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

Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
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'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aif and Snorrie
Nov 12, 2020
205
35
130
Ok no more Earth, and no more H. Sapiens sometime in the future. Yeh! it will happen via Nature and Evolution. A consolation, as we enter the "Void" would be the hope that some insightful, intelligent life form in a galaxy far, far away would look in the direction of our defunct Solar System and marvel at the beautiful ring nebula while wondering if any similar life forms existed on any of the "crispy critter" surrounding planets.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
Your response is quite appreciated. Here is the active bit:

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snorrie
Nov 12, 2020
205
35
130
An interesting question. I surmised that ECO-2 is simply the next/another ecological system somewhere in the Universe that combines the baryonic remnants of a defunct Earth into another similar or markedly different life form than we are. As far as a perception of being "re-cycled, ( in whatever new life form), I don't see how any mechanism could exist for such. My personal opinion is that we have no ability to predict with any accuracy what Nature and Evolution will do or be able to do now or in the future. Our presence in life is unique to us and dies with us. I'm satisfied to have "won" life's lottery and be here to write this opinion.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
The proposal being made is that if you can live in one viable habitat, i.e. Earth, then the very laws of physics that guide our scientific method demand that you can also live in any other viable habitat i.e. ECO-2 in this universe. Ergo; Earth is not special, at least not that special. The distance factor (10B LY) is the interesting bit. How can one be naturally reinstantiated (born) elsewhere regardless of distance and with no physical travel (no comets or spacecraft or photons from Earth can reach ECO-2)?

The trouble most will have with this realization is one's individuality has always been misperceived to be instantiated by one's host form, one's species. However, the atoms and molecules that compose your body, is a part of the current indigenous ecosystem, Earth or ECO-2. The demand this realization makes upon all cognizant living beings is the acceptance of the abstraction of one's current host form (body) from your universally mobile position of view (POV), one's individuality. This implies the universal mobility of individuality and demands a natural, scientifically describable mechanism for its implementation.
 
Last edited:
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
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.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
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.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
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.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
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.
 
Jan 27, 2020
206
80
680
I can still recall reading the Science section of Time Magazine, before they became a less glossy People periodical during the reign of the Luce's, when an article appeared describing PSR B1919+21, a pulsar type neutron star located in the constellation Vulpecula. Neutron stars are much too small and faint to view in any but the world's largest telescopes.

First detected in December 1967 by Jocelyn Bell (now Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell) at Cambridge University, pulsars are a very dense ball of material that are created when a star runs out of fuel and collapses on itself. This pulsar was flickering repeatedly every 1.3 seconds and did not match the already-discovered quasar. Because they could not rule out that the signal was coming from an intelligent alien species due to the extremely precise regularity of its signal, the pulsar was named LGM-1. It wasn’t until Bell discovered a second pulsar elsewhere in the universe that the discovery was announced, as Cambridge’s researchers were afraid that possible alien life would create unnecessary publicity for them and chaos among the poorly educated masses.

Pulsars spin rapidly, while simultaneously radiating opposing beams of radio waves out into space. The setup is similar to a lighthouse that spins around one up-and-down axis and radiates two beams of light from a second axis. To ships on the water, the steady beams looks like a light pulsing on and off. The same is true for pulsars; if one of the beams happens to sweep across the Earth, it appears to astronomers as though the object is blinking or pulsating.

Bell Burnell was studying objects using a radio telescope she helped build at the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, outside Cambridge, under the supervision of her advisor, Antony Hewish*, who designed the instrument. The telescope was intended to help study the radio cosmos using a technique called interplanetary scintillation**. Hewish intended to use this method on objects called quasars, or incredibly bright centers of massive galaxies, illuminated by material swirling around monster black holes. Quasars vary in brightness, and Hewish thought the interplanetary scintillation technique was appropriate for identifying those changes.

Bell Burnell was in charge of operating the telescope and analyzing the data, according to an article she wrote for Cosmic Search Magazine in the 1970s. Using this technique, Bell Burnell spotted an object that appeared to be flickering every 1.3 seconds; this pattern repeated for days on end. The object didn't match the profile of a quasar. The signal conflicted with the generally chaotic nature of most cosmic phenomenon, the researchers would later explain. In addition, the light was of a very specific radio frequency, whereas most natural sources typically radiate across a wider range.

For those reasons, Bell Burnell, Hewish and some other members of the astronomy department had to acknowledge that they might have found an artificially created signal — something emitted by an intelligence species. Burnell even labeled the first pulsar LGM1, which stood for "little green men 1."

Jocelyn Bell Burnell finally received the much-deserved recognition for her work in 2018.

The Breakthrough Prize is the largest monetary science prize in the entire world. Funded by Silicon Valley giants like Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerburg, Bell Burnell joins a high-profile group of past winners like Stephen Hawking. Edward Witten***, the chair of the prize’s selection committee, said in a statement. “Until that moment, no one had any real idea how neutron stars could be observed if indeed they existed. Suddenly it turned out that nature has provided an incredibly precise way to observe these objects, something that has led to many later advances.”

Jocelyn Bell Burnell already has big plans for her prize money. She told the BBC, that she plans to donate all of her winnings to under-represented groups in order to help them with funding to become physics researchers.

“I don’t want or need the money myself and it seemed to me that this was perhaps the best use I could put to it,” she told the BBC.

* Antony Hewish grew up in Newquay, on the Atlantic coast and there developed a love of the sea and boats. I was educated at King’s College, Taunton and went to the University of Cambridge in 1942. From 1943-46, he was engaged in war service at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough and also at the Telecommunications Research Establishment, Malvern, and was involved with airborne radar-counter-measure devices and during this period he also worked with Martin Ryle.

Returning to Cambridge in 1946, Hewish graduated in 1948 and immediately joined Ryle’s research team at the Cavendish Laboratory. I obtained my Ph.D. in 1952, became a Research Fellow at Gonville and Caius College where he had been an undergraduate, and in 1961 Hewish transferred to Churchill College as Director of Studies in Physics where he was University Lecturer during 1961-69, Reader during 1969-71 and Professor of Radio Astronomy from 1971 until his retirement in 1989. Following Ryle’s illness in 1977 Hewish assumed leadership of the Cambridge radio astronomy group and was head of the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory from 1982-88.

Hewish's decision to begin research in radio astronomy was influenced both by his wartime experience with electronics and antennas and by one of his teachers, Jack Ratcliffe, who had given an excellent course on electromagnetic theory during the final undergraduate year and whom Hewish had also encountered at Malvern. Ratcliffe was head of radiophysics at the Cavendish Laboratory at that time.
Hewish's first research was concerned with propagation of radiation through inhomogeneous transparent media and this has remained a lifelong interest. The first two radio “stars” had just been discovered and Hewish realised that their scintillation, or “twinkling”, could be used to probe conditions in the ionosphere and he developed the theory of diffraction by phase-modulating screens and set up radio interferometers to exploit the ideas. Thus Hewish was able to make pioneering measurements of the height and physical scale of plasma clouds in the ionosphere and also to estimate wind speeds in this region. Following our Cambridge discovery of interplanetary scintillation in 1964 Hewish developed similar methods to make the first ground-based measurements of the solar wind and these were later adopted in the USA, Japan and India for long term observations. Hewish also showed how interplanetary scintillation could be used to obtain very high angular resolution in radio astronomy, equivalent to an interferometer with a baseline of 1000 km – something which had not then been achieved in this field. It was to exploit this technique on a large sample of radio galaxies that I conceived the idea of a giant phased-array antenna for a major sky survey. This required instrumental capabilities quite different from those of any existing radio telescope, namely very high sensitivity at long wavelengths, and a multi-beam capability for repeated whole-sky surveys on a day to day basis.
Hewish obtained funds to construct the antenna in 1965 and it was completed in 1967. The sky survey to detect all scintillating sources down to the sensitivity threshold began in July. By a stroke of good fortune the observational requirements were precisely those needed to detect pulsars.

Jocelyn Bell joined the project as a graduate student in 1965, helping as a member of the construction team and then analysing the paper charts of the sky survey. She was quick to spot the week to week variability of one scintillating source which I thought might be a radio flare star, but our more detailed observations subsequently revealed the pulsed nature of the signal.

Surprisingly, the phased array is still a useful research instrument. It has been doubled in area and considerably improved over the years and one of my present interests is the way our daily observations of scintillation over the whole sky can be used to map large-scale disturbances in the solar wind. At present this is the only means of seeing the shape of interplanetary weather patterns so the observations made a useful addition to in-situ measurements from spacecraft such as Ulysses, now (1992) on its way to Jupiter.

