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

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Jan 29, 2021
22
2
35
Presumably, there is a first time for everything. Consider then this earths first life, that is to say, the first time you or I or any individual is instantiated as a living being in any ecosystem, perhaps in this ecosystem, Earths ecosystem. This may seem like a strange notion to consider but realize that no matter what your current belief system one cannot deny there has to have been a first instantiation for each individual even if you think this life is that first time, the only time, the last time you will live. Further, let us call this first-ever host of life in earths ecosystem and perhaps first in this universe Cell-1. What individual was hosted by Cell-1? Who was it that came into being so many billions of years ago entangled by this first living host here on earth? Was it me? Was it you? Was it someone we now know? A single cell being in nature as much a living being as any other, how then could we identify this or any individual position-of-view including ones own? Since the natural process that populates this universe with living beings is as all natural processes are, ubiquitous, prolific, and may repeat whenever, wherever conditions are favorable, this first individual may very well be among the living today. If you are having trouble comprehending this notion it is likely because you are thinking of individuality from a second or third-person perspective, the visible tangible behavioral perspective. Instead, consider individuality from ones own first-person position-of-view. As with you or I, the form that any living being instantiates does not change the fundamental nature of ones position of view which is presence not experience. It is only ones form, placement, and time in this universe that vary. Make no mistake the POV is not to be confused with a point of view which if had by a given species or host is a function of that particular host and is nothing more than the skills manifested by that particular entangled form. Skills manifested perhaps by cognition of a complex brain and/or nervous system, or a lack thereof.

A unique position-of-view is what defines the individual regardless of form. It is very difficult for hosts such as humankind to imagine the being of other life forms. So how does one imagine a beings POV even ones own? It isn't easy, particularly since there has never been anything one could do to change ones instantiated form, apart from terminating ones own life. Even then, with no natural persistent memory of ones past instantiations, it is very difficult to comprehend this natural implementation. However, one first step may be to realize the natural entangled mechanism of life and to develop technologies for the detection of the living POV and record individual inter-longevous histories.

If in fact the first host ever to exist in this universe had entangled your QEF, in nature, you would have been every bit as alive then as you ever were in any subsequently instantiated host including ones current form. When we ask; what individual was cell-1? What is it that is being identified if not cell-1's host form, its body the cell, and its functions and skills? The LINE hypothesis suggests it is ones unique value of some quantifiable degree-of-freedom of the entanglement spectrum the QEF, call it QEF-1 if you will. Whatever the actual value that QEF-1 turns out to be for an individual, let's say cell-1 for example, that unique value of the QE spectrum will always instantiate cell-1's POV its position-of-view, POV-1. no matter where, when, or what the design, biology, or technology of the available host. Long after that first host had decayed back into the anonymous atoms that had first contributed to its form its QEF, QEF-1 has likely reinstantiated on countless other occasions since then. With each instantiation, in each life, QEF-1 by entangling matter to metamatter brought the same first-person position-of-view into this universe, POV-1, by providing a place and a time to something that otherwise has neither. No second-person perspective would recognize the individual that is POV-1 from the outside, in fact as with current earth-life there is often no means by which any individual could recognize itself as a recurring entity. Particularly if it were a single cell. However, perhaps if billions of such individual POV'S came to entangle highly evolved hosts possessing sufficiently high intelligence and perhaps if a critical mass of such individuals were to become enlightened, no doubt kicking and screaming every step of the way, to the reality of their living circumstances to develop technologies adequate to the task of analyzing and detecting the entanglement spectrum and the standing entanglement wave it manifests in living beings, such a species could one day measure, quantify, and identify the unique living POV of the individual no matter ones physical form. With the identification and comprehension of naturally invasive ideas often comes an ever-increasing level of control. In this case, it is control over the instantiation of ones own being, which is ones’ form, placement, and time in this universe.

Nature cannot be assigned the property of purpose. Nature doesn’t implement individuality in the manner in which a cognitive species such as a human might. However, the ubiquitous natural universal process of instantiating a living being in any given environment ought to be quantifiable and understandable and may be described in terms of natural cause and effect. So how does the natural process of instantiating a living being resolve which QEF, who’s QEF is entangled to cell-1? Whose first-person position-of-view, whose being, exists first, second, third, etc. Clearly, life doesn’t seem to us to be sequential but how can we know for certain?

