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
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

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:
Jan 29, 2021
The search for the entanglement cell (EC) will require the isolation and identification of critical regions of cells that may be referred to as 'Follicle regions.' Follicle regions in this context describe isolated diminutive groups of cells which when sufficiently disrupted appear to cause the termination of the subject in a manner difficult to distinguish from genuine EC termination. EC (Entanglement cells) being the most fundamental physical implementation of individuality of an emerged composite being, disruption of EC exclusively is hypothesized to result in disentanglement to metamatter which is deinstantiation, individual death.

Follicle regions may actually contain EC, or alternatively, only cells whose function is critical to systemic function not unlike cells of the heart or liver only whose role is much less obvious. Determining which of these two possibilities is the case will require the investigation to focus on each follicle group of cells by process of elimination to reduce the group to the barest minimum of effective follicle cells within the group and then to trace and definitively determine how those remaining follicle cells contribute to host termination.

For each follicle group, this process should always lead either to the determination and identification of yet another indirect cause of death or the discovery of the presence of genuine EC within the follicle group. These EC will be those, one or more cells that contribute only and exclusively to the observed subject termination. This process requires the discounting (not subjected to disruption) of those cells which either cause intermediate damage to other host systems or do not directly cause host termination.
Subject termination due to EC candidate cells within the follicle group must not result in any pre-mortem cellular disruption (non-necrotic) physically or functionally to any region outside of the follicle group, ergo; death without damage.

Approved subjects (flies, nematodes, etc.) chosen for this process may need to be high-fidelity clones in order to provide the required consistent physical structure and predictable systemic cellular distribution. This is so the process of elimination may continue unabated with minimal loss of progress as subjects are terminated, and new test subjects are needed to continue the investigation. Further, subjects may not need to be fully formed individuals but may be sufficiently developed living embryonic forms. These are subjects viable for testing but not viable by current definitions, for independent growth.

Probing for the entanglement cell (EC) does not require physical contact with candidate cells. On the contrary, the astute investigator will quickly realize that the less physically disruptive the probing mechanism, the more progress will result from the exercise. Since the task at hand is not to disrupt any internal cellular function that could kill the cell, but rather to disrupt only the heterodyning mechanism by which the EC maintains the emerged individual POV. The means of disrupting EC heterodyning are potentially numerous as the monogamy of this delicate state is unforgiving. Infiltration or only identification of the entangled state may occur by the use of appropriate entanglement witnesses such as properly tailored photonic, electronic, or other nonphysical mechanisms. Of course, there is a chance that every cell is an EC. This would require a slight modification of the predictions of the theory as in such a case the heterodyned state would be far more robust than currently predicted. This is because the entangled state of emerged POV would need to survive the massive changes in cell participation as cells of the holistic host are perpetually transient.

Depending on the relative orientation and positioning of EC relative to other EC the probe will need to target individual candidate cells or very diminutive groups of the same. This is because it is possible that EC may have developed in close proximity or even in direct contact with each other during the gestation period of initial conception and engaged their heterodyning of their individual QEF to establish the emerged QEF and then later physically drift apart as the billions of new non-EC cells develop as the subject grows. Alternatively, the heterodyned EC may in all or some species remain in direct physical contact with other EC to maintain the heterodyning function required for emerged individuality to persist. Therefore the probe may need to be focused down to within the diameter of a single cell and be as noninvasive as possible yet highly maneuverable as to scan many cellular diameters in rapid succession.

Given all of these requirements, the inventive investigator may imagine a probe not dissimilar from the polarized blue or UV laser found in a Blu-ray disc player and research labs around the world as a good foundation upon which to fashion the probe for this endeavor. The LINE hypothesis suggests that sufficient disruption of the heterodyned state of EC will deinstantiate the emerged individual even while the non-EC or even the actual EC remain instantiated, alive as individual, functional cells. With all cells of the host remaining fully functional, how is the deinstantiation of the emerged individual determined? There is expected to be a time-lapse between POV termination and the first signs of the shutting down of cellular function associated with postmortem necrosis of the host body. The more immediate symptom of deinstantiation will be an alteration in species or subject-specific nervous system and brain functions. Each of such symptoms may be used separately or together to identify POV termination of the subject.
Jan 29, 2021
An understanding of ones’ living circumstances in this universe remains equally important even if there are actually no other life-hosting environments other than the Earth. This is because regardless of one's current location in this space-time, the mobility of individuality described by the LINE hypothesis also describes how one instantiates not only throughout this universe but also within one's current local environment. This is just as interesting and important as knowledge of life elsewhere. We too often expend our concerns on finding extraterrestrial life in lieu of understanding the natural implementation by which nature populates this universe with living individuals. This latter point does not negate the importance of seeking other life in this universe, quite to the contrary. However, it may alleviate the concern caused by never actually finding such life which is highly probable in a universe as vast as, and having the laws of physics of, this universe.

The laws of physics that placed you in the ecosystem in which you currently live didn’t do so because there are fundamental laws of nature that are exclusive and unique to this planet, solar system, or even galaxy. The fundamental laws of nature are expected to operate equally at every point in this space-time, thus all phenomena are also possible at every point in this universe including the phenomenon that is you. It is only the circumstantial probabilities of state that vary from point to point and moment to moment that determines local outcomes. Hence, life and individuality are circumstantially possible everywhere in this space-time. More profoundly, we know without question that life and individuality is a fact and the Copernican principle of natural reoccurrence guarantees that anything that has occurred can reoccur.

Viewed in this light concerns about the eventual expiration of the sun or the end of this universe when considered through the prism of the LINE hypothesis takes on a decidedly reduced urgency. As we realize that even as you read these words countless ecosystems, stars, galaxies, and perhaps even universes have come and gone in the eternal history of nature prior. So too has countless instances of individual life, some even your own. Yet here you are alive with precious little memory or consideration of the vast history of both nature and you that came before, and so it shall be again. With this enlightenment, the urgency of the fate of specific conditions and objects or collections thereof, small or large, becomes somewhat less significant as we realize our true place in the permanent structure of nature and that although all stars die and this universe may eventually become non-viable for life the immutability of the quantum entanglement spectrum and its underpinnings is fundamental in nature and the mobility of individuality ultimately sacrosanct.

In this endeavor we call science you will find, I think, there is no stranger beast than Nature herself. Contrary to the suggestion of the Anthropic Principle, this universe is not as astronomers observe it simply because astronomers exist, or because they are here to measure it. Rather, astronomers can and will exist anywhere in nature where circumstances and conditions are right for life and for astronomers. Earth’s solar system is just one such place. The distinction between these two points is not at all trivial. In fact, it is profound. Because the latter point supports one particular conclusion as posed by the LINE hypotheses that is the mobility of individuality. It is only local circumstances that determine a habitat's viability for individual life. By this definition, any ‘Here’ in this universe could host individual life.

Given all of these alternative locations for being, a better question for the individual may be; Then why here? Here being this star this planet this body, this cell. If neither place nor form persists the individual, then what does? If you are having difficulty fathoming this notion keep in mind that as you read these words you are yourself on a planet orbiting a star that together are both traveling through space-time at approx. 225 km/sec. So if you think it is some particular space-time location that has defined your presence, your being then the earth’s and your location is changing every second. If it is the atoms and molecules on and in the earth that you believe tether you to your form on this spherical rocket-ship through the cosmos, think again, the atoms and molecules of the earth and your body owe no allegiance to me or thee.

If location, which includes the space within all of the atoms of the Sun, the Earth, and your body and their relative location in space-time, is purely circumstantial then the inescapable conclusion favors that the mechanism which places any living individual where they are, when they are, must operate throughout existence. You live here because you are entangled here. Entangled to a temporary corporeal physical host which happened to emerge from local material in an ever-changing location in nature that is no more special than anywhere else. Make no mistake this is not a conclusion which in any way diminishes how wondrous and rare the processes by which living hosts have emerged on this planet. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that similarly wondrous processes can occur throughout this or in another universe where circumstances happen to be right and there you may be as alive as you are here at this moment only necessarily, superficially, differently.

