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

Status
Not open for further replies.
wellwisher said:
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.
Click to expand...
This confused post only shows that you still do not understand the very basics of evolution.
 
I understand that life formed from basic chemicals, using a series of chemical mechanisms that are not fully known to science. Nobody has formed life from scratch to prove how this may be possible.

Evolution gives this starter aspect of life a different name, biogenesis, as though abiogenesis is not connected to evolution. Evolution sort of uses a pseudo-creationism approach in the sense it begins life with replicators; Adam, but not before. They assume the god of chaos and chance forms replicators, then the clock of evolution begins; bi0-genesis book one chapter one.

That assumption is for convenience, but it is not due or support with sound logic. If we assume the more complete theory that biogenesis and evolution were/are connected, then principles of abiogenesis would still in affect and would be happening side-by-side with evolution. This approach is not pseudo-creatiomsm; humans (replicators) came from apes (abiogenesis), therefore we can learn from apes (abiogenesis) what it means to be human (replicators).

For example, water was around since day one. A water based approach would not need to use the current pseudo-creationism assumption; replicators; Adam, starts evolution.

Because of this conceptual flaw; pseudo-creatiomism that detaches from biogenesis, it is pointless or me to just parrot a tradition whose days are limited. It is a matter of time until this is obsolete.

The current traditions relies heavily on random changes to provide the choices for natural selection. I have no problem with natural selection, but random has conceptual flaws. The god of chaos and casinos is used to drive pseudo-creationism.

The point I was making in my post above, was proteins fold with perfect folds. This has been known for over 50 years. This large scale bulk aspect of life; 54% dry weight, has nothing to do with randomness. Does the random assumption, applied to life and evolution, have qualifiers for its applicability, since there is a major exception? I have never heard of this qualifiers, so is the black box approach deliberately misleading, if it does not openly defines its limits as applied to life?

What allow protein folding to be able to escape the black box laws of statistics? If we knew that, which I do, then the question is, does this or a similar mechanism apply to other things also assumed random; by tradition?

Any branch of science that preaches dogma for 50 years, without qualifies based on hard data exceptions, is not very trustworthy. You are correct that I am not indoctrinated to cheat science.
 
wellwisher said:
I understand that life formed from basic chemicals, using a series of chemical mechanisms that are not fully known to science. Nobody has formed life from scratch to prove how this may be possible.
Click to expand...
Life exists therefore not only is it possible it is a fact. The only other possibility is the supernatural which there is zero evidence for.

Evolution gives this starter aspect of life a different name, biogenesis, as though abiogenesis is not connected to evolution.
Click to expand...
Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is about how life changes. Abiogenesis is about how life began.

If you want I can address the rest of your incorrect take on evolution, science and logic, but you have been told this before. This is why you are forbidden from posting in the science section; because you spout pseudoscience.
 
origin said:
Life exists therefore not only is it possible it is a fact. The only other possibility is the supernatural which there is zero evidence for.

Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is about how life changes. Abiogenesis is about how life began.

If you want I can address the rest of your incorrect take on evolution, science and logic, but you have been told this before. This is why you are forbidden from posting in the science section; because you spout pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

So the theory of evolution is dissociated from earlier precursors? Doesn't that render it invalid?

Say you win the lottery and $100M. You decide to separate from your previous life and start a new life as a millionaire. You give yourself a different name. Does this new choice of time=0, mean all your biological and personality traits from the past can be ignored, starting today? Won't this be misleading, because it is a subjective starting point?
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
So the theory of evolution is dissociated from earlier precursors? Doesn't that render it invalid?
Click to expand...
Of course not, that's ridiculus. If the theory of evolution was a theory of how life begain you would have a point, but it isn't, so you don't.

Say you win the lottery and $100M. You decide to separate from your previous life and start a new life as a millionaire. You give yourself a different name. Does this new choice of time=0, mean all your biological and personality traits from the past can be ignored, starting today? Won't this be misleading, because it is a subjective starting point?
Click to expand...
You really love analogies, but that is not an analogy that is a strawman, a really crappy strawman.
 
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 ILNE (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, spicial, 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 as is usually the case 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 are 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 interact 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.
 
tonylang said:
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 ILNE (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, spicial, 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 as is usually the case 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 are 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 interact 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.
Click to expand...

I do wish you would blog off somewhere else. This is a real bore.
 
How does a living being with the capacity to do so begin to determine ones future 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 one’s 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. Ones prospects for reinstantiation describes 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 being 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 emerged 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 actually occurring may be quite low, or tenuous absent synthetic intervention. Factors competing for 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 in nature may be the occurrence of species and near species reinstantiations. Particularly 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 Earths ecosystem are 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 due to the localization of corporeal genetic material that is similar to ones existing imprinted metamatter. It is obviously possible for ones QEF to entangle hosts indigenous to other original ecosystems in this universe but 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 uninstantiated is inconsequential since the uninstantiated individual QEF is removed from space-time and devoid of experience.


The specific implications for human culture and survival of understanding the actual natural mechanism for the mobility of individuality in this universe is unpredictable but 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 own 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.
 
tonylang said:
How does a living being with the capacity to do so begin to determine ones future 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 one’s 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. Ones prospects for reinstantiation describes 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 being 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 emerged 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 actually occurring may be quite low, or tenuous absent synthetic intervention. Factors competing for 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 in nature may be the occurrence of species and near species reinstantiations. Particularly 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 Earths ecosystem are 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 due to the localization of corporeal genetic material that is similar to ones existing imprinted metamatter. It is obviously possible for ones QEF to entangle hosts indigenous to other original ecosystems in this universe but 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 uninstantiated is inconsequential since the uninstantiated individual QEF is removed from space-time and devoid of experience.


The specific implications for human culture and survival of understanding the actual natural mechanism for the mobility of individuality in this universe is unpredictable but 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 own 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.
Click to expand...
So basically you don't like the idea that you are going to die, so you have made this up to feel better about death. Good luck with that.
 
exchemist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Post# 194 describes one initial approach for testing predicted concepts fundamental to the LINE hypothesis.
 
tonylang said:
Post# 194 describes one initial approach for testing predicted concepts fundamental to the LINE hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Not unless you give criteria by which hypothesised entanglement cells can be distinguished. What physical attributes do they have that can be used for this?
 
The structure, evolution and extinction of living forms in any ecosystem can and should be investigated and understood for the survival, betterment and quality of life for all individuals in such ecosystems. However when the description of ones form clouds the understanding of ones individuality in this universe, science itself then becomes an inhibitor to scientific enlightenment and a harbinger of ignorance.


The really interesting question isn’t; can living hosts emerge in this universe? To that we already know the answer. The really interesting question is; can the individual, you, emerge elsewhere in this universe or elsewhere in nature writ large. The barrier to answering or even understanding this question is the false knowledge had by most that you are fundamentally defined by the cells, the matter that compose your host form, your body. Not realizing that like all living individuals, cellular and multi-cellular alike, your current life, your current instantiation is a temporary arrangement of natural law that allow another more permanent perhaps immutable natural entity that is the entanglement spectrum, when convenient to entangle metamatter with any available viable form that happens to emerge somewhere, anywhere in this universe or in existence. Further, and more urgently barring the availability of conclusive supporting empirical evidence of this reality, any suggestion that such an implementation can be purely natural and not at all supernatural, is met with calcified objection. While it is not the mission of the LINE hypothesis to agree or disagree with any particular point of view it fully disputes Vitalisim only to the extent that Vitalism arguably harbors ideas of a supernatural component to life. The LINE hypothesis presents a fully natural though not entirely ‘physical’ implementation for life and individuality.


Clearly species, living hosts, like all physical entities in this universe are fundamentally (even not so fundamentally) facades, manifestations of a non-physical entity, electromagnetism. Hence, and quite ironically the position held by so many that life is somehow completely ‘physical’ and does not involve elements that are decidedly non-physical are extremely misguided. Nature makes no such distinctions humankind tends to. The entanglement spectrum is the medium (physical or not) by which individuality is permeated throughout this universe. Species (another term for Earth-life) are but Earths brand of living hosts and are one component of this natural universal implementation of mobile, teleportable individuality.
 
tonylang said:
The structure, evolution and extinction of living forms in any ecosystem can and should be investigated and understood for the survival, betterment and quality of life for all individuals in such ecosystems. However when the description of ones form clouds the understanding of ones individuality in this universe, science itself then becomes an inhibitor to scientific enlightenment and a harbinger of ignorance.