As a thought experiment, consider that Earths’ hypothetical Cell-1 undergoes mitosis and creates a cell-2. According to the LINE hypothesis, both must necessarily entangle stem-metamatter since at that time there can be no metamatter in existence which was imprinted by host species from Earths' virgin ecosystem as there would as yet have been no deinstantiation (Decoherence of an emerged individual), no death. Death is necessary to provide disentangled imprinted metamatter for future generations of life in any ecosystem. Further, if cell-2 later divides to create a new cell; cell-3 before cell-1 dies then cell-3 will, as did its two living relatives, also entangle any viable host to stem-metamatter to instantiate yet another original POV never before instantiated in this or perhaps any ecosystem in this universe. Why? Because Cell-1, if it is anything like a modern cell, likely has a mechanism like DNA to transfer its hosts' design information physically generationally and so each host offspring, each relative, be it familial, special, or ecological, imprints upon metamatter with a diverging degree of similarity. All of this coherent cellular and QEF state information stored in metamatter attracts future generations of genetically similar hosts to entangle this metamatter. Presumably, the individual is unaware of any of this as are even complex species such as present-day human beings.

Alternatively, consider if cell-1 instead had disentangled, died before cell-2 divided to produce cell-3, then the LINE hypothesis suggests that this newly minted host (cell 3, grandchild of cell-1) would be more likely to reinstantiate its bygone relatives' QEF (QEF-1). Host cell-1 and 3 are in this scenario generationally, physically related due to their common DNA, and cell-1 over the course of its lifetime has imprinted metamatter, as do all living entities, with information from both their physical component (DNA, etc.) and also from its’ unique entangled degrees-of-freedom (QEF-1). The QEF is not part of the cell nor is it an aspect of metamatter it is of the entanglement spectrum. The entanglement spectrum exists as a distinct implementation of nature with properties, characteristics, and degrees-of-freedom which define it as such, not unlike the electromagnetic spectrum. These three elements of nature operate in concert to make individuality and life possible and mobile (teleportable) in this universe.

QEF-1 now uninstantiated and unentangled, mediated by the monogamistic rules of quantum coherent interaction becomes available universally for future instantiation with viable hosts. So cell-3 (grandchild of deceased cell-1) with DNA more compatible with deceased cell-1's existing residual metamatter imprint than not, will more readily attract or enter into an entangled state at cell-1’s QEF-1 and its existing recently disentangled metamatter in lieu of widely available stem-metamatter. So the individual, the POV that instantiated previously to host cell-1 is now reinstantiated to its own offspring host cell-3. The possibility of familial reinstantiation is likely highly dependent upon the actual resolution of the theorized imprinting upon metamatter by the living cell. For familial reinstantiation ones fidelity of teleportation may need to be above some pivotal value (i.e. .75 or greater above the classical limit), any lower and only species and inter-species entanglement may become likely.

Nonetheless, Cell-3 the individual the world sees as the grandchild of deceased cell-1 could once again host POV-1. Such is the nature of life. It is only when there is no compatible imprinted and simultaneously disentangled metamatter and compatible hosts available that a newly emerged host will entangle stem-metamatter to establish an original (to this ECO system) position-of-view. In nature the laws of conservation mandate that every interaction has an effect and induces a change in its participants. Whether or not we can sense, measure, or understand the interaction or the effect it produces. On human scales, the gentlest touch transfers heat induces friction, deformation, etc. Electromagnetism changes the atoms and electrons it interacts with or there would be no electronics. A subatomic particle entangled with another or with others interacts regardless of distance or time (even when in different temporal frames of reference). By this natural mechanism metamatter, ones non-corporeal life-matter if you will, is changed as it entangles with your cells over the course of each lifetime.

By this process individuality emerges in otherwise inanimate matter and gives rise to a living being that has either never lived in this ecosystem before or may have never lived in this universe previously, The implications for individuals currently instantiated on Earth, as in any viable ecosystem, are that ones future place (reinstantiation) in this eco-system is all but guaranteed barring some global-scale catastrophe which erases all life on earth leaving only the possibility of reinstantiation elsewhere, barring such a catastrophe the entire DNA pool of earth-life will attract your QEF to available metamatter to host you once again.
 
Last edited:
Jan 29, 2021
22
2
35

How does a living being with the capacity to do so begin to determine ones' prospects for life after death? The LINE hypothesis suggests it is via the determination of ones' fidelity of teleportation (FT), a little understood but very real property of quantum information transference which is one metric that governs the instantiation of a living individual. It is the mechanism which the LINE hypothesis describes as the natural process that distributes individuality throughout this universe and likely throughout nature. Estimates of ones' FT is perhaps the value most important to any living being capable of fathoming its importance, no doubt followed closely by the value of ones' QEF.

The FT value describes the accumulated probabilities that will influence an individuals' next instantiation. There are always going to be uncertainties involved in determining ones' reinstantiation prospects, but generally, some of these influences can reasonably be assumed to be constant. Factors such as the assumed persistence of conditions for life within Earths' ecosystem, and thereby the likelihood of the continuation of ones' current species, ones' DNA line. Extinction being a fundamental aspect of host evolution is an eventuality that may be generally deferred for such a consideration. Factors such as the proliferation and similarity of ones' existing familial DNA as well as lifespan species and near-species population, also volume and resolution of imprinted metamatter may all be more dynamic factors relevant to ones' FT value and reinstantiation prospects. One's prospects for reinstantiation describe what host form, or species an individual might entangle in ones' next life. Where one entangles that form depends entirely on where such compatible hosts are located in this universe.

Each currently living individual has more likely than not undergone numerous instantiations and lived many lives, many presumably may have entangled hosts right here on Earth. Earth is the only known ecosystem with hosts for life that are compatible with your current indigenous Earth form, whatever that form may be. Some day the Moon or Mars may become seeded, non-original bastions for Earth life. This makes Earth a factory of imprinted metamatter and therefore a powerful attractor, if not the only existing attractor, for the reinstantiation of any being currently alive on Earth. Given that ones' metamatter imprint is expected to lose its resolution over time spent uninstantiated, compatibility with hosts that emerge in extraterrestrial ecosystems becomes increasingly possible over time. Other ecosystems that emerge on other planets or in other viable environments in nature will host living forms with different indigenous designs. However, the one common mechanism for life is the entanglement molecule, responsible for the QE connection to and the imprinting of that unique design upon metamatter.

Familial reinstantiation may be most desirable to the individual, whether consciously by enlightened consideration or only subconsciously by genetic evolution, but may nonetheless be a very high bar to expect of a pervasive universal natural process such as natural entanglement. Even if, in nature, familial reinstantiation is possible, the frequency of it occurring may be quite low, or tenuous absent synthetic intervention. Factors competing for the influence of the reinstantiation process are in nature likely to be quite aggressive and disruptive to the delicate resolution required for predictable, forecastable familial DNA entanglement. More frequent may be the occurrence of species and near species reinstantiation. This is particularly true for species with many large populations of close genetic variations simultaneously in existence such as beetles, finches, or cichlids.

Further, in natural settings, distance although irrelevant to the coherent information teleportation of natural entanglement remains a very real obstacle to genetic proliferation across space-time. After all, in the entire history of Earth life, the number of viable hosts that have left Earth's ecosystem is negligible at best. Most may never even have left their landmass or lake of origin. Hence the LINE hypothesis predicts the probability of reinstantiating in ones' current planetary ecosystem to be quite high. This is due to the localization of corporeal genetic material that is tuned to ones' existing imprinted metamatter. It is possible for ones' QEF to entangle hosts indigenous to other original ecosystems in this universe. However, the probabilities involved with such stem-metamatter instantiations are comparatively very low, very unlikely, requiring the passage of relatively long spans of time. Of course, to the individual, any span of time spent uninstantiated is inconsequential. Since the uninstantiated individual QEF is removed from space-time, and devoid of experience.

The specific implications for human culture and its survival and in understanding the actual natural mechanism for the mobility of individuality in this universe are unpredictable yet will be profound. Humankind up to now has essentially suffered from a form of existential dislocation syndrome. The result of appearing in a place, for a time, with the capacity to comprehend ones' existence, but with a deficit of ideas and information adequate for realizing the natural mechanism governing ones' presence, ones' being, ones' position of view. This deficit fosters erroneous ideas of life, species, and self, leading to destructive and unfulfilling self-actualization schemes such as intolerant religions, scientific over-extrapolation, bigotry, and speciesism, which corrode social and ecological cohesion necessary for the survival of a species such as humankind.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY