Entropy vs. Anti-Entropy (How DNA Defeats the Blackhole)

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by tonylang, Jan 28, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The metaphysics you attribute to cells is connected to water, since water is a continuum all the cells of the body share. What is unique about water is water forms hydrogen bonds, with other water and with the materials of the cell, to form a hydrogen bonded continuum.

    Hydrogen bonding is unique in that it can be both polar (a) and covalent (b) and can exist in each of these two states, with a slight energy hill between these two states. This situation makes hydrogen bonding a type of binary switch. Water can transmit binary information, simply by switching states, without braking the bond.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This binary switch information is not just information, but it also has a tangible physical component connected to other physical attributes of each state. Each of the two states of the hydrogen bonding; covalent or ionic, define different levels of enthalpy (internal energy), entropy (disorder) and volume. The volume has to do with the covalent state expanding the hydrogen bond like when ice expands when it freezes. A shift to covalent side of the switch can be used to muscle materials; water puffs up.

    What this means is the physical state of things dissolved and interfacing water, will impact the local energy, entropy and volume of the water defined by the hydrogen bonding, with this shape of things defining binary information. Conversely, binary information changes, can tweak the physical parameters of the local water and then the organics. Below are the two main units of water clustering. The higher density or condensed structure has higher entropy which can be useful for shape changing of protein. The collapse makes more room to move.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. tonylang Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    The entanglement molecule, a primordial arrangement of atoms, is hypothesized to naturally establish a shared information state with a form of matter which exists 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 effect is therefore limited at or below the speed of light in this space-time. Consequently, 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 which demonstrates behavior which 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 have originated from among a finite number of known interstellar molecules. These are molecules formed from stellar or interstellar processes rather than within evolved 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 have since been transformed and 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 which support our current understanding of the implementation of life in this universe, which are molecules which 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 will require 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. This conceptual device will reveal life in the cosmos in a manner similar to the way non-optical (infrared, x-ray, gamma-ray etc.) telescopes illuminate matter in the cosmos. 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 light. Each such spot reveals, not the density of matter at those locations, but rather the immensely concentrated density of information complexity (software) 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 barley model the folding of a basic protein. Step that 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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. tonylang Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    Today the world generally unites in a communal pride in the seminal achievement of Neil Armstrong as the first among humankind to set foot on a cosmological body other than the Earth. In this achievement we acknowledge the triumph of the human spirit and intellect to measure, understand, manipulate and control the laws of nature to implement a mobility of the living form through space-time unlike any that had previously been achieved. Humankind as a species like many other hosts for life in earth’s ecosystem has evolved a basic mobility of individuality implemented via our host forms functions and structures. This local mobility is evolved for movement through direct contact with the environment. Legs, wings, fins are some of the means by which the physical mobility of the living individual is achieved by species on earth. Additionally, humankind has realized great utility in further extending this basic capability with technology. Thus the mobility of individuality on human scales has been enhanced by wheels, airframes, engines and rockets. Our thoughts often do not extend or associate this mobility of our physical form with either the local or universal mobility of our position-of-view, that is the mobility of our individuality. We have a very limited scope of extrapolating many of the implementations around us, natural or otherwise, even those that we conceive and develop ourselves, to a context greater than our immediate utility and practical concerns. However with the accomplishments of NASA’s Apollo mission’s humankind has extended its reach beyond our usual scope and in so doing has opened a new realm of mobility of individuality that must be addressed and understood. Not only in technological terms but also for what the movement and relocation of Neil’s position-of-view (POV) to the Moon’s surface says to us as individuals about our living circumstances in this universe.



    We take as a foregone conclusion that life can exist anywhere in this universe so long as the resources needed to sustain it are present. This is a very complacent assumption despite the likelihood that it may very well be so. It is not too surprising that we make this assumption; after all, there are no examples to the contrary in any Earth or near Earth environment. In fact one of the underlying tenants of our present day scientific method, as implied by current measurements of the fine structure constant states that the laws of physics are upheld everywhere in this universe. This consistency offers a reasonably good basis for our certainty. Nonetheless life can be quite complicated and has many requirements and influences that are well understood, yet perhaps there are other factors critical to life yet to be discovered. We know most Earth life depends on proper sustenance (energy), water, oxygen, temperature and pressure levels to be maintained at least in the near term. We also have a longer term need for gravity or an equivalent force. Nevertheless life as we know it may yet have some undiscovered intrinsic dependency on properties in or near the area around Earth or around the Sun. Mission planners acknowledged this possibility when they sent the first ever Earth life into space on board a captured V-2 rocket on February 20, 1947. These original astronauts were a group of fruit flies, insects being as good a representation of Earth life as any other. This first volley into the unknown environment outside the Earth’s atmosphere was extremely dangerous. Not just in terms of the technological or known dangers inherent to extraterrestrial space due to its lack of the known required resources mentioned earlier but primarily because space could have proven to be fundamentally incompatible with a living entitys' instantiation, its being. So how do we know for near certain that Earth life can exist anywhere in this universe?


    Interestingly the best evidence to date for the universal mobility of individuality presented itself when Neil Armstrong pressed his boot into the soft silt of the moon’s surface. Neil Armstrong’s’ surviving his “giant leap for mankind” suggests that life as we know it is not utterly dependent on any resource intrinsic or unique to the Earth, or the very local space-time around it. For example we could have evolved with a dependence on Earth’s unique magnetic field configuration, or on Earth’s specific gravitational field intensity, or some other completely unknown and unrecognized property of either Earth itself or the space near to the Earth. If this was indeed the case the crew of Apollo 11, and the fruit flies before them, could have tragically deinstantiated, ceased to live once they passed some threshold or boundary somewhere between the Earth’s surface and the moon’s surface. Perhaps once the spacecraft passed some critical flux level in Earth’s magnetic field, or once the Earth’s gravitational field density dropped below some essential level. Each of the unsuspecting astronauts, human or fruit fly could have simply extinguished immediately or gradually like light bulbs whose electric current had been turned off. Perhaps their molecular bonds could have just dissipated due to some unknown property of space. There may yet remain some irreproducible property of our sun unknown to us that is critical to sustaining Earth life. After all Earth life has never been tested beyond the suns Helios-spheres. Presumably, each of these needs could ultimately be overcome and provided for by technology.


    Nonetheless the amazingly profound statement suggested by Neil Armstrong surviving his first step on the moon isn’t just that we can overcome the technological hurdles of space travel, but rather that nature in this universe permits individuality to exist elsewhere and likely everywhere; that not only the physical form, but the individuals first person position-of-view that is ones being ones natural entanglement ones instantiation is indeed mobile in this universe and perhaps throughout nature. Neil Armstrong’s giant step for mankind suggests that the individual POV can exist not just where it was instantiated, where it entangled its host form, but quite likely anywhere in this universe due to the unrestricted instantaneous universal ubiquity of natural entanglement. On the other hand, the irreversibility of extinction and evolution together with relativistic constraints mandate that the individual cannot be instantiated or rendered universally mobile by the physical forms made of local collections of atoms in this universe, because unlike NASA nature does not use spacecraft for the mobility of the individual.



    Comprehending the reality of one’s living circumstances begins with the realization that Neal Armstrong’s first step on the surface of the moon, or perhaps Yuri Gagarins’ first orbit around the earth or that the intrepid voyage of those first insects, demonstrated that the mobility of individuality exists in this universe. Mobility not defined by locomotion or travel of your current host form but by a fundamental property of nature with degrees of freedom much greater than that of matter. Realize that the instantiation of any individual, ones position-of-view, may be hosted anywhere in space-time by any viable environment which happens to emerge naturally or artificially on any planet orbiting any star. This convenient environment also includes the living hosts we refer to as species. The obstacles presented by travel involve movement of the matter based components of the instantiated individual through expanses of space-time small or large. Nature in its implementation of life circumvents this issue by implementing only the mobility of the POV, the component of the individual which is temporarily instantiated by natural entanglement to a locally available form. Ergo in nature the physical host, the species is always left behind.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    If Neil had stepped out of the LEM without a space suit he would have been deader than shit.

    The ONLY place we know that we can survive in the entire humongous universe is a tiny little sliver of space that surrounds the surface of the earth. If we employ our most sophisticated technology we can survive for very short periods of time outside of this tiny sliver.

    Your whole premise is flawed to the point of absurdity.
     
  8. tonylang Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    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 that is 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 then to develop technologies for the detection of the living POV and to 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 ILNE 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, lets 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.
     
  9. tonylang Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    Life as we know it on earth and in this universe has less to do with the needs and functions or with the biology of the living hosts that happen to emerge here or in any viable environment at any given point in time than we are prepared to admit. Indeed the living hosts which started life on earth, Cell-1 if you will, shared little with Neil Armstrong or with the fruit files that preceded him into space. In fact we don’t even need to go nearly that far back to find living hosts that defy our comfortable expectations of life as we know it. Nature will continue on this trajectory to shake our misconceptions of what life is in this universe so long as we cling to our limited views of life and individuality.

    Humankind's cultural (religious and scientific) teachings through the ages have left us with a profound tunnel vision centered upon our physical form. The point of this entire post is to present the idea that life is individuality. Further, individuality is mobile, and it is the natural implementation of individuality that is ultimately the description of life as we know it in this universe. It will take some time for humankind to come to terms with this reality.
     
  10. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    If you have for that then present it. If not you just have philosophically view point.
     
  11. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    I meant if you have evidence present it.
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,623
    After 10 pages of this guff, without any? I admire your optimism.

    He's just another internet nutcase.
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Entropy is a state variable in chemistry. A state variable means that for any given state of matter, there is a specific entropy value. For example, water at 25C has an entropy of 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1. This value is the same, no matter which lab measures it. Chemical state entropy is not random. If we change the state of the water to another temperature and pressure we get another specific amount of entropy. Or if I increase the entropy by X, this will define new specific state (s). This can be state or states based on how many variables we allow to change; temperature, versus temperature and pressure.

    This is different from information entropy, which is a spin-off definition from the original chemical definition of entropy. Information entropy is not a state variable. We cannot increase or decrease the entropy of information and end up with very specific states of information which are repeatable in all labs. Information entropy is more of an artifact of how we store and transmit information.

    Information will randomize with an entropy increase, while chemical matter will change to specific states. There is a tendency to confuse these two distinct applications of entropy, which can explain why so many assume evolution is driven by randomness. This assume life and evolution its based on information entropy. Life is based on chemicals, therefore an entropy increase; seconds law, means changes between states of matter. Life is ordered into states, by chemical entropy not randomized by information entropy.

    If there was such a thing as anti-entropy, it would act opposite to the second law. It would cause the entropy of all systems to lower over time. If we cool water, this will cause the water to change state into a lowered entropy state. This might be an example of anti-entropy.

    Anti-entropy as applied to chemicals would still be a state variable, but it would change chemicals in the opposite direction of entropy. Entropy will go from liquid to gas, while anti-entropy goes from gas to liquid. As steady state both directions occur with entropy staying at one level.
     
  14. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    That is not anti-entropy that is a decrease in entropy. Anti-entropy is a nonsensical term.
    Heat flows naturally from hot to cold. If I put a kettle on a burner to heat water it is not call that anti-heat!
     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,623
    As Spike Milligan said when someone turned out the lights, "Hey, who's turned on the dark?!"
     
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Naming conventions are not a natural truth, but an arbitrary thing.

    The second law implies that heat will flows from hot to cold. An increase in entropy needs energy/heat. The direction of heat flow, from hot to cold, provides energy for an entropy increase down stream.

    If you open the window in the winter, you will not just feel the heat going outside. You will also feel cold coming in. The cold coming in is seeking the heat so it can increase entropy.
     
  17. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    But words do have meanings. Words are used to communicate. Anti-entropy is nonsensical because it means the opposite of entropy and indicates a profound misunderstanding of what entropy is.
     
  18. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    The cold does not come into the house, cold air comes into the house. Energy is then transfered from the warm air molecules to the cold air molecules in the form of heat. Cold does not seek heat.
     
    ajanta and exchemist like this.
  19. tonylang Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    As The scientifically alert are well aware, in science there is no proof of any theory. There is only an accumulation of relevant information. If the preponderance of such relevant information leads a critical mass of individuals (or a mass of a few critical individuals) to deduce, feel, or simply believe that the relevant theory may be accurate within its measured scope, then that theory is promoted from then on, to the accepting masses, as a good theory.

    Acquiring information that is relevant to any naturally invasive idea first requires an understanding of that hypotheses’ proposals by individuals uniquely situated to gather the data of interest. This always occurs in its own time, its own decade, even in its own century. Insistence upon immediate proof or evidence of a theory is always an emotional outcry which for an idea such as this is never in short supply. The first and only currently available exhibit of evidence for the LINE hypothesis is you.

    Assuming one understands this, then the information you actually seek is that which disproves the LINE hypothesis in this universe. It is simply my contention that no such evidence will ever be found. As did many others, I too leave it to perpetuity to scientifically prove the instantiation of life by natural entanglement to be inaccurate.
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,623
    While it is true that theories are never proved true, that is irrelevant to what you are being asked for. And the rest of your post is nonsense.

    Generally what happens is evidence accumulates that existing theories are not adequate, hypotheses then follow which could account for the evidence, and further predictions are then made and tested in order to give support to the theory. Producing hypotheses which neither account for existing unexplained observations, nor offer any sort of testable prediction, are almost always unscientific in nature.

    The cry of "prove me wrong", which is what you are demanding here, is the hallmark of the crank. In science, the onus is on the one presenting a new hypothesis to show its utility. Can you offer any example from the whole history of science in which an ultimately successful hypothesis has been put forward without any attempt to show how it can improve the understanding of observational evidence, or else some idea of how it could be put to the test experimentally? I cannot think of any.
     
  21. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,993
    Fine, so do you have any evidence to support your conjecture?

    That's great, so do you have any evidence to support your conjecture?

    Super, so you are saying you have no evidence support your conjecture then?
     
  22. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    You don't need exotic physics to explain life. The reason many think you need to explain life with exotic ideas, like entanglements, is because of a lingering bad assumption in biology/evolution, connected to the theory of random events. Entanglements are not random events but are ordered. Your gut feeling of order is correct; random is wrong or way over due for an overhaul.

    Over 50 years ago it was proven that proteins fold with perfect folds. A protein is made of thousands of atoms and is held together with weak binding forces easily denatured. The random assumption assumed thermal movement will cause protein to fold with average folds, yet the hard data demonstrated that protein form perfect folds. This hard data shows that there is probability of 1.0 for protein folding. Random has nothing to do with protein folding. Life is about order.

    This erroneous assumption of biology, from 50 years ago, is still taught and used today, even though statistical theory never predicted this data and once the data was established as a scientific fact, it still cannot explain it 50 year later. You can't assume the status quo is not near sighted or short sighted.
     
  23. tonylang Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    The idea that there can be simple vs. exotic, types or detail of physics that may ‘explain’ or describe life or any other phenomenon of nature is a misconception. Nature is a holistic phenomenon. The laws of physics and everything which emerges from those laws are essential and inevitable aspects of what now exists. How humankind has chosen to explain or describe life at any given point in history is irrelevant. Our ancient ancestors may certainly describe life with fewer scientific concepts than would we, but would be no less certain of their description than are people today. In reality no aspect or entity of nature is unnecessary or uninvolved with any other aspect of this universe.


    We often choose to see what is most comfortable. Nonetheless, scientifically speaking, any individuals’ placement on this viable planet must be, in nature, every bit as ubiquitous and repeatable as would be ones placement on any other viable planet or environment no matter the distance in space or the passage of time which separates them. In other words, were you not in this form on this planet orbiting this star it would certainly be some other. Oddly enough many today seem to accept the possibility that biology could emerge elsewhere in this universe but dismiss in their formulation the individuality and its mobility necessarily described by that biology. In the absence of supporting evidence of any such perspective, to believe as most do is to believe in a Earth and human centric universe.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page