet to even imagine. So the difficulty some may have in seeing the mobility of individuality in this universe is perhaps as it must be,

Edited July 4, 2015 by tonylang

[tar]

tonylang,

 

Do you know how to do it, or not?

 

If there is NOBODY that knows how to do it, then calling people deficient in not knowing how to do it, is not reasonable.

 

You say that people will be able to do it better, if they are taught as they grow up, how to do it. Do what? If you know, teach someone. You don't need to know how to do it as you are growing up, you need to know how to do it when you die. If you know...tell us. If you are making it up and you don't know a darn thing about it, then stop talking like you know something nobody else knows.

 

You know no such thing. You are talking nonsense.

 

Regards, TAR

[tonylang]

The proposed test is one approach to identify and locate the subjects’ hypothesized entanglement cells via a systematic decremental process of targeted termination of candidate cells within the test subject (i.e. fruit flies, nematodes etc.), and thereby to finally terminate a healthy subject by destroying only the subjects’ entanglement cells, while inflicting no damage to the hosts’ non-EC cells, ergo death without damage.

Today all death known to modern science is eventually forensically caused by cellular damage to structures singularly or collectively vital to the host form. Such damage can invariably be determined to sufficiently disrupt conditions required for proper host function thereby resulting in the termination of the emerged individual, death. The instantiation hypothesis describes death as the disentanglement between ones entanglement cells (EC) with metamatter. This results in the loss of the individual’s position-of-view (POV). Today we see only the physical symptoms of the damage to the host and we quite adequately associate these conditions with the termination of the individual. This is fine for all that we currently do. However this is not the complete description of life in this universe.

If indeed it is the sole function of the hosts’ EC to maintain life of the emerged individual and if it falls upon all other cells of the host only to maintain the environmental, internal and or external conditions for the individual’s continued function then a few interesting insights may be posed.

1- Theoretically, terminating only an individual’s EC cells while leaving non-EC cells unaffected will result in the termination of the emerged individual while producing no damage to any system of the host, ergo death without damage.

2- Further, effectively transplanting an individual’s EC to another viable host will result in a successful exchange of an individual’s host form.

3- Identifying and isolating the EC will certainly aid in the identification of the hypothesized entanglement molecules.

4- Studying the entanglement molecule could lead to untold developments and technologies.

Some creatures on earth are evolved to terminate even healthy cells once other vital cells undergo necrosis, this is usually done by the release of a chemical death signal that moves through the rest of the healthy portions of the host and cause them to terminate. For creatures that do not possess this self-destruct feature, once the emerged being dies healthy or undamaged cells of the host may continue to live on. These occurrences suggest that the emerged individual is only linked to its other, non-EC, cells of the host by a dependency or reliance upon them to maintain vital conditions for continued life. Conditions such as the need for energy, and temperature and pressure and vital chemicals that may be required by the systems of the host form for continued function. Therefore, the function of every host for life is singularly dedicated to maintaining the internal and perhaps also the external environment for continued entanglement by the hosts EC thus maintaining the individuals POV. The POV being the composite QEF established and maintained by those same EC.

[tar]

Tony Lang,

 

So, how is the fruit fly experiment working out for you?

 

Have you isolated the EC cell? I doubt it. It does not make any sense that there would be such a cell, that is YOU.

 

When you find this cell in the fruit fly take it out, killing the fly, and sending the fly's soul to planet Xircon. Then travel to planet Xircon and see if you can find a viable life form there, that has the dead fruitfly's soul.

 

Boy, that would be a fruitful experiment.

 

Your insights number 1 and 2 don't even make sense together. How do you transfer an ID that has already moved onto Planet X to another viable host (a frog), here on Earth, that already has a POV, when all you have in your hand is a dead cell from a fruitfly?

 

TAR

[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 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 which 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.

Each 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 are clearly multi-cellular and are alive but may only be collections of individualized living cells which 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 natures 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).

[tar]

Tony Lang,

 

"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."

 

Do you notice that 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 not a requirement outside of the instantiation hypothesis?

 

Regards, TAR

if implementing the theory is a tenuous endeavor it is an indication of some falsifying aspects that you should take as such

 

 

Not my fault for being ignorant of your theory. Your theory is faulty. You can't use terms and rules that you made up, to critique your own theory. That is circular crap and I am sure it is not allowed.

[tonylang]

Entanglement; The Life-Force

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

 

 

Nature is a holistic phenomenon, an all or nothing proposition. No element, property or aspect of nature is less necessary or less important than any other. The quark or the black hole, gravity or electromagnetism, friction or electromotive force, quantum coherence or entanglement, none are separate entities in nature. Natural phenomena are separate only in the minds of people who misunderstand the holistic character of nature in this universe. Nature is a single unified incredibly finely tuned entity (at least for life AWKI) and life is as intrinsic to nature as is any and every other aspect of nature. So it is that entanglement, a form of quantum coherence, imagined early in the 20th century which emerged from Einstein’s solutions for his seminal theories of relativity, goes misunderstood to this day.

 

 

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. There is no real definition for quantum entanglement only observational measurements of common coherent properties also known as states between multipartite systems of particles, with no idea as to the role of, or what is fundamentally responsible for these observed relationships and behaviors. This continues to be the case today. Nonetheless, we have a long history of progress in the face of abject ignorance about many of the fundamental mechanisms of our technology. The earliest humans lit fires while having no idea what fire was. Humankind use and depended upon friction and gravity all the while having no idea what the fundamental implementation of either are. Where life is concerned this space-time offers a remarkably hands-off sandbox of phenomenon appropriate to the function and fulfillment of life. The fact that life is an indigenous component of this framework does little to lessen the remarkability of these circumstances. So as we study entanglement in the laboratory we do so with no understanding of what its true role in nature is. We test its effects upon particles and its promise for technology with no realization that entanglement may be reasonably described as the life-force. For humankind the study of this phenomenon will become the most enlightening and transformational aspect of scientific study for the foreseeable future.

 

 

Concerns such as the ultimate fate of this or any universe will be relegated to a practical social concern rather than an individual existential concern because once one grasps the mobility of individuality in nature it becomes clear that from the position-of-view of any being; location, time, and instantiation are all limitless parameters of nature. In this way the question; “What about me?” posed by all living beings will be naturally, quantitatively, scientifically answered.

 

[tar]

Tony Lang,

 

"Natural phenomena are separate only in the minds of people who misunderstand the holistic character of nature in this universe."

 

That statement is in direct opposition to my philosophy and worldview, and also in contradiction to your POV consideration. If you have a point of view, BECAUSE you are a living being with a definite here and now, there cannot be "people" that have an immortal POV and less enlightened individuals who have a POV in error.

 

The fact that you are here and now, allows you to witness the rest of the universe in exactly the time lag, speed of light as a limit, way we experience it.

 

You cannot claim both "no separation" AND a POV. It is flat out contradictory. Either you are mortal, or you are immortal. Evidence is in favor of you being mortal. Sorry.

 

Regards, TAR

Certainly the universe is flawlessy connected together, and you and I both have the same universe to call our own. Same Big Bang, same generations of stars, forging heavy elements, same first life on Earth as a predecessor cell to later life. Same Lucy as our great great....great great grand mother. Connected no doubt. Holistically no doubt. Entangled no doubt. Amazingly wonderful, loved and belonged to, no doubt.

 

EC cells that can instantly move a particular primordial YOU from a fruitfly on Earth to a Zquibish on Calamay in Andromeda? Rubbish. No evidence, no way to falsify, makes no sense type of rubbish.

 

Regards, TAR

Years ago, musing on what makes an individual, I thought of an ant colony as one body, who's operative "cells" were connected by chemical trails, rather than sinew and flesh and muscle and bone.

 

A city of people, can likewise be considered, or a country or a united world. In the chaos theory, Mandelbrot drawing, type of way, an "objective" view of the universe would not require nature or "life" to have a particular size. The pattern just may repeat on a larger scale, or a smaller. Knowing that one entity is made up of many other entities, and one entity is just a single component of a larger entity, does not make you one with the universe, anymore than you were already one with the universe, before Mandelbrot made the drawing.

 

And a quantum entanglement experiment, does not make you immortal, any more than you were, when you were 13, and knew nothing of the experiment.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited July 9, 2015 by tar