Hewish believes scientists have a duty to share the excitement and pleasure of their work with the general public, and he enjoys the challenge of presenting difficult ideas in an understandable way.


** interplanetary scintillation refers to random fluctuations in the intensity of radio waves of celestial origin, on the timescale of a few seconds. It is analogous to the twinkling one sees looking at stars in the sky at night, but in the radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum rather than in the visible light.

*** Edward Witten's father, Louis Witten, was a theoretical physicist specializing in gravitation and general relativity.

Witten studied at Brandeis University, in Massachusetts, and received his B.A. in 1971. From there he went to Princeton, in New Jersey, receiving his M.A. in 1974 and his Ph.D. in 1976.

After completing his doctorate, Witten went to Harvard where he was postdoctoral fellow during session 1976-77 and then a Junior Fellow from 1977 to 1980. In September 1980 Witten was appointed professor of Physics at Princeton. He was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 1982 and remained as professor of Physics at Princeton until 1987 when he was appointed as a Professor in the School of Natural Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study****, where .

Basically Witten is a mathematical physicist and he has a wealth of important publications which are properly in physics. However, as Atiyah writes in:-
Although he is definitely a physicist (as his list of publications clearly shows) his command of mathematics is rivalled by few mathematicians, and his ability to interpret physical ideas in mathematical form is quite unique. Time and again he has surprised the mathematical community by his brilliant application of physical insight leading to new and deep mathematical theorems.
Speaking at the American Mathematical Society Centennial Symposium in 1988, Witten explained the relation between geometry and theoretical physics:-
It used to be that when one thought of geometry in physics, one thought chiefly of classical physics - and in particular general relativity - rather than quantum physics. ... Of course, quantum physics had from the beginning a marked influence in many areas of mathematics - functional analysis and representation theory, to mention just two. ... Several important influences have brought about a change in this situation. One of the principal influences was the recognition - clearly established by the middle 1970s - of the central role of nonabelian gauge theory in elementary particle physics. The other main influence came from the emerging study of supersymmetry and string theory.
In his study of these areas of theoretical physics, Witten has achieved a level of mathematics which has led him to be awarded the highest honour that a mathematician can receive, namely a Fields Medal. He received the medal at the International Congress of Mathematicians which was held in Kyoto, Japan in 1990. The Proceedings of the Congress contains two articles describing Witten's mathematical work which led to the award. The main tribute is the article by Atiyah, but Atiyah could not be in Kyoto to deliver the address so the address at the Congress was delivered by Faddeev who quotes freely from Atiyah.

The first major contribution which led to Witten's Fields Medal was his simpler proof of the positive mass conjecture which had led to a Fields Medal for Yau in 1982. Gawedzki and Soulé describe this work by Witten, which appeared in 1981, in:-
The proof ... employed in a subtle way the idea of supersymmetry. This became the centrepiece of many of Witten's subsequent works...
One of Witten's subsequent works was a paper which Atiyah singles out for special mention in [3], namely Supersymmetry and Morsetheory which appeared in the Journal of differential geometry in 1984. Atiyah writes that this paper is:-
... obligatory reading for geometers interested in understanding modern quantum field theory. It also contains a brilliant proof of the classic Morse inequalities, relating critical points to homology. ... Witten explains that "supersymmetric quantum mechanics" is just Hodge-de Rham theory. The real aim of the paper is however to prepare the ground for supersymmetric quantum field theory as the Hodge-de Rham theory of infinite dimensional manifolds. It is a measure of Witten's mastery of the field that he has been able to make intelligent and skilful use of this difficult point of view in much of his subsequent work.
Since this highly influential paper, the ideas in it have become of central importance in the study of differential geometry. Further new ideas of fundamental importance were introduced by Witten and described in:-
Witten subsequently gave a string interpretation of the elliptic genus and provided arguments for its rigidity ... Another piece of new mathematics stemmed from Witten's papers on global gravitational anomalies. ... In recent years, Witten focused his attention on topological quantum field theories. These correspond to Lagrangians ... formally giving manifold invariants. Witten described these in terms of the invariants of Donaldson and Floer (extending the earlier ideas of Atiyah) and generalised the Jones knot polynomial ...
The authors sum up Witten's contributions to mathematics:-
Although mostly not in the form of completed proofs, Witten's ideas have triggered major mathematical developments by the force of their vision and their conceptual clarity, his main discoveries soon becoming theorems. His Fields Medal at the 1990 International Congress of Mathematicians acknowledged the growing impact of his work on contemporary mathematics.
**** Physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was one of the Institute For Advanced Study's first Faculty members, serving from 1933 until his death in 1955, and he played a significant part in its early development. Einstein came to the United States to take up his appointment at the Institute at the invitation of Abraham Flexner, the Institute's founding Director.

See: https://www.space.com/38916-pulsar-discovery-little-green-men.html

See: https://allthatsinteresting.com/jocelyn-bell-burnell

See: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Witten/

See: https://www.ias.edu/about/mission-history

One must enjoy and be able, I think, to assemble varied trains of thought from the arcane bits of knowledge tossed to us from many sources and then to be able to assemble them in a coherent picture. Most important, however, is our ability to assemble these puzzle pieces into a coherent whole and then to explain this picture and its parts to all those who may inquire.
Hartmann352
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
I can still recall reading the Science section of Time Magazine, before they became a less glossy People periodical during the reign of the Luce's, when an article appeared describing PSR B1919+21, a pulsar type neutron star located in the constellation Vulpecula. Neutron stars are much too small and faint to view in any but the world's largest telescopes.

First detected in December 1967 by Jocelyn Bell (now Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell) at Cambridge University, pulsars are a very dense ball of material that are created when a star runs out of fuel and collapses on itself. This pulsar was flickering repeatedly every 1.3 seconds and did not match the already-discovered quasar. Because they could not rule out that the signal was coming from an intelligent alien species due to the extremely precise regularity of its signal, the pulsar was named LGM-1. It wasn’t until Bell discovered a second pulsar elsewhere in the universe that the discovery was announced, as Cambridge’s researchers were afraid that possible alien life would create unnecessary publicity for them and chaos among the poorly educated masses.

Pulsars spin rapidly, while simultaneously radiating opposing beams of radio waves out into space. The setup is similar to a lighthouse that spins around one up-and-down axis and radiates two beams of light from a second axis. To ships on the water, the steady beams looks like a light pulsing on and off. The same is true for pulsars; if one of the beams happens to sweep across the Earth, it appears to astronomers as though the object is blinking or pulsating.

Bell Burnell was studying objects using a radio telescope she helped build at the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, outside Cambridge, under the supervision of her advisor, Antony Hewish*, who designed the instrument. The telescope was intended to help study the radio cosmos using a technique called interplanetary scintillation**. Hewish intended to use this method on objects called quasars, or incredibly bright centers of massive galaxies, illuminated by material swirling around monster black holes. Quasars vary in brightness, and Hewish thought the interplanetary scintillation technique was appropriate for identifying those changes.

Bell Burnell was in charge of operating the telescope and analyzing the data, according to an article she wrote for Cosmic Search Magazine in the 1970s. Using this technique, Bell Burnell spotted an object that appeared to be flickering every 1.3 seconds; this pattern repeated for days on end. The object didn't match the profile of a quasar. The signal conflicted with the generally chaotic nature of most cosmic phenomenon, the researchers would later explain. In addition, the light was of a very specific radio frequency, whereas most natural sources typically radiate across a wider range.

For those reasons, Bell Burnell, Hewish and some other members of the astronomy department had to acknowledge that they might have found an artificially created signal — something emitted by an intelligence species. Burnell even labeled the first pulsar LGM1, which stood for "little green men 1."

Jocelyn Bell Burnell finally received the much-deserved recognition for her work in 2018.

The Breakthrough Prize is the largest monetary science prize in the entire world. Funded by Silicon Valley giants like Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerburg, Bell Burnell joins a high-profile group of past winners like Stephen Hawking. Edward Witten***, the chair of the prize’s selection committee, said in a statement. “Until that moment, no one had any real idea how neutron stars could be observed if indeed they existed. Suddenly it turned out that nature has provided an incredibly precise way to observe these objects, something that has led to many later advances.”

Jocelyn Bell Burnell already has big plans for her prize money. She told the BBC, that she plans to donate all of her winnings to under-represented groups in order to help them with funding to become physics researchers.

“I don’t want or need the money myself and it seemed to me that this was perhaps the best use I could put to it,” she told the BBC.

* Antony Hewish grew up in Newquay, on the Atlantic coast and there developed a love of the sea and boats. I was educated at King’s College, Taunton and went to the University of Cambridge in 1942. From 1943-46, he was engaged in war service at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough and also at the Telecommunications Research Establishment, Malvern, and was involved with airborne radar-counter-measure devices and during this period he also worked with Martin Ryle.

Returning to Cambridge in 1946, Hewish graduated in 1948 and immediately joined Ryle’s research team at the Cavendish Laboratory. I obtained my Ph.D. in 1952, became a Research Fellow at Gonville and Caius College where he had been an undergraduate, and in 1961 Hewish transferred to Churchill College as Director of Studies in Physics where he was University Lecturer during 1961-69, Reader during 1969-71 and Professor of Radio Astronomy from 1971 until his retirement in 1989. Following Ryle’s illness in 1977 Hewish assumed leadership of the Cambridge radio astronomy group and was head of the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory from 1982-88.

Hewish's decision to begin research in radio astronomy was influenced both by his wartime experience with electronics and antennas and by one of his teachers, Jack Ratcliffe, who had given an excellent course on electromagnetic theory during the final undergraduate year and whom Hewish had also encountered at Malvern. Ratcliffe was head of radiophysics at the Cavendish Laboratory at that time.
Hewish's first research was concerned with propagation of radiation through inhomogeneous transparent media and this has remained a lifelong interest. The first two radio “stars” had just been discovered and Hewish realised that their scintillation, or “twinkling”, could be used to probe conditions in the ionosphere and he developed the theory of diffraction by phase-modulating screens and set up radio interferometers to exploit the ideas. Thus Hewish was able to make pioneering measurements of the height and physical scale of plasma clouds in the ionosphere and also to estimate wind speeds in this region. Following our Cambridge discovery of interplanetary scintillation in 1964 Hewish developed similar methods to make the first ground-based measurements of the solar wind and these were later adopted in the USA, Japan and India for long term observations. Hewish also showed how interplanetary scintillation could be used to obtain very high angular resolution in radio astronomy, equivalent to an interferometer with a baseline of 1000 km – something which had not then been achieved in this field. It was to exploit this technique on a large sample of radio galaxies that I conceived the idea of a giant phased-array antenna for a major sky survey. This required instrumental capabilities quite different from those of any existing radio telescope, namely very high sensitivity at long wavelengths, and a multi-beam capability for repeated whole-sky surveys on a day to day basis.
Hewish obtained funds to construct the antenna in 1965 and it was completed in 1967. The sky survey to detect all scintillating sources down to the sensitivity threshold began in July. By a stroke of good fortune the observational requirements were precisely those needed to detect pulsars.

Jocelyn Bell joined the project as a graduate student in 1965, helping as a member of the construction team and then analysing the paper charts of the sky survey. She was quick to spot the week to week variability of one scintillating source which I thought might be a radio flare star, but our more detailed observations subsequently revealed the pulsed nature of the signal.

Surprisingly, the phased array is still a useful research instrument. It has been doubled in area and considerably improved over the years and one of my present interests is the way our daily observations of scintillation over the whole sky can be used to map large-scale disturbances in the solar wind. At present this is the only means of seeing the shape of interplanetary weather patterns so the observations made a useful addition to in-situ measurements from spacecraft such as Ulysses, now (1992) on its way to Jupiter.

Hewish believes scientists have a duty to share the excitement and pleasure of their work with the general public, and he enjoys the challenge of presenting difficult ideas in an understandable way.


** interplanetary scintillation refers to random fluctuations in the intensity of radio waves of celestial origin, on the timescale of a few seconds. It is analogous to the twinkling one sees looking at stars in the sky at night, but in the radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum rather than in the visible light.

*** Edward Witten's father, Louis Witten, was a theoretical physicist specializing in gravitation and general relativity.

Witten studied at Brandeis University, in Massachusetts, and received his B.A. in 1971. From there he went to Princeton, in New Jersey, receiving his M.A. in 1974 and his Ph.D. in 1976.

After completing his doctorate, Witten went to Harvard where he was postdoctoral fellow during session 1976-77 and then a Junior Fellow from 1977 to 1980. In September 1980 Witten was appointed professor of Physics at Princeton. He was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 1982 and remained as professor of Physics at Princeton until 1987 when he was appointed as a Professor in the School of Natural Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study****, where .

Basically Witten is a mathematical physicist and he has a wealth of important publications which are properly in physics. However, as Atiyah writes in:-

Speaking at the American Mathematical Society Centennial Symposium in 1988, Witten explained the relation between geometry and theoretical physics:-

In his study of these areas of theoretical physics, Witten has achieved a level of mathematics which has led him to be awarded the highest honour that a mathematician can receive, namely a Fields Medal. He received the medal at the International Congress of Mathematicians which was held in Kyoto, Japan in 1990. The Proceedings of the Congress contains two articles describing Witten's mathematical work which led to the award. The main tribute is the article by Atiyah, but Atiyah could not be in Kyoto to deliver the address so the address at the Congress was delivered by Faddeev who quotes freely from Atiyah.

The first major contribution which led to Witten's Fields Medal was his simpler proof of the positive mass conjecture which had led to a Fields Medal for Yau in 1982. Gawedzki and Soulé describe this work by Witten, which appeared in 1981, in:-

One of Witten's subsequent works was a paper which Atiyah singles out for special mention in [3], namely Supersymmetry and Morsetheory which appeared in the Journal of differential geometry in 1984. Atiyah writes that this paper is:-

Since this highly influential paper, the ideas in it have become of central importance in the study of differential geometry. Further new ideas of fundamental importance were introduced by Witten and described in:-

The authors sum up Witten's contributions to mathematics:-

**** Physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was one of the Institute For Advanced Study's first Faculty members, serving from 1933 until his death in 1955, and he played a significant part in its early development. Einstein came to the United States to take up his appointment at the Institute at the invitation of Abraham Flexner, the Institute's founding Director.

See: https://www.space.com/38916-pulsar-discovery-little-green-men.html

See: https://allthatsinteresting.com/jocelyn-bell-burnell

See: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Witten/

See: https://www.ias.edu/about/mission-history

One must enjoy and be able, I think, to assemble varied trains of thought from the arcane bits of knowledge tossed to us from many sources and then to be able to assemble them in a coherent picture. Most important, however, is our ability to assemble these puzzle pieces into a coherent whole and then to explain this picture and its parts to all those who may inquire.
Hartmann352
In the above reply, I don't detect any connection with any of the proposals made so far in this thread. Please elaborate if such connections were intended.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
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.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
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.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
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).
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55


Figure 3:13 day old human embryo. (IMAGE CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE: human-embryos-kept-alive-in-lab-for-unprecedented-13-days-so-sci.jpg)​


By the 11th day of gestation of a human embryo, for example, being no bigger than the head of a pin yet containing many hundred cells every one of them a living individual in nature. Among these cells, early in the formation of a new life, are the LINE hypothesized Entanglement Cells (EC), some of which are likely visible in this photograph. Entanglement cells are very special cells which together heterodyne their own unique individual entangled states to manifest a new state established at a unique QEF, your QEF. This instantiation manifests a new life; a new emerged LifeID, your position of view (POV), not unlike their own, but at a different unique quantifiable value of the entangled degrees-of-freedom (QEF's) of the immutable entanglement spectrum. This is approximately the stage in the gestation of a viable host where instantiation occurs, the point at which you the individual, become tethered to this particular growing host form and not to some other.

Why you? In this there can be no; Why only; How. Via a combination of natural circumstances, some predicted by the LINE hypothesis, this particular host has heterodyned at your QEF. This occurs whether the form is human, or any other viable living form that happens to exist in any temporary, no doubt extinction laden eco-system. The Earth is but one such habitat. This is but one instance of countless such processes of instantiation by natural entanglement that occur second by second throughout existence. By this process, the mobility of individuality is made possible in a vast Higgs universe, together with the non-locality of metamatter and the relativistically unconstrained reach of the entanglement spectrum. These features make individuality and life possible on Earth and anywhere, wherever viable forms happen to emerge, in that place a new instance of life is established whether single or multi-cellular. Empirically proving or disproving the existence and theorized function of the EC and identifying the ubiquitous entanglement molecule which makes this all possible will be greatly facilitated by using subjects that are at this early pivotal stage of development.

This initial two-week stage in human gestation, for example, marks the point where the embryo may form one or more hosts (i.e., twins, etc.). Also at this stage, the characteristic central structure of the host form begins to emerge. It is very likely that the EC are present but have not yet heterodyned at this juncture. At this stage, the embryo remains a collection of distinct individual cells each with a specific or soon to be determined mission. Once the EC combine their individual entangled states to establish the one or more new emerged entangled states and the POV's defined therein, an equal number of new instances of individuality come into existence perhaps for the first time, or perhaps not for the first time. The one certainty in this process is that this particular host has never before existed and never will again.

Further, we may inquire; at what stage in its evolution does an emerged species gain its EC and go from being a colony of individual cells, to become an emerged form hosting a position of view with a unique emerged QEF? To understand this, it would help to seek living forms representative of each evolutionary stage of development. Species that straddle the evolutionary line between a colony of living individual cells and an emerged living being with a POV distinct from its other non-EC's. Such species no doubt exist but are not easily categorized. For some reason, evolution seems to favor full emergence once a colony develops the EC, like a switch being flipped. This is not to suggest that such recently emerged species would immediately possess highly integrated systems like a central nervous system which links its disparate regions of specialization. Such complex features would take time to evolve but the QE connection to metamatter had by all living forms requires no such embellishments.

Also, how might a species respond evolutionarily to developing a newly established POV as compared to being a colony of living individuals? This would be a truly fascinating study to undertake. The LINE hypothesis suggests that imprinted metamatter influences evolution throughout this universe in ways that should not be underestimated and may very well play a crucial role in disseminating this amazing capability to eco-systems separated by distances that are otherwise physically unbridgeable. Thus, like all other features of the cell, the capability to combine the natural entangled state first evolves in cells which then further specialize. Thereby passing on their newly acquired talents to offspring. Together these new EC perform the initial combination of their individual QE connections to establish the new emerged individuals position of view thereby marking the emergence of a new host form for emerged individual life, a new species.

From an evolutionary standpoint, one may be tempted to expect a dramatic transformation to accompany the transition from the collection to the emerged host, but this is unlikely to be the case. More probable is a slow evolution out of the hitherto normal behavior of that particular colony as new possibilities slowly take hold of its evolutionary trajectory. Thus the cloud-storage repository of newly entangled metamatter further shapes the destiny of a new species. The science which describes POV evolution will, like all aspects of living biology, be deep and complex in its own right. The evolution of a species has many influences and likely goes stepwise with the evolution of its POV as both number and complexity of EC may evolve.

So if you, whatever your species, are impressed and proud of the evolved capabilities of your living form, it is well and good that you should be, but also realize that none of those known features can be considered to be more impressive than the feature of natural entanglement heterodyning evolved in the EC. This remarkable feature permits nothing less than the establishment of complex emerged beings, like you, in this universe. If not for this amazing feature of the cell only individual cells and colonies thereof would populate the Earth. This is not to suggest what forms such colonies might take, but the distinction between a colony of individual cells and an emerged being such as a human or a millipede or a finch is significant and important. Today science defines no clear basis for such a distinction, the LINE hypothesis does.
 
Last edited:
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
Evolution, the mechanism by which ones ecology mediates living hosts, species, is an important tier of understanding for living beings to evolve to be able to comprehend within any viable ecosystem in this universe. However, although difficult to initially fathom, understanding species evolution is a distant runner-up to understanding the natural mechanism which mediates the mobility of one’s individuality that is ones position-of-view (POV). This is why the understanding offered by the LINE Hypothesis is the single most personally important idea that any living being will ever have the opportunity to consider, regardless of species or ecosystem in this or perhaps any universe.

Earths archeological and hard fossil record suggests that Earths ecology has produced no more than one species capable of assimilating and making use of this knowledge regarding the natural mechanism by which nature mediates individuality in this universe. This is not to suggest what untold secrets earth’s soft species history has produced, but of which no indelible imprints of its existence remain. Nonetheless, the importance of this knowledge is precisely because the intelligence and circumstances, indeed the opportunity necessary for any culture to gain the capability to assimilate and make use of this understanding is so rare. The evolved intelligence necessary for living individuals to comprehend their own natural implementation is one of the rarest and most pivotal evolutionary realizations in this universe for any ecosystem to develop, prove, and culturally accept. Mollusks can’t do it, ants can’t do it, only humankind currently has that incredibly rare and fleeting opportunity to comprehend, accept, and make use of this very real existence transcending knowledge. Further, the window of opportunity is not permanent and once gone, for humankind, it may be gone forever.

Currently, humankind is as are all other species in earth’s ecosystem, wild. We define wild-life as those host cultures that have not organized socially and culturally to reduce their dependence on the resources circumstantially provided by chance to some useful or perceived extent. However, this is a somewhat self-serving definition. In reality the true definition of wild-life is an ecosystems lack of a culture, consisting of any number of species, able to take deliberate control of individual instantiation into ones living circumstances. To continue, like all other species in its ecosystem to be arbitrarily reinstantiated by the probabilities of random chance which mediates when, where, and in what form one will live in your next instantiation, in your next life. Failure to have evolved sufficiently to reach this stage of development is the very definition of wild-life. Neither farming, nor art, or tool making or even genetic manipulation of living hosts alone moves an ecosystem across this life and existence altering threshold. Make no mistake; this achievement is indeed an ecosystem-altering feature. Ideally, once fully acted upon, the lines between species take on an entirely different significance as any individual may live and experience life in whatever available forms they please for as long as they please. It all begins by discovering the entanglement cell and molecule. Of course, the details of this local implementation depend on culture as some cultures may elect to permit the existence of only engineered rather than evolved host forms and may elect to control which individual QEF’s are instantiated to those select hosts. The ability to transfer between forms, independent of distance in this universe, once achieved will blur the line of distinction that now exists in the human mind regarding life, individuality, and space-time.

The importance of an idea like the LINE hypothesis stems from the fact that it marks the introduction to the understanding needed for living beings to escape the uncontrolled instantiation lottery of nature which confines living individuals within a particular ecosystem to untold lifetimes of arbitrary natural reinstantiations to randomly emerged host forms, (the true definition of wild-life). Such forms are incapable of assimilating and making use of such knowledge and therefore unable to assume deliberate control over the process that mediates the individuals living circumstances. In the nearly four billion years of earth-life, consider ones lifetimes as, and the existence of, a species such as humankind, despite all of its proud prior achievements, to be nothing more than a narrow window of opportunity within which instantiated individuals to this capable host form may understand, comprehend and act upon the true nature of life in this universe, to develop technology able to control when, where, and to what forms ones POV is instantiated, in essence to control your being. Further, consider what a tragedy it would be if a culture such as this forfeits this singular opportunity only to embrace the ignorance which defines the wild condition. Like every other endeavor into nature’s workings its ramifications and its morality and dangers will be clear and present, but may nonetheless be regarded as a necessary price to pay for this essential next step in the evolution of life on earth.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
So, I have a position of view (POV), how then does my POV interact with my body? The LINE hypothesis suggests that in all living entities the hosting form has evolved to establish, maintain, and protect the delicate quantum state that is the position of view (POV) from intrusion, or specific violation. Failure of the host in this basic responsibility is the very definition of death. In this endeavor, the body and POV have coevolved to have the POV as the target, the kernel of certain host-specific processes and functions. In any given instance of life, these functions establish your presence and other evolved manifestations of the host, broadly describable as experiences. This interaction between the POV and the host form, sufficiently evolved, is the manifestation described in human cultures for generations, using one word or another, as the mind.


The mind is one tier of implementation above the actual instantiation of the POV. While the POV will exist in every living entity, even in the absence of evolved systems that may manifest a recognizable mind, a mind cannot exist in the absence of the POV. The mind is the interaction of the POV with the living form. The mind functions as an antenna, or a receiver for whatever workings, and telemetry, and other evolved manifestations the host, such as it is, is capable of producing. i.e. memory, consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence, thought etc., or the lack thereof. The POV brings none of these features, but only that which may experience these features. The classically measurable implementation of the POV is as a standing quantum wave, established at the individual’s unique QEF, one’s own unique values of the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the QE spectrum. The POV is maintained by the entanglement molecules (EM) within all cells, and in emerged species by the entanglement cells (EC). Further, the physical host establishes a very real bond with the POV. This POV-host bond (POVH) is not unlike the standing waves shared between the valence shells of atoms which establish and maintain covalent bonds that join molecules in this universe. It is the POVH bond which naturally provides the foundation of the mind upon which the individual’s first person sense of presence may evolve in all living beings, within you.


The POV is implemented, in biological hosts, during gestation at the point where instantiation occurs in the growing host form by the EM and EC. However, in sufficiently evolved complex host forms, the mind is established when the nervous system (i.e. Brain) form the unique infrastructure which may interface with the POV. This interface of the nervous system with the POV also takes the form of a standing quantum wave maintained by other specialized cells of the host which maintains the coupling which describes the POVH bond between these two, critical natural implementations. This joining provides the antenna state which becomes the basis for experience we call the mind. This temporary, but crucial link lasts a lifetime and naturally manifests the collapsed reality as well as the possibility to evolve perception and experience for one living individual. Because the POVH bond is essentially a molecular bond, it also may be represented by a mathematical equation or Hamiltonian. This Hamiltonian has its roots based on the Schrödinger wave equation. This is the quantum mechanical equation that very powerfully represents the complex standing probability waves of electrons in shells around atomic nuclei observed in atoms and molecules. However, this similarity will have very definite limits because, unlike molecules, the interactions and DOF that produce the POV are not derived exclusively from interactions between standard-model entities, but between matter with metamatter. Metamatter is hypothesized to be a non-local particle that very weakly interacts in this space-time. Therefore, to formulate the proper wave equations for the POV, the DOF which permits the EM within living cells to share a coherent quantum channel with metamatter, will have to be well defined through intensive research. This research will begin with the discovery of the EC and the EM.


An apt analogy for the role of the POV within living hosts is to consider an individual in the middle of an atmospheric storm. A storm may take on many forms, and have a number of features such as winds, tornados, rain, snow, hail, lightening, thunder, clouds etc. all described by certain degrees of freedom, temperature, pressure, humidity, surface absorption and radiation coefficients etc. which inform varying storm intensities. As a storm circumstantially manifests, it may be given various categorizations, akin to species of storm, and may evolve to a form that may even be given a proper name, an identity. Consider if we placed a living being, a human being for example, at the center of our imagined storm. This individual does not add to, and takes nothing away from the storms manifestations and activities. This individual does however bring, in the case of a human being, one individual’s singular perspective within the storm. This individual has its own capabilities and functions which define it as such. Additionally, if this person has a communications device with an open channel, they may transfer information from within the storm to the outside world. This individual only very weakly interacts with the storm itself. This individual presents both a conduit and a target for information and experience from the storm, but in one direction only.


Likewise, the instantiated POV bonded to a living host form is metaphorically similar to this in that the POV brings no effect or affect of its own, but is essentially a teleportation channel bonded to a host, able to receive telemetry and imprint information manifested by its living host. This interaction, this POVH bond in human beings, for example, which receives telemetry manifested by the human brain centered upon the individual POV, is the very definition of the mind. The mind can be described as being composed of two primary components, the POV, and the rest. On earth, the rest may be anything from; not much at all, as in a single cell, to the complex workings of a fully functional complex nervous system and brain of the human host. Whether in a human, in an eagle, a mantis, or an octopus, the POVH bond is the bond that builds upon the standing wave of the POV which manifests the QE connection to metamatter in all life. Further, in sufficiently evolved forms, the POVH bond becomes the mind. The description of the mind in various species is subject to cultural definition and perceptions, accurate or not, regarding a particular host forms observed behavior and nervous system function, or the lack thereof. However, to be accurate any definition of the mind must include the QE connection and POV as an essential prerequisite of individuality in any living presence in this space-time.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
As you look into the eyes of your newborn daughter and wonder; who are you? Who is in there? You, I expect, understand that every last atom that now, and will ever, compose her little body were each forged in a long expired star and has been here on Earth, for example, for billions of years, and in this solar system for even longer. The rational part of your thoughts understands that the property which uniquely instantiates her, here, now, cannot be those same anonymous atoms or molecules. Evidence; if they did, that would demand that conjoined siblings, sharing the same host form, the same body, composed of the same group of atoms and molecules and DNA, are one individual. However, we know empirically, in as much as any scientific evidence has ever validated anything, that this is not so.

Conjoined siblings are in nature often two distinct, although not physically separate, individuals. Not unlike two different isotopes of water poured into the same vase may seem to become one entity. Nonetheless, at the deepest levels, in conjoined siblings, as in the vase of water, nature recognizes their distinction, their individuality. It is just a matter of understanding their fundamental, natural, eventually scientifically describable, implementation. Although conjoined twins may share the same DNA and even the same host form and thereby any number of organs, including at times portions of the same brain, they nonetheless are two distinct instances of life. No matter based component or classically defined property of these anonymous atoms and molecules can assign this distinction. The LINE hypothesis suggests in such cases (i.e., conjoined twins) there are fundamentally two positions-of-view (POV's) instantiated by two separate sets of entanglement cells which maintain two separate quantum coherent states at two unique QEF. Those QEF are, as is your daughters QEF, immutable and indestructible. All QEF are a permanent fixture of the metaverse (Hilbert-Space) currently hosted here on Earth.

In conjoined siblings, the host form, the body, described and mediated by its local genetics, goes terribly wrong. In this situation, DNA exposes its severe limitations as the possible mechanism by which individuality is instantiated in living beings. If ever there was evidence of a claim, in this regard conjoined siblings qualify. The unique degrees of freedom (DOF) of the entanglement spectrum, manifested by the hypothesized entanglement molecules contained within all cells and in the entanglement cells of every living host, is as abstracted from the existence of ones' DNA, and its anonymous atoms, molecules, and local evolutionary process, as is the tuning of a radio or TV channel abstracted from the anonymous polymers, rare Earth molecules, manufacturing process, and general physical designs, of your radio or TV set.

It is hypothesized that upon the successful separation of conjoined siblings if you were then so situated as to empirically compare, with both sufficient resolution and understanding, their DNA currently believed to define each siblings individuality, you will discover no classically identifiable difference between the now separate host forms. Further, for a time the siblings will remain genetically 100% identical. This is because the body in the case of conjoined siblings, as in all living beings, does not establish individuality whether genetically diverse, or identical down to the deepest recesses of their DNA. Therefore genetic sequence (ATCG, etc.) must be empirically ruled out as the most fundamental defining feature of individuality.

The individual that is your daughter, or my daughter, indeed all life is instantiated in their respective habitats by virtue of natural laws and circumstances. You and her other parent donated local evolutionary genetic information, as does trillions of other hosts in and perhaps beyond Earths' ecosystem, to create a new living form of its kind evolved to host individual life. More significantly, your daughter donated her own uniquely tuned metamatter, tuned via her QEF's lifetimes of past instantiations in Earths' ecosystem. This enables the establishment of her unique natural teleportation, her LINE channel. This is a shared coherent state established between metamatter with her gestating entanglement cells some 11 days into human gestation.

This natural entanglement is established at her unique QEF to establish her position of view (POV). This standing quantum wave once bonded to her new human host establishes a new POV-host bond (POVH). The POVH bond is the antenna state that establishes the mind of the individual that you will come to know as your daughter. With this POVH bond to a human form, all things human become possible. However, her specific features, her capacities, depend entirely on the specifics of her particular growing host form. Not only her physicality, but her sentience, consciousness, self-awareness, cognition, creativity, joy, sorrow, or the lack thereof, all will manifest from her new host form and its path through life. This occurred and can reoccur because re-occurrence is scientifically observed to be the way of nature in all things. It is only the collection of anonymous atoms and molecules that will necessarily establish a new facade as they come and go even now as you watch her grow into what is essentially a new form, an adult. Certainly, a true joy to observe, but don't let the visuals confuse your understanding unless of course, you want it to. The details of this implementation may be unfamiliar, nonetheless, like the deep details of genetic science today, such details do not now, nor have they ever required our understanding, or acceptance to nonetheless define individual life throughout this universe.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
15
105
Ok no more Earth, and no more H. Sapiens sometime in the future. Yeh! it will happen via Nature and Evolution. A consolation, as we enter the "Void" would be the hope that some insightful, intelligent life form in a galaxy far, far away would look in the direction of our defunct Solar System and marvel at the beautiful ring nebula while wondering if any similar life forms existed on any of the "crispy critter" surrounding planets.
We will never enter the "Void". We will pursue God to eternity, thus granting all DNA based life on Earth a place in God's Eternal Conscience.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
Where is everyone? As we probe the depths of the known universe with increasingly majestic instruments based upon the detection of electromagnetism, and as of very recently, gravity waves, it becomes increasingly apparent that the proliferation and distribution of living ecosystems in this universe is curiously low. Today we refer to this absence of detectable extraterrestrial living contact in the cosmos, as the great silence. What could account for this apparent barrenness in a universe known to host at least one prolific, remarkably diverse, extremely long lived habitat for individualized life?

Historically, humankinds search for extraterrestrial life has been based upon a premise that may be false. We consider the prospects for life beyond the earth to be loosely based on the Drake equation (N = R * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * L). This formula, conceived by Frank Drake in 1961, considers the quantity of possible extraterrestrial civilizations to be dependent upon a number of factors all of which considers only the presence and duration of classical matter based entities and conditions. However, nature has never proven to be as simplistic as humankind may first imagine. The LINE hypothesis suggests that individual life throughout this universe is instantiated and mediated by the entanglement spectrum and it is this pervasive non-local natural medium which ultimately determines the quantity of simultaneous living individuals that is possible in this universe.

The QE spectrum is hypothesized to naturally limit this universes capacity for life. Not unlike the electromagnetic spectrum which although also quantifiably infinite, is practically limited in its utility for simultaneous useful unique channels by classical technological devices. However, for the QE spectrum and life in this universe, this is not only a limitation of biology or even of technology, but is a limitation imposed by the topography between this verse and the underlying metaverse which define this universes local QE spectrum. If life and individuality are indeed dependent upon unique singleton teleportation channels of the QE spectrum, hence, it is hypothesized that there exists a maximum number of simultaneous living individuals possible in this universe, regardless of location or host form. This capacity is described by this universes laws of physics to be some finite, potentially calculable population regardless of the number of viable habitats for life that may exist. This capacity for life is called the LINE Capacity (LC) and is the number of instantiations of individual life that may exist simultaneously in this universe.

This living population represents not only the number of POV’s had by emerged multi-cellular hosts like humans or whales or ants, but far more significantly, includes the number of instantiations of fundamental hosts, such as individual cells, currently in existence whether composing such emerged hosts or not. On earth this is a large number. In nature, each count as one instance of individual life. At any one time a human host consists of perhaps 100 trillion cellular instantiations and over a lifetime, many more than that, plus one additional. That additional instantiation is you. Ones POV heterodyned by the entanglement cells (EC) is one of nature’s pinnacle evolved invocations in Earths ecosystem. It is hypothesized that once a verses living population exceeds its LC, any additional viable ecosystems that emerge will only be perfectly habitable yet completely barren worlds, like so many well constructed houses with no one home. Near the LC, for the emergence of life to take hold, such habitats will need to remain viable for the emergence of life for a time during which the QE spectrum simultaneously has available bandwidth viable for the instantiation of living individuals, i.e. cells, to entangle at unique uninstantiated degrees of freedom (DOF) of the entanglement spectrum. Thereby initiating an indigenous genesis of life.


Further, as any universes living population approach its LC, any ecosystems therein actively hosting life will begin to experience increasingly higher mitosis, gestation, and birth mortality rates. This occurs as the existing living hosts, unbeknownst, continue to procreate, to create new viable hosts for life which then fail to instantiate the crucial teleportation channel needed to establish the living individuals position-of-view (POV). In circumstances where the universal living population remains near its LC, like an establishment approaching its fire occupancy limit, the life and death cycle of living beings throughout the universe becomes increasingly influential as it essentially consumes and liberates QE bandwidth universally. Like occupants entering and leaving an establishment, this flux of instantiation increasingly informs the availability of unique QEF to instantiate new living beings. It is highly probable in most evolved ecosystems still possessing a robust micro-biome, that this outage of life will be largely absorbed first in the vast mortality rates of diminutive host forms such as single cell life and colonies thereof. Hence, primarily by mere attrition, this outage may only rarely effect the heterodyned QEF of more complex emerged multi-cellular hosts (with EC) such as mammals, birds, fish or insects.


A universal LC potentially informs the local success rates of new life in wild ecosystems such as Earth. Further, if the LC of this universe is near some integer factor of the current population of life on earth, or even if the LC is several million times that population, nonetheless, such a finite capacity for living beings combined with this universes unfathomable vastness probabilistically infers that humankind may never detect extraterrestrial life. At least not by classical means, because where the QE spectrum reigns, neither distance nor time holds sway. In light of this possible upper limit to the natural instantiation of individuality, it should come as no great surprise that this universe appears to be so devoid of extraterrestrial life. Ergo, it is not simply a consideration of matter or of the habitability of worlds that dictate and mediate the proliferation of life in this universe. No wild ecosystem can know where its universes living population currently lies relative to its LC absent a deep command of the principles described by the LINE hypothesis.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
The Cambrian explosion is one of the great mysteries of evolutionary science today. It marks the sudden emergence of complex species from a significantly microbial ecosystem with little evidence of corresponding intermediate evolution in the fossil record. To shed light on this conundrum, we need to view the Cambrian through the prism of the LINE hypothesis to understand what effect does living have on the individuals prospects for life after death. This will be a central question for all sufficiently developed, intelligent, self-aware beings throughout nature. For human life on earth it is also the question that many religions have sought to address throughout human history, via one mythological narrative or another. Through their doctrines, such belief systems suggest what are the rules to live by which will influence whatever it is those myths determine will become ones destiny after ones’ current life ends. These questions regarding living influences, as it turns out, are very good questions to ask. They, necessarily must have corresponding answers. Answers which can and must be founded in nature and accessible and describable by natural law and eventually by science, otherwise you couldn’t be alive. What natural, scientifically inclined basis can be used to make such determinations for ideas critical to science, yet long held close to the vest by religions throughout human history?


The LINE hypothesis suggests that metamatter is imprinted via natural entanglement. This QE connection persists throughout the course of each individual’s lifetime, no matter ones living form. While instantiated to fundamental forms, such as hosts in earths micro-biome, such hosts necessarily imprint metamatter in low volumes, or densities, given that a microbe is composed of only a single cellular instantiation. This combined with the incredibly short life-cycle, and high reinstantiation rate of life in the micro-biome, given sufficient time, causes this low information throughput to accumulate, and aggregate to become immensely significant to evolution on earth. The information volume imprinted to metamatter by such fundamental forms is very low in content and therefore has a very low impact or influence on the individuals FT. As a result this renders such host forms very weakly tuned to the individuals’ QEF, and therefore for future instantiations, renders the individual more open to arbitrary natural entanglement with a wide range of compatible hosts, ergo other microbes. On Earth prior to the Cambrian, with no forms of greater complexity available at that time, this condition persisted for billions of years. Should it persist, this period in the evolution of life in any ecosystem, results in a vast accumulation of evolutionary potential which may result in an explosion of complexity. Such inflations in ecological complexity cannot be explained by bottom up, random mutation, and natural selection alone. Ergo, today the influence not considered in Darwinian evolutionary science, is the influence of the LINE process.


An apt analogy for how the LINE process may lead to an explosion of complex life is with the printing of information by a computer printer. Consider the natural teleportation channel that is the LINE hypothesized QE connection to metamatter, established by the entanglement molecule within each single cell, as being like one element on a computer print-head. Each cell possesses the information transfer capability of just one such element per cellular instantiation in any host form. So, if your form is composed of just one cell, you have one print element with which to imprint metamatter in your ‘name’, that is to imprint metamatter at your QEF. In this analogy the more print elements there are in a print-head (living host), the more information can be transferred to the sheet of paper (metamatter), and the larger ones information bandwidth. The 100 trillion cells of a human host imprints that many times more than an ameba, bacteria, or a protozoa. Each cell of your host, whether one or many, are imbued similarly with some common degree of freedom (DOF) of your unique QEF and is therefore able, to some degree, to imprint, or otherwise contribute, to metamatter on your behalf. This metamatter ultimately informs one individuals fidelity of teleportation (FT) and ones future prospects for reinstantiation.


In this analogy a microbe is metaphorically equivalent to one print element which imprints metamatter during a great many, very short life spans, due to the incredibly rapid life, mortality, and reinstantiation rate of the microbial world. In this way an individual’s QEF imprints small volumes of metamatter, but very frequently, with information from many iterations of simple living forms repeated over epochs of ecological time. On earth, such forms dominated the planet for billions of years before more complex forms became possible. This information stored in metamatter is theorized to influence the evolution of living hosts on earth and universally. Eventually this imprinting by fundamental living hosts became a huge volume of evolutionary information stored in this non-local universal repository. Together with local conditions and circumstances on the early earth, this lead to the emergence of the entanglement cell (EC). Once the entanglement cell came onto the scene, it brought with it the capability to heterodyne individual cellular QE connections to establish the earth’s first generations of secondary emerged QE connections to metamatter , the position-of-view (POV). A heterodyned POV establishes a secondary emerged individuality, you. With it, the evolution of vastly more complex host forms became possible. On earth, this essentially marked the emergence of life 2.0, if you will. The wide proliferation of the EC began the amazing period in earth history known as the Cambrian explosion.


During the Cambrian, the newly emerged EC together with instantaneous universal access to a vast volume of imprinted metamatter, drove the unification and specialization of many formerly distinct living forms into complex communities, marshaled by new organelles able to distribute common aspects of the POV to all cells of the holistic host form, to propel the formation of new complex species. These new species quickly evolved due to the new emerged secondary entangled state, and the interaction at a distance resulting from the sharing of common degrees of freedom of the POV which describes this natural teleportation channel to metamatter. This metamatter imbued with evolutionary information from earths billions of years of fundamental life, as well as information from other life hosting ecosystems in this universe, gave the Earths new species a sudden and tremendous boost in complexity not possible by random mutation and natural selection alone. Hence, the QE connection soon evolved not only into the earth’s first POV’s, but eventually, into the earth’s first minds.


Further, individual QEF, having participated in countless instances of microbial life, hosted by Earths local ecosystem, and with FT’s by then highly tuned by terrestrially imprinted metamatter, burgeoning to propel a great transition, that is the natural teleportation of those individuals from simpler forms to more complex forms, became eminent. This new innovation which permits the sharing of common degrees of freedom by all cells in an emerged complex host with EC, bonded to one POV via the POVH bond, permits the organism to evolve in sudden and remarkable ways previously unattainable absent the EC. These more complex evolved forms will consist of increasingly larger numbers of fundamental hosts, such as cells. Each a metaphorical print element for metamatter and also, by virtue of an evolved protective host form, may live longer life spans for imprinting matamatter. This accelerates the imprinting of matamatter at the individuals unique QEF and further probabilistically tunes the individuals FT for compatibility with even more complex and compatible host forms, whether such forms were evolved, or engineered. On Earth the human form, for example, may consist of 100 trillion individual instantiations and many more than that counting from the point of QEF instantiation in the womb, up until deinstantiation, death.



The metamatter imprinted over the course of an increasingly longer lifespan, by any host, is potentially cumulatively significant to ones FT. For humankind this is not necessarily more so than the imprint made on metamatter by other, non-human, equally long lived host forms in earths ecosystem. In other words human beings may not be the undisputed champions of FT stability currently on earth. FT stability tuned by increasingly greater volumes of similarly imprinted metamatter describes the individuals chances of naturally entangling a particular host form, and perhaps of greater interest, reinstantiating to ones current host form. So, if sperm whales, having perhaps 1000 times more cells than the average human, and living equally long life spans on average, will imprint, at least by volume, orders of magnitude more cellular state information to metamatter than humans. This says, at least on its face, that whales may be a more stable, and more forecastable host for reinstantiation than the human form. That is to say, an individual QEF instantiated to a whale, all things being equal, may be more likely to reinstantiate to that same form than a QEF instantiated to a human form would likely be to reinstantiate to a human form in ones next life.


However, reality may not be quite this simple. What other aspects of one’s QEF, of one’s host form, and of its circumstances in life might there be that are imprinted to metamatter, which may influence ones FT? What properties of the cell are conserved via natural entanglement after death? Which degrees of freedom of the QE spectrum imbue this conservation of local living information to the non-local, more permanent, more accessible universal medium of metamatter? For now, the LINE hypothesis suggests volume of imprinting per cell, per host, and lifespan, but what of the type, or the nature of information imprinted? What other factors might there be as we live life which may creep into ones metamatter and effect ones FT via a complex nervous system bonded to a unique teleportation channel that is the POV-host bond (POVH) which constitutes the mind? Whether in a human or a whale, the answers to this question essentially form the basis for a new list of commandments. Not unlike the commandments of religions which purport to influence what comes next for the individual. The natural, empirical information which actually, naturally influences ones FT does likewise. Species do undergo Darwinian type evolution, but it is also driven by natural entanglement and punctuated by the evolution of forms like the entanglement cell, the pivotal catalyst for the formation of complex hosts in this ecosystem. Due to the EC being a host form, the remains of which will never be found in any shale, the Cambrian appears to be a true mystery until viewed through the prism of the LINE hypothesis.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
In this universe, the property, at either of its extremes, which most dominates human science and our understanding of nature, is matter density, hardware density if you will, and the subsequent gravitational influence it produces, and its associated electromagnetic fields and radiation. This is so from the most dense neutron stars and black holes to the least dense subatomic particles. However, if we possessed the tools which would permit us to also detect complexity, software density if you will, distributed throughout this universe, our eyes would for the first time, be opened to a new and unimagined realm of reality which was there all along. This instrument would essentially be a new type of telescope whether or not we decided to convert the information it gathers into visible light at some juncture. This device would amount to a type of entanglement, or weak-measurement telescope; it would permit an observer to see the night sky dotted with bright sources of high software density perhaps represented as light intensity. Among the brightest may be sources not unlike the Earth itself, due to the Earth’s rich proliferation of life. Each of these bright points of light in the cosmos detected by such a device would not be a point only of gravitationally aggregated matter, but also, each is a point of accumulated natural complexity, such as life. Life may be among the densest forms of complexity in nature. If we could see life the way we see stars astronomy and cosmology would take on a whole new meaning. Fortunately for us, as matter density is exposed by the electromagnetic spectrum, The LINE hypothesis suggests that life also has its very own spectrum, the quantum entanglement spectrum.

This alternate approach will require an understanding of the principles described in the LINE hypothesis and the subsequent development of technologies based on its principles, such as the conceptual entanglement telescope. Such a telescope would reveal areas of dense natural entanglement present in living entities throughout this universe. This device will reveal life in the cosmos in a manner superficially similar to the way photon gathering (infrared, x-ray, gamma-ray etc.) telescopes expose optically hidden sources in the cosmos. The LINE hypothesis suggests that concentrations of metamatter complexity may occur as readily as concentrations of baryonic matter to create sources of dense informational complexity detectable as gradients of coherent quantum states across the night sky. Such sources are not defined by the local proximity of matter particles in this space-time, but rather by those particles’ common entangled states with non-local metamatter. Such sources of complexity are dense informational software sources as opposed to the dense hardware sources which define planets, stars and galaxies. These sources of complexity will exist throughout this universe and while invisible to any photon gathering telescope, may be detected with telescopes outfitted with entanglement detectors. Entanglement detectors are weak-measurement devices capable of measuring the entangled degrees of freedom of matter particles entering the detector.

So, how would an entanglement telescope work? Entanglement molecules are hypothesized to be primordial interstellar particles, whether monatomic or not. They are hypothesized to naturally spontaneously cohere with non-local meta-matter. At the particle level, throughout these cosmos, this behavior also involves countless particles of regular matter which are similarly tuned due to their participation in the living hosts of bygone individuals. That is, they share a common state via their mutual residual coherence to meta-matter. In fact, many particles that are entangled, in or out of the laboratory, are likely mutually entangled via metamatter as opposed to being entangled directly to other matter particles as they are now considered to be. Yet the participants of matter in these entangled relationships may be any distance apart. Since meta-matter is non-local to our space-time, these mutually entangled matter particles may be either touching, or separated by billions of light years, yet share a coherent state.

The cosmos is awash with such entangled particles, particularly in and near habitats which host life. This is because some of the particles of matter, the dust, left from the cells of bygone hosts in any habitat for life may remain entangled to metamatter for a time after its participation in the living form has ended. Further, such particles may eventually become entangled to future cells elsewhere in these cosmos which entangle this same metamatter. Expose a properly designed and configured QE telescope to the open sky and, not unlike photons in an optical telescope, entering the QE detectors will be entangled particles which are each entangled participants with any and every object in the cosmos. If you are having trouble fathoming this notion, consider that contained within each breath you now take there are atoms and molecules that were breathed by most of the individuals, human or not, that has ever lived on Earth and perhaps even by individuals that have lived in ecosystems beyond Earth. There are no doubt civilizations throughout these cosmos that have realized such devices and may use them to routinely observe and study distant, wild ecosystems such as Earth.

Further, unlike light detection, these naturally entangled particles of matter entering the equipment need not have traveled from the sources at the other end of their shared quantum coherent states. In fact, the relationship these Alice’s have with their Bob’s are instantaneous, regardless of the void of the cosmos that separate them. It is an almost romantic implementation, is it not? Once these entangled particles enter the equipment, and their degrees of freedom weakly measured, the information we would, in fact, be exposed to will be the immediate, the instantaneous state of their constituent particles that compose whatever object of interest was targeted, wherever it may be in this universe, and perhaps beyond. Such instruments will reveal the information states within the event horizon of black holes. Some may be participants in some unfamiliar living host, or in some inanimate object, because after you are done with your atoms and molecules, there is no telling where they may end up.

The process of filtering out unwanted entangled particles in lieu of those imbued only with the specific parameters of interest amounts to a type of tuning, or focusing of the instrument. With proper tuning even particles carrying information from different temporal frames of reference may be detected. Most sources will be objects we couldn’t possibly detect classically, due to the fundamental latency of electromagnetism in this universe. This mechanism describes nothing more than a technological version of the LINE mechanism which implements life and the mobility of individuality, and also defines the POV in every living being, within you, throughout these cosmos. Such a device will permit the instantaneous, real-time detection of life and conditions throughout the cosmos. Gone will be our search for photons, and gravity waves carrying million or billion year old information, or visits from extraterrestrial spacecraft. Humankind would be privy to the real time state of the cosmos and many of the answers we have always sought, and so much more.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
So complete is the cognitive illusion of physical self, that each human being fully believes and accepts that they are defined by the prevailing cultural description of their current form, its assigned demographic description, and its ascribed history. This perception prevails by the complete ignorance of having previously been instantiated to an untold diversity of living host forms which describes ones’ actual instantiation history. In other words, you may necessarily have been, and subsequently acted the part of any living being in history, or none at all, mediated only by the laws of natural entanglement. What living forms would the book of our true naturally defined instantiation history describe? Metaphorically speaking, this is as if one personally adopted the history of the brand of car you now drive, say, Bentley, while being completely ignorant of the ancestral history of those vehicles owners. Who were those previous owners? Would, or should it matter? Should one relate to the car or to the owners? In life today, we behave as though we have always lived, and always will exist in some fashion, in one's current species and family and assigned demographics for all of ones’ instances of life, or not at all. Ironically, this cognitive dissonance exists alongside widely accepted beliefs in religious narratives of ongoing existence or in the acceptance of a secular null hypothesis of the one-off occurrence of life. Both of which, at the very least, suggests that the individual has never previously been in the form they are now.

What would it take for a family of owners to own the same make and model of automobile (i.e. Bentley Mark-V) for many generations of that owner's current family? While we know that our current body, like our cars, have a finite existence, likewise in life, what would it take for an individual QEF (owner) to reinstantiate to the same demographic and family for say, 1000 years, (50 generations)? In the car analogy, it would require a very deliberate, synthetic initiative to acquire only Bentleys. An initiative which may forgo better economic opportunities (deals), or may induce financial difficulty, or perhaps forgo advancements in technology, or may ignore the tides of change in order to serve preference upon one make of automobile. For life, a different but no less a synthetic initiative would be required to implement such a focused reinstantiation history upon an individual QEF into the same demographic and family. In other words for the individual to reinstantiate to say a, human, German, female, within a family named Frank, for 50 consecutive lifetimes would be an improbable occurrence. But is it possible, and would one care to?


Upon our birth the culture we are born into urge, or otherwise indoctrinates, the individual to adopt the history of their host form and its demographic narrative as described by that culture. This becomes a cognitive dissonance carried by the individual often for the rest of ones’ life. Generally, this is referred to as ones‘ demographics of species, gender, race or class, and nationality etc.. Although you were almost certainly born less than 100 years or so ago, one is urged to adopt a history in which neither the individuals’ current host nor ones’ current instantiation likely participated. Furthermore, if it so happened that ones’ QEF was indeed instantiated during that history, there is currently no accounting for what form (demographic) nor what role that instance of the individuals QEF may have assumed in that participation. The cognitive dissonance exercised today is that the individual has and will, in some way, by some unspoken means, always be in the form we currently are. Presumably, not much convincing is required to assure the reader that this idea is utterly false, as each individual knows all too well on what date and perhaps time ones’ current life began, and that it will undoubtedly end within a few decades. Even if your accepted belief system leads you to believe that only nonexistence came before life, and will also be the case after ones current life ends, even this renders the idea of adopted historical narrative misguided. Further, if one's belief system leads you to accept some religious narrative that describes a state of individual existence before and after ones current life, no doubt based on some mystical foundation, still, ones participation in any adopted cultural historical narrative remains highly questionable.

Nonetheless, most live life as if they are an actor that has been handed a script at birth. This script describes, to varying degrees, the individuals’ expected, or observed role in society and this role may even be mandated or enforced within certain cultures. Of course, as far as one's species is concerned, this mandate is also enforced up to a point by nature, since, while you live, you are currently destined to remain instantiated to the form you currently have, at least while no option to change that form exists. Also, as far as nationality is concerned, one is born to an ecosystem and some location therein as a matter of pure circumstance while no option to mediate one's instantiation currently exists. So, in these, there is no choice. However, for the culturally contrived properties of demographic categorizations of a host forms physical traits called race and the running historical narratives assigned to those categorizations, in these, all seem to buy in to the false narrative that the current individual is in some fashion either responsible, or was a victim, participant or assumed a certain role in that history. This illusion is so odd that it defies any rational explanation once unpacked. Only the sustained maintenance of a blind unthinking cognitive dissonance, or perhaps the lack of a plausible explanation of life, permits it to persist.


Consider that an individual today described, perhaps within American society, as a female age 29 of German descent named Frank. This description is informed by the genetics (DNA) of her current host form as described by its genealogical history on Earth. With no understanding or evidence to the contrary, society readily indoctrinates her socially and culturally with that history and with other individuals matching her demographic, for better or worst. How does this work exactly? We know for certain the date of lady Frank’s birth, her beginning of life 29 years ago. We can also say that she was not around, let us say; for the Germanic attacks on ancient Rome. Nor for WWI or WWII. Yet civilization enforces upon her some connection with this history, solely based on the history of her current host forms’ DNA. Some association is made, however weakly enforced, with lady Frank to each of those historical events and also with the entire history of all individuals born to viable hosts possessing German DNA. If it were true that society today either knew, or at the very least, strongly believed the principles of the LINE hypothesis, which describes a natural mechanism by which perpetual reinstantiation could occur and even possibly reoccur to the same familial (DNA) lines within species, then a case could be made, even if not proven, for one's possible role, ownership or participation in genealogically related historical events.

However, as it currently stands, no such understanding is widely accepted today. Therefore no basis in logic or reason currently exists for humankind's association of an individual with a historical narrative for which the individual may not even have existed on Earth. Or even if on Earth, one may not have been a participating species. Or within that history, one may not have been described at any point by the demographic to which one is currently being assigned. In the absence of the enlightenment and understanding imbued by the LINE hypothesis, individuals should only be associated with ones’ current behaviors and actions as ones participation in past events remain unlikely or at least in doubt. Further, as is widely the case today, ones acceptance of these socially assigned narratives as being ones defining litany of race, gender, history and culture and such, if you are so fortunate as to have a choice, consider carefully and feel free to adopt whatever culture makes you happy, but do so while leaving behind the baggage of a history you can only try to improve upon. Do so while doing no harm in the effort to make life better for all, now and for future instantiations, because currently, one can never know what host form circumstance will bestow upon you in your future. Recognize that life and individuality are naturally amorphous and ongoing processes of instantiation that is currently uncontrolled by humankind which renders each individual highly susceptible to arbitrary circumstances within current and future ecosystems. In other words, the conditions you foster for others in this life could be your own in another.
 
Jan 29, 2021
41
4
55
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 cell wall? Isn’t the law of monogamy being violated? No, the law of monogamy isn’t being violated any more 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 that 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 a secure encryption protocol primarily because of its monogamistic properties. We see that we may use the public and private key approach for 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 cell's 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 each 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 the 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 individual's 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 ship's 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 ship's staff, thereby animating the ship as a self-contained living organism. In the living cell, it is hypothesized that 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. Also, they share cellular state information with the universal cloud-storage of metamatter accessible by other naturally entangled hosts anywhere in this universe. 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.

Further, the monogamy of entanglement enforces the integrity of an existing entangled state such as the position-of-view (POV). 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 the protection of the POV, the entangled state maintained by the entanglement molecules within each 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 hypotheses are welcome.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY