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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ooh! tonylang posted something about science. Perhaps we can discuss that for a moment.
tonylang said:
The hypothesized entanglement molecule, a primordial arrangement of atoms, naturally establishes a shared information state with a form of matter called metamatter hypothesized to exist outside of our space-time within the Hilbert-space called the metverse.
Click to expand...
A Hilbert space is a mathematical abstraction. It sounds like you're imagining it to be like a physical space. That would be a category error.
tonylang said:
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.
Click to expand...
Suspected by whom? Anybody whose opinion is worth paying attention to?
tonylang said:
However, gravity like all known standard-model forces is governed and constrained by the laws of relativity and their effects are therefore limited at or below the speed of light in this space-time.
Click to expand...
The local curvature of spacetime affects things here immediately, regardless of whether whatever it was that originally caused that curvature is far away. Sure, changes to gravity propagate at the speed of light (probably), but if you're considering a static gravitational field, its "effects" in causing masses to fall down and so on are, in effect, instantaneous. That's what relativity says, anyhow. A quantum theory of gravity would look a little different.
tonylang said:
The only phenomenon known to science which demonstrates behavior which essentially subverts the current laws of relativity is entanglement, a type of quantum coherence.
Click to expand...
In what way(s) do you understand entanglement to subvert the laws of relativity? Can you explain?
tonylang said:
Much of the DNA molecule remains