The really interesting question isn’t; can living hosts emerge in this universe? To that we already know the answer. The really interesting question is; can the individual, you, emerge elsewhere in this universe or elsewhere in nature writ large. The barrier to answering or even understanding this question is the false knowledge had by most that you are fundamentally defined by the cells, the matter that compose your host form, your body. Not realizing that like all living individuals, cellular and multi-cellular alike, your current life, your current instantiation is a temporary arrangement of natural law that allow another more permanent perhaps immutable natural entity that is the entanglement spectrum, when convenient to entangle metamatter with any available viable form that happens to emerge somewhere, anywhere in this universe or in existence. Further, and more urgently barring the availability of conclusive supporting empirical evidence of this reality, any suggestion that such an implementation can be purely natural and not at all supernatural, is met with calcified objection. While it is not the mission of the LINE hypothesis to agree or disagree with any particular point of view it fully disputes Vitalisim only to the extent that Vitalism arguably harbors ideas of a supernatural component to life. The LINE hypothesis presents a fully natural though not entirely ‘physical’ implementation for life and individuality.


Clearly species, living hosts, like all physical entities in this universe are fundamentally (even not so fundamentally) facades, manifestations of a non-physical entity, electromagnetism. Hence, and quite ironically the position held by so many that life is somehow completely ‘physical’ and does not involve elements that are decidedly non-physical are extremely misguided. Nature makes no such distinctions humankind tends to. The entanglement spectrum is the medium (physical or not) by which individuality is permeated throughout this universe. Species (another term for Earth-life) are but Earths brand of living hosts and are one component of this natural universal implementation of mobile, teleportable individuality.
Click to expand...

So no answer to my question, then.
 
The search for the entanglement cell (EC) will require the isolation and identification of critical regions of cells that may be refereed to as ‘Follicle regions’. Follicle regions in this context describes isolated diminutive groups of cells which when sufficiently disrupted appears 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 a 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 to the discovery of the presence of genuine EC within the follicle group. These EC will be those, one or more cells which contribute only and exclusively to the observed subject termination. This process requires the discounting (not subjecting 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 premortem 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. Subjects viable for testing but not viable by current definitions, for independent growth.
 
tonylang said:
The search for the entanglement cell (EC) will require the isolation and identification of critical regions of cells that may be refereed to as ‘Follicle regions’. Follicle regions in this context describes isolated diminutive groups of cells which when sufficiently disrupted appears 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 a 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 to the discovery of the presence of genuine EC within the follicle group. These EC will be those, one or more cells which contribute only and exclusively to the observed subject termination. This process requires the discounting (not subjecting 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 premortem 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. Subjects viable for testing but not viable by current definitions, for independent growth.
Click to expand...

That incredibly absurd word salad has pushed me over the edge. Ignore is the only viable option. Bye.
 
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 effect ones surroundings which includes ones 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 ones position-of view that affords a clear distinction of self, being, and individuality via the acquired skill of self-awareness in each being capable to 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 guarantees the isolation (or forfeit) of the individual entangled state that is the position-of-view.


Most often the information of self which is acquired during a lifetime is dissipated from the individual upon deinstantiation. Some information of ones past instantiations may persist in the memories of other instantiated beings for a time or within indelable 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 ones 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.
 
Probing for the entanglement cell (EC) does not require physical contact with candidate cells. To 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 cellular internal function which could kill the cell but rather to disrupt only the heterodyning mechanism by which the EC maintain the emerged individual POV. The means of disrupting EC heterodyning are potentially numerous as the monogamy of this delicate state are 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 non physical 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 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. Or 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 cells remain instantiated alive as individual, functional cells. But 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. But the more immediate symptom of deinstantiation may 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top