Further, these superficial differences won’t matter as they don’t now matter. Any astronomer any living being inhabits nature by the laws of instantiation. You will be, you can live, anywhere circumstances are right. Regardless of how one makes the journey, whether one manages to take one's current entangled form along onboard a spacecraft or if by reinstantiation by natural entanglement. The mobility of individuality in this universe is replete with opportunities for life and experience. Placing restrictions on what’s ‘right’ for life as we currently do today in biology and life sciences is missing the natural implementation of life and individuality. Genetics describes living hosts Earth-style. The LINE hypotheses describe natural entanglement as the host form agnostic mobility of individuality, of you, throughout nature.

The realization of the science which describes the mobility of individuality in this universe, of the kind suggested by the LINE hypothesis, adds yet another layer of ethical concern to the already ethically laden endeavors of modern-day genetics. That is, the manipulation of existing, and the proposed resurrection of bygone species. Naturally evolved hosts, even those that were bread by us, are generally of sound evolutionary foundation. Humans, dogs, cats, pigeons, bacteria are made viable by natural selection even when deliberately bread by humankind. However, with the advent of genuine genetic manipulation of the sort made possible by the discovery of the Crisper CAS9 gene comes a new level of divergence or even a complete disassociation from the process of natural evolutionary selection.

Further, in the presence of complete ignorance regarding the implementation by which nature distributes individuality in living beings throughout this universe these concerns today give rise only to relatively moderate levels of controversy and discussion. We consider the question of should we manipulate and create new species from a naively disassociated perspective which just barely rises to the level of personal concern. We may consider our distress in eating a genetically modified cow or chicken or feel some displeasure in seeing an unfamiliar host resulting from the more esoteric or misguided attempts at genetic manipulation or perhaps we worry about creating a species that could threaten our current life in some manner. This is largely because we do not see how we may one day be the direct recipient of a synthetically manipulated host.

Most of humankind are prone to accept established ideas which we were thought or exposed to early in ones current instantiation. Most are ideas that were last exposed to the bright light of cognizant consideration many hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Careful rules of non-questioning tradition and the hierarchical consideration of new ideas have been erected to protect the status quo from the corrosive influence caused by the acquisition of factual scientific information over time. Ironically even specific scientific ideas regarding the possible nature of individuality is guilty of this protectionism. Or perhaps it is not at all deliberate but a natural evolutionary implementation meant to protect the self-aware mind, We may be largely ignorant by evolutionary design. A form of mental protection akin to the shell of an egg for the conscious intelligent self-aware mind. Perhaps some things are best left unknown.

Nonetheless, the time to break through the shell of ignorance is upon us. Shortly it will become increasingly difficult to ignore the mechanism by which individuality is distributed throughout nature. With the discovery of thousands of planets, all evolved similarly to earth but with different specific circumstances, questions will arise in the scientifically alert nimble minds that are proliferating in today’s dynamic information culture. Questions like; What is the mechanism that places me here to experience life from this body which is a part of this particular planet as opposed to some other? Why are you in that body and not me and on this planet or on some other planet? These questions can be posed from the perspective of each of trillions of living beings alive on or off the Earth at any given moment in time. In dealing with these questions one is almost certainly either in scientific denial or you cling to some religious narrative. You see science doesn’t try to explain these questions because for most of its history there was insufficient information to address them. This is no longer quite the case. We know of the mechanisms and are beginning to develop the principles for understanding how nature universally mediates the mobility of individuality.

Realize that the collection of species that exist on earth or on any viable planet at any time is the repository of living hosts from which nature will probabilistically naturally entangle a viable form to host ones next instantiation. This combined with the realization that there is a universal phenomenon mediated by the quantifying quantum measure described by ones unique QEF and fidelity of teleportation is what will define your existence in nature for perpetuity. As we are discovering more often than not, just about anything in nature is susceptible to some level of manipulation and with such influence is born control.
  • Like
Reactions: petra4
Jan 29, 2021
What is individual presence? Presence is that natural phenomenon that you are experiencing at this moment. As unintuitive as it may seem, ones' presence has very little to do with one's consciousness, mental state, or even one's physical form or any of its emergent functions. In fact, in nature, a single living cell is enough to instantiate the presence of a living individual. Surely, one must realize that your presence can exist even if you cannot experience it. Whether it is because your host has not evolved to experience or recognize its own presence, or because you are comatose or under general anesthesia or circumstantially otherwise not functioning to full capacity. Still, if you are among the living, your presence, your instantiation persists. So what is this natural phenomenon unlike any other in normal experience which establishes a living individual position-of-view? That phenomenon is the Solution of State (SoS).

The underlying implementation of this universe and all possible verses is called the metaverse. The metaverse can be described as an ocean of quantum wave functions (QWF's) that exists in a state of perpetual superposition. As such, the metaverse possesses the potential to procedurally render all possible states and realities, while rendering none. That is until SoS are instantiated therein. SoS's are circumstantially emergent transformations of more fundamental forms of information in any verse. As turbulence in a vast ocean of water circumstantially emerge and interacts, so too does a solution of state (SoS) inform all manner of metaverse phenomena which become the seeds, the pebbles tossed into the metaverse ocean if you will.

SoS's are the metaverse amalgams of information, once teleported into this universe, undergoes quantum superposition collapse to manifest all of the entities and their defining degrees of freedom of ones' space-time and thereby create the indigenous reality of any universe. SoS become rendered entities such as electrons and quarks and all of the fundamental particles, known or unknown, and the forces which compose the reality of ones' universe. These fundamental entities, once collapsed from the metaverse by appropriate SoS's, combine and evolve to become atoms composed of electrons bonded to protons and neutrons which produce molecules of matter. This interaction also renders all of the fields and properties of this universe such as the electromagnetic and QE spectrums. These emergent properties combine to form the entanglement molecule (EM), an interstellar molecule that naturally establishes a coherent state with non-local metamatter. In the right habitat, under the right conditions, this molecule may evolve to instantiate a position of view (POV), a living individual. A POV is also a type of SoS which, to a much lesser extent, further procedurally collapses natures' superposition state within this universe to render an individual's living reality.

Solution's of State also exist in this universe, whether manifested as a subatomic particle, or as a QEF instantiated as a living POV in a living being, both establish a place and a time and thereby a state or a life in this universe, to something that otherwise has neither. Metaphorically, as a pebble tossed into a vast body of water creates a series of effects referred to as ripples, so too does each SoS instantiated into natures' ocean of QWF's create a series of effects we refer to as reality. Any of these realities may be simultaneously rendered, but cannot be simultaneously experienced, observed, or measured. Further, these renderings cannot instantaneously interact, except via the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the QE spectrum. So where does an SoS originate? To understand the origin of SoS one need not comprehend the intricacies of the metaverse which are fundamentally incompatible with any intellect indigenous to this universe. Solutions of state also exist in this universe in the form of any rendered state able to specifically interact with another state to precipitate a newly emerged state. Not all states can circumstantially fulfill a specific condition in the same way; therefore will not produce the same if any outcome. Like a key in its lock, particular states are evolved to interact and render or resolve other particular states to produce a new state, entity, or phenomenon. As the far wall in the double-slit experiment participates as an SoS to collapse the emitted probability wave to render into the observers' reality the particles of electrons or photons, so too does the observers' POV contribute, however weakly, as SoS within that environment to render those same particles. This is no different from the mundane effect of illumination whereby most matter acts as a SoS for photons of ambient light in any environment.

However, far less mundane are metaverse phenomena such as the big bang. A big bang requires a certain type of SoS, unfamiliar to this universe. Such SoS is capable of collapsing the metaverses' QWF to spawn a new universe. Such SoS interactions produce much more than mere ripples in the metaverses' ocean of QWF's but cause the biggest splashes imaginable. Such collapses instantiate a new realm of physics, and thereby, a new realm of reality. Such realms of reality evolve in the metaverse by the laws of metaverse physics. The ecosystem that is the metaverse complex is defined and governed and evolved by its own laws of interaction, an understanding of which would be a heavy, but perhaps not impossible, evolutionary lift for any instantiated living forms it produces to imagine. It is upon the formation of viable universes, such as this one, which define unique relationships and laws of interaction and of change known as physics, able to evolve environments which may become viable ecosystems to instantiate the SoS defined by the degrees of freedom of the quantum entanglement spectrum (QEF) to instantiate individuality, life. This ongoing rendering of reality and its zoo of instantiated entities by the metaverses' unique laws of physics is experienced by all indigenous POV's as this universe.

In the absence of the introduction of SoS's into the metaverse complex, like a perfectly still ocean of water, neither space nor time as we perceive them, exist. However, upon the introduction of appropriate SoS's, the reality we call this universe comes into existence for all matter living or not. The possible interactive, measurable, and observable variations between individual experiences of rendered entities are severely limited by the pre-rendering caused by electrons and other such primary observers (PO) in nature. All renderings occur simultaneously everywhere within this universe. However, for each solution of state, for each individuals' POV, nature renders each reality relativistically (with each POV a factor) and thereby manifests an individualized rendering of the local environment and of the measurable, observable changes caused by those states. It is this local rendering of ones' observable, measurable rates of change in local renderings of reality which we refer to as time and its observed relativistic dilations. As Einstein discovered, relativity is the description of the dilations or differences between each individually rendered rate at which change occurs relative to the speed of light. The closer to this speed limit an observer moves the slower the internal rendering appears to outside observers. Two observers in the same reference frame will render their environment significantly similarly but nonetheless, individually.

To the environment, a living host entangled at one QEF is identical to that same host entangled at any different QEF. There is no classically detectable outward influence or behavior of the POV that can immediately affect one's surroundings which includes one's host. because the host, the species is a part of that local environment. No causal difference between one POV and another is available to the outside world, only to the individual is the difference rendered manifest by the isolation of individuality. It is only the isolation of individual instantiation and also of experience centered upon one's position-of-view that affords a clear distinction of self, being, and individuality via the acquired skill of self-awareness in each being capable of fathoming the distinction. The isolation imposed upon the individual POV by a protective composite, and often disconnected host, is a solitary condition which the instantiated being strives to overcome. This is widely achieved through communication in all of its forms which includes mobility. From the single living cell to bacteria to vegetation to human beings, genetically all strive to break the isolation imposed by this fundamental living condition of life. This journey out of the isolation of the basic natural entangled state of life not only began but continues with the living cell in all of its forms and has evolved to become the prolific, diverse eco-system we see today.

Communication requires the development, usually via evolution, of structures and functions that augment the basic implementation by which natural entanglement is hosted. Evolution no doubt favors the group, which also benefits from communication. This is not to suggest that the perception of individuality cannot be clouded perhaps by intimately integrated communication systems of both a technological and biological nature. Such augmentation could fade the experiential distinction between self and others. Even so, make no mistake, there can be no classical infiltration of the individual POV as there are strict natural monogamistic laws of quantum coherent interaction that guarantee the isolation (or forfeit) of the individual entangled state that is the position-of-view.

Most often the information of self that is acquired during a lifetime is dissipated from the individual upon deinstantiation. Some information of one's past instantiations may persist in the memories of other instantiated beings for a time or within indelible works or, in the archival repositories of advanced societies. However, currently with no means by which any reinstantiated QEF can be identified, for now, the anonymity of the reinstantiated individual remains assured. It would require the development, evolutionary or technological, of persistent personal individual inter-longevous memory or the societal archiving of such information, coupled with the capability to identify and distinguish the unique individual QEF to then inform reinstantiated individuals of their past histories. Also with this capability would emerge the even more profound capability to influence one's future instantiations by manipulating aspects of ones’ fidelity of teleportation (FT), and further, to eventually develop controlled universal travel via targeted reinstantiation as advanced enlightened species in this universe already would. In so doing a threshold would have been crossed in the maturity of a species as the accompanying enlightenment transforms life as we know it.
Last edited:
Jan 29, 2021
"If you analyze it closely you will, I think, find that it is just a little bit more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by ‘I’ is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected." [Schrödinger, Erwin (1992-01-31). What is Life? (Canto) Cambridge University Press]

The next fertile undiscovered frontier of science is the study of how the individual (you) naturally inhabit this universe. This topic speaks to the really interesting question of how any life, you, came to be where you are in the form that you are. Consciousness, self-awareness, sentience are evolved attributes had by very few forms of life in earth’s ecosystem, yet all are just as alive in nature. Such attributes cannot be relevant to either nature’s fundamental implementation of life, to being alive, or to experience. Experience may be enhanced by these attributes as they evolve in more complex hosts or species, but the phenomena which establish an instance of life likely bring no experience at all.

The position-of-view (POV) as described by the LINE hypothesis is implemented by a fundamental property of nature called natural entanglement. This process produces the POV which localizes you in your space-time, whether you have five, one, twenty, or no senses. Regardless of what or where one's living form may be in this universe. Effectively one's POV is the target for all of the sensory information we call experience. Any beings lifeID is temporarily localized to its host body by the naturally occurring entanglement between its physical host such as one's cell(s) together with a non-relativistic form of matter called metamatter (in Hilbert-space). The POV of each individual can be represented mathematically by its unique wave function. This wave function is a unique solution of state for the individual in space-time and is the term missing from many of our quantum mechanical solutions. The POV is nothing less than the mathematical representation of a living being.

In life, the POV brings no experience but only that which may have an experience. In nature, a POV is the mathematical representation of a lifeID established either by the entanglement of a single cell to metamatter, or alternatively by the heterodyning of multiple entanglement cells (EC) to metamatter. If you are in fact alive then your composite lifeID and its position-of-view together constitute your being regardless of your physical state, form, condition, or location in space-time. If the entanglement hypothesis accurately depicts the reality in this universe and the entanglement molecule exists, then it represents the most fundamental physical component of life as we know it. Like the Top-Quark, or the Higgs, the Ether or DNA, the entanglement molecule may someday be isolated and identified either in the cell or in the environment. or not. Either way, we may learn something along the way.

To date, the most promising structure yet discovered which displays some of the features and functions consistent with those predicted by the LINE hypothesis for the entanglement molecule (EM), while perhaps falling well shot of complete equivalence, is the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) complex. This photosynthetic antenna complex is the naturally occurring molecular structure responsible for the photosynthetic non-classical conduction observed in living plant cells via natural entanglement. In green algae, it operates to overcome the otherwise inefficient latency of classical mechanisms which would result in a devastating loss of anti-entropic information needed from sunlight for the continued evolution of viable hosts on this planet.

Likewise, a similar natural entanglement antenna complex describes the predicted entanglement molecule which instantiates the living individual to available hosts wherever they may emerge in this universe. This Entanglement is between the living hosts (cells) and a form of matter (metamatter) in Hilbert-space made accessible only by the non-locality, non-relativistic reach of natural entanglement. It is indeed a true testament to the amazing ingenuity and flexibility of nature that such an implementation is not only possible but naturally emerges, for life may not exist without it. This instantiation mechanism is the most plausible solution to the conundrum of individuality in this universe posed by the LINE scenario.

If the entanglement molecule indeed predated the cell then, structurally if not functionally, it must be of a different design than the FMO complex. The FMO is a protein-based structure assembled from complex amino acids and likely evolved within the cell here on earth or planets nearby. To predate the cell the EM must permit natural entanglement by utilizing a more fundamental elemental design. The entanglement molecule may be one with which we are already familiar.

The hypothesized entanglement molecule, a primordial arrangement of atoms, naturally establishes a shared information state with a form of matter hypothesized to exist outside of our space-time in Hilbert-space. Today it is suspected that gravity is as weak as observed in our space-time because it too exists partially or mostly outside of our space-time. However, gravity-like all known standard-model forces is governed and constrained by the laws of relativity and its' effects are therefore limited at or below the speed of light in this space-time. Therefore, changes in the suns’ gravitational influence, for example, take 8 minutes to reach the earth just as does the suns’ light. The only phenomenon known to science that demonstrates behavior that essentially subverts the current laws of relativity is entanglement, a type of quantum coherence. Natural entanglement is quantum entanglement implemented by natural structures like the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) complex or by the hypothesized entanglement molecule and is utilized in nature to great effect. Life is one such effect.

So what might be the origins and structure of the entanglement molecule? For starters, it is most likely to be one of a finite number of known interstellar molecules. These are molecules formed from stellar or interstellar processes rather than within ecosystems. There is a good chance that whatever the structure of the entanglement molecule may have been prior to the emergence of life on earth it may since have been transformed here on Earth to be incorporated into cellular structures such as in the DNA molecule or in the FMO complex. Much of the DNA molecule remains unknown to modern science and is sometimes referred to as DNA dark matter. This suggests that, like interstellar dark matter, DNA dark matter is also undefined. Nonetheless, this significant unknown portion of the molecule most influential to earth-life must be of primary interest in the search for the entanglement molecule; But what to look for? For guidance, I tend to begin my scrutiny with the structure of the FMO complex. This photosynthetic antenna complex is the naturally occurring molecular structure responsible for the photosynthetic non-classical conduction observed in living plant cells via natural entanglement. In green algae, it operates to overcome the otherwise inefficient latency of classical mechanisms which would result in a devastating loss of anti-entropic information needed from sunlight for the continued evolution of viable hosts on this planet, cross-referenced with types of known primordial molecules. Today, in our quest for life, we tend to search only for molecules that support our current understanding of the implementation of life in this universe, which are molecules that comprise the biological structures we can readily identify, this is of course as it must be. However, there may be a more effective approach.

This alternate approach requires an understanding of the instantiation of life by natural entanglement and the subsequent development of technologies based on its principles such as a conceptual entanglement telescope. Such a telescope would reveal areas of dense natural entanglement present in living entities throughout this universe in a manner similar to the way non-optical telescopes illuminate matter. Properly designed QE detectors when exposed to the open sky will permit us to see life throughout the universe as bright star-like spots of complexity. Each such spot reveals, not the density of matter at those locations, but rather the immensely concentrated density of information complexity present in living entities at those locations, complexity which exists in much greater density in living entities than in non-living ones. In nature how does the influence and density of informational complexity encoded in living entities compare to that of inanimate matter?

Our most powerful computing systems programmed with our best models running non-stop for months can barely model the folding of a basic protein. Step this concept up to the full expression of a complex protein not to mention the Ribosome which is the tiny factory that builds proteins in living organisms, step that up all the way to modeling a living bacteria, etc. This informational concentration of DNA and its systems, regardless of how we define them, is potent to the mathematics and therefore to the state of nature and each instance is a multiplier of this mathematical potency. Each instance is each DNA strand in each cell that has ever been created in the four-plus billion years that DNA has existed on Earth. Put in these terms you can begin to appreciate how earth life has contributed to nature as a very potent mathematical factory contributing to balancing the existential formula.

On the other hand, we are much more capable of modeling a star like our Sun or even a black hole which we all know are both physically much larger than a DNA molecule or a Ribosome or your cat. As I'm sure you can see size doesn't matter in this regard. Likewise, complexity can be deceptive to the human eye but is well defined in mathematical terms. The reason we are more able to model a Star is because the processes that implement a star and inanimate entities, in general, are far simpler in mathematical and informational complexity than those that define a protein to a bacteria. Modeling a star is only a few orders of magnitude more difficult than simulating the aerodynamics and thermodynamics of the Space shuttle. Simulating even single bacteria is far, far more complex.

The true measure of any species’ cognitive maturity is engendered by the accuracy of what it knows or believes it knows about its own living condition.

For decades it has been understood by modern science that far-reaching relocation and travel within this universe is fundamentally and practically prohibited by natural mechanisms, fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding. As is often the case, however, nature presents the solution to the problems it creates. Placement and relocation of the individual within this universe is a mechanism that must have been in place long before the evolution of living biological hosts like the cell.

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

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

Since ancient times humankind has felt endeared by certain properties, skills, or talents observed in the living forms all around us. Properties that are misconstrued to be fundamental identifiers of life and of all living beings, properties such as mobility, voice, speech, sight, memory, and biology as we know it.

The reason Thomas Edison could so enthrall spectators with his newly designed speaking device, which he dubbed the phonograph, is due to humankind's hitherto engrained, evolved, or learned, and largely subconscious understanding that a voice, for example, is the sound of a living being's soul. Although consciously many people knew better, nevertheless it wasn’t until they were able to actually witness the spectacle of a clearly inanimate device producing a voice did the rewiring of people’s minds and the accompanying enlightenment take place. So it was with self locomotion or mobility of inanimate objects which also took some getting used to by our not so distant ancestors, as did light detection describable as sight, so too with the introduction of retrievable memory and such surprising spectacles exhibited by inanimate nonbiological devices.

Then there is life. Today we have a much more detailed description of biology and its chemistry than did our forbearers. Nonetheless, we perhaps more than ever, continue to see nature’s implementation of life as we did those other skills, as a feature indigenous to and expressible only by the biological forms we currently see around us. With the exception of life, it is only the encroachment of our synthetic, non-biological technologies upon these formerly cherished skills and talents that have helped us to see nature’s true design. In so doing we now realize that these functions are not exclusively properties of living beings or of biology but rather examples of utilization and manipulation of more basic properties of nature such as temperature and pressure, light, chemical, electromotive, and ponderomotive forces, friction, entanglement, etc.

However, where life is concerned, and taking no example from the past, we continue to cling to the misconception that life is not a skill or talent comparable to speech or memory, a property that similarly evolved here on earth in biological form. Instead, we define life by the observed biology and chemistry of the forms we see around us. This is akin to defining speech, communication, memory, or vision by the description of your eyes, or larynx or neurons and their chemistry, or by the design of Edison’s phonograph, or by the intricate electrical designs of the cell phone. Life too is an evolved capability with a natural implementation abstracted from any particular biology or chemistry we may see around us. In nature, life has a fundamental implementation based on natural entanglement via a molecule that may have existed in nature long before life emerged, a molecule like so many others utilized by the cell to exceptional effect, the entanglement molecule. A molecule that may also be utilized in synthetic, perhaps non-biological, forms to create an independent genesis of life.

No matter how detailed or convincing the illusion of life may become in its implementation, for example in an android or computer or even in a biological entity, despite what your eyes may urge you to believe, each continues to be a non-living entity absent natures fundamental mechanism of life. An essential mechanism provided via natural entanglement between the properly implemented entanglement molecules within living cells located in this space-time with metamatter in Hilbert-space which together produce each unique living individual’s position-of-view (POV) and lifeID. This is the essential mechanism that permits any viable form to host an individual like yourself or your pet otter anywhere in our space-time. It is how you are where you are right now. It is the natural anti-entropic mechanism that permits any viable planet or species to host your life. By this hypothesized definition even the most convincingly implemented appearance and behavior of an entity not naturally entangled in this way will continue to be an inanimate entity. In contrast, a handheld brick such as a calculator instantiated by natural entanglement to establish a POV, despite all appearances, this unconvincing brick would in fact be a living being.

The day will shortly arrive when we are confronted as we previously have been, with a new implementation of entities that meet all of the aesthetic and behavioral misconceptions we now harbor about life, or alternatively ones that show no traditional evidence of life what so ever, absent an understanding of the true determinant of life natural entanglement, we will be ill-prepared to tell the difference.

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

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

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

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