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

Page 4 - 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
62
6
555
This may be of interest .

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. (POST #15)
 
May 8, 2022
178
3
105
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. (POST #15)
I always try to look at things from a most basic perspective. There is no irreducible complexity, therefore all research must start at its most fundamental origin, or be traced back to its fundamental origins.

From that perspective, the act of polymerization may be considered a form of stochastic growth of molecular structures. When these structures interact there may be dynamical reactions that produce entirely new compounds and polymers. With each evolution of greater complexity, new abilities spontaneously emerge and if beneficial to survival will eventually find a home in the greater species biochemical pool.

And as Robert Hazen explains some chemical interactions are self-duplicating, such as found in the ozone where a chlorine molecule destroys an ozone molecule but releases another chlorine molecule in the process.

To me, this appears as a proto-life process. Two objects interacting and creating a new object in the process.

One known reprocuctive complex polymer is the Krebs cycle and if I understand Hazen correctly at this point Darwinian evolution via natural selection becomes important . The cyclical dynamics may pick up random but compatible molecules and the resulting changes may offer a survival advantage in certain environments.

While it is true that the environment must have certain basic necessary ingredients at a local site, I don't believe the Universe is fine-tuned for life, but life is fine-tuned to local conditions. that may be found throughout the Universe on planets with some commonly found fundamental properties.

This is why life on earth alone ranges from Extremophiles like Iceworms that require sub-zero temperature or they melt, to Tardigrades like the Water Bear that can survive in almost environment including space, to Mayflies that only have 24 hrs to find a mate before they die.

I feel that Life is just another expression of dynamical biochemistry, and perhaps we could argue that humans themselves are microbiomes consisting of trillions of symbiotic bacteria, without which we would be unable to sustain our own body and die.

I look at the concept of Life in an abstract frame as just another expression of dynamic molecular behavior.

In Eukaryotic life, this ability is facilitated by the presence of microtubules and related filaments that enable the efficient function of homeostatic processes, as well as being the information sharing network for sensory experiences and evolving emergent consciousness, and perhaps most importantly provide accurate chromosome duplication during mitosis
 
Last edited:
May 8, 2022
178
3
105
Ran across this article . Has some interesting perspectives.

Reductionism and complexity in molecular biology
Marc H.V. Van Regenmortel1 (Author photo)
Author information
Summary
Although biology has always been a science of complex systems, complexity itself has only recently acquired the status of a new concept, partly because of the advent of electronic computing and the possibility of simulating complex systems and biological networks using mathematical models (Emmeche, 1997; Alm & Arkin, 2003).
Because complex systems have emergent properties, it should be clear from the preceding discussion that their behaviour cannot be understood or predicted simply by analysing the structure of their components. The constituents of a complex system interact in many ways, including negative feedback and feed-forward control, which lead to dynamic features that cannot be predicted satisfactorily by linear mathematical models that disregard cooperativity and non-additive effects. In view of the complexity of informational pathways and networks, new types of mathematics are required for modelling these systems (Aderem & Smith, 2004).
 
Jan 29, 2021
62
6
555
Galaxies do not evolve from dust;

The LINE hypothesis proposes that UTE’s instantiate galaxoids that typically evolve into galaxies. This places a minimum limit on the initial state (mass, size, gravitation, etc.) of galaxy formation to that of a typical galaxoid. Below this minimum only the central primordial black hole exists, having any possible size. Such primordial black holes that do not form a galaxoid could still rarely, circumstantially seed a new galaxy. After each UTE, galaxoids circumstantially emerge with different accumulations of information as its’ encompassing WOF halo. WOF halos having different masses and densities encompassing a central black hole forms galaxoids that begin their long evolution into galaxies. Hence, because galaxies don’t evolve from dust, galaxies will be observed to have larger than expected initial masses and sizes and will appear more evolved at the earliest observable stages of universal expansion.

The Tension In Cosmology;

Nimble minded astronomers and cosmologists will not need to think very deeply to identify one non-fixed constant, namely the Hubble constant. Explainable by the LINE hypothesized description of the UIE and UTE metaverse phenomena is the current observed inconsistencies in measurements of the value of the Hubble constant. Inconsistent estimates for the value of the Hubble constant derive from calculations based upon properties of the current CMB compared to calculations from measurements of stellar luminosity profiles. Inexplicably, each give sufficiently different values for the Hubble constant to raise concerns.


The LINE hypothesis proposes that the discrepancy in the current estimates of the Hubble constant is a consequence of the UIE which produced the universal first-light now referred to as the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The CMB encodes not only aspects of the UIE’s first-light but the current CMB also encodes the transition-light of all subsequent UTE phases. This is because aspects of the first-light will survive each UTE. Consequently, an improperly decoded CMB will not accurately describe the current post UTE universal expansion profile described as the Hubble constant.


The original (post-UIE, pre-UTE) CMB would predict the correct Hubble constant only for features observed within the initial phase of universal evolution. CMB profiles subsequent to the first-light of the initial universal expansion is called transition–light. Elder CMB’s will have been imprinted by the transition-light of each subsequent UTE. Additionally, stellar luminosity profiles are informed only by the previous universal event. Each, on its face, will inform a different value for the Hubble constant if not correctly considered in calculations and measurements taken within any phase of universal evolution, not only for the Hubble constant, but for any dynamic property of this universe.
 
Jan 29, 2021
62
6
555
Choice v. Life

Individual control over ones’ own body ought to be sacrosanct within any culture. Why? Because any abdication or usurpation of individual bodily sovereignty is one brick on the slippery road to total bondage, ergo; slavery. In the ignorant minds of some individuals too errantly indoctrinated within a wild culture, slavery may seem to be a viable state for other individuals. Nonetheless, it is only the ignorance of the true nature of one’s own living circumstances within nature's reinstantiation lottery that permits this cognitive dissonance to persist. The perception that you, and yours, will always remain in the form and circumstance you currently are or prefer is the fire in which wild minds burn. The actual natural description of life in this universe proposed by the LINE hypothesis suggests that permitting the curtailing and enslaving of individual bodily sovereignty, within any culture, is to enslave one’s self.


For this reason, a woman’s right to choose to give birth or not ought to be an inalienable right. Furthermore, a woman’s choice ought to be an informed choice. Within a wild culture, such as human cultures, a woman’s choice is not and has never been informed. In the history of human civilization, no one has understood the true nature of individual life in this universe. No one, and no woman, has ever understood the actual natural mechanism by which one lives. Hence, to date, a woman’s choice has been an uninformed choice. Understanding the mechanism by which individuals instantiate in this universe permits a woman to make an informed choice as to whether she will give birth or not. A woman’s ability and freedom to weigh her current circumstances against the reality that describes the current state of her species and her own prospects for reinstantiation to that species is what describes a woman’s informed choice.


For human beings, life is a process of individual instantiation. To grasp the natural instantiation mechanism, compare a living individual to an acrobat suspended from a trapeze. In this metaphor, a trapeze is a much too delicate rod suspended at both ends to fixed cables (LINE’s). In this analogy, the rod, like the host form, becomes more fragile with time spent supporting the acrobat and is also vulnerable to disease and misfortunes of circumstance therefore may last only for an arbitrarily short length of time. Hence, for the acrobat, you, the rod may remain viable for 9 decades, 9 years, or for 9 months, or less. Eventually, the rod that maintains the acrobats’ life LINE will fail and the acrobat, the individual will fall. It is this fall of individuality that we must understand to shed light on the critical topic of life and a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy or to give birth in her current circumstances.


Consider that suspended below every falling acrobat, every deceased individual, of which there will always be many, exists countless localized nets each metaphorically composed of crisscrossed LINES. Any of these available nets could catch an acrobat and break the acrobat's fall. These nets which could catch a falling acrobat are the extant host forms by which species are categorized within any viable habitat of which earths ecosystem is but one. Furthermore, the probability that any particular net will catch, ergo; instantiate a particular falling acrobat is informed by the metaphorical structure of the net and the size of the acrobat. Any acrobat may fall right through any net if both information structures aren’t conducive, in both state and time, to a catch. The effective structure of any net may be considered to be the spacing of the LINE’s that compose the net, essentially the holes in the net. As any acrobat falls, the individual’s effective state in nature that is relevant to a catch gets smaller as if the acrobat shrinks in size with time spent falling.


Which nets are ideal to catch a particular individual? This idealized scenario, though highly improbable, is very important to grasp the critically important natural mechanism of individual instantiation in this space-time. The ideal host form may be thought of as a net which, to the particular individual, has minimally sized holes or no holes at all, through which the falling acrobat may pass. The only host that could fulfill this demand is one’s most recent, now deceased host. Or alternatively, one that is as identical to one’s recent host form as possible. In practice, this describes a high-fidelity clone of one’s former host form. This ideal host would also need to exist within the LINE period (LPD). The LPD is the time during gestation when the gestating host is able to instantiate a new individual. Also, the acrobat must simultaneously be available in a state of falling, uninstantiated (dead). All of these factors must align in time and state (not space) for this idealized instantiation to occur. Needless to say, this idealized alignment of factors is naturally highly improbable. In reality idealized hosts are never available in state nor in time to one’s death. Consequently, reinstantiation is probabilistically frequent to any extant viable hosts as the state of any acrobats lifeID falls in its compatibility to its previous host and falls in size towards other naturally compatible nets in this universe.


The LINE hypothesis suggests that it is the individuals QEF and host history imprinted in metamatter called the LifeID that informs which nets are viable to catch and reinstantiate a particular falling acrobat. With time spent falling, the holes of other nets representing increasingly different compatible hosts, probabilistically becomes suitable to catch any acrobat. Further, in time, tunneling becomes a path for instantiation. The instantiation of any uninstantiated individual may occur to a largely incompatible host form via tunneling alone. The uninstantiated individuals’ LifeID may probabilistically, non-deterministically, tunnel in defiance of its encoded fidelity of teleportation (FT) to entangle any host form located anywhere in nature. Ergo, you may be human by tunneling alone, or by natures usual mechanism or by unbeknownst synthetic intervention. In a wild culture, no individual can know how one instantiated into their current circumstance in life.


Consider, that with each rotation of the earth there is some number of deceased individuals. Hopefully, there is also an adequate number of newly conceived viable human hosts to instantiate those same and perhaps a number of individuals new to the human form. The proportion of gestating hosts of a particular species to newly deceased individuals of that species daily, monthly or annually, is the proportion that informs which and how many individuals will instantiate into that species during that period. A number of seconds ago equal to your age you were but one of many such individuals within that second of time, seeking a new life, and so you will be again. Consequently, what is most important to individual life is to maintain the conception rate of ones’ species above its’ mortality rate. Thereby assuring that recently deceased humans, for example, have viable human hosts available for reinstantiation. Additionally, all homo sapien hosts are equal candidates to instantiate any formerly human lifeID based upon deep genetic alleles which informs ones FT and each individuals’ prospects for reinstantiation. Further, it is preferred, for your own sake, that each net, each human host that will instantiate you in your future, is a host that will have equal benefit within its culture to live the fullest life the culture has to offer to any individual therein.


In this regard human population, conception and mortality rates are factors important to the future of every human alive today. The more human nets there are, the better. While spontaneous events such as wars, natural disasters, i.e. pandemics can sharply and suddenly spike the human mortality rate in days, minutes or even seconds, the conception rate will only ever rise and fall relatively slowly over a period of years. This difference in the availability of viable human hosts could one day not only leave you out of the human experience, but will expose you to life as a non-human host.


If reinstantiating into your current species is what one desires in life then every viable host of that species is a net waiting to catch a falling acrobat. No matter the hosts culturally contrived demographic categorization. For humans, being human again should be of paramount importance. Furthermore, while to the individual, life span may seem to be important, it is not as important as instantiation to the human form, for any duration even for a duration less than 9 months after instantiation. Once instantiation to a host form has occurred, for any span of time, the preponderance of the benefit that living has to offer has been bestowed to the individuals’ LifeID. A benefit that informs ones’ future prospects for reinstantiation to the human form. Hanging on, as it were, to humanity is the prize that all human acrobats seek because to do otherwise is to fall into the depths of the wild. With this understanding a cultures’, and a woman’s choice, becomes informed. In a thriving prodigious procreative species within a thriving ecosystem, a woman’s choice is as informed as it is within a culture on the precipice of extinction. Be careful in the choices you make and when you make them. In a healthy ecosystem and species an aborted pregnancy is very soon remediated as there are many other viable hosts for instantiation for former and for new human individuals. Within a wild culture, this carousel of life is not one that any individual can avoid. So be mindful of the current state of life within ones’ ecosystem, and of a woman’s right to bodily sovereignty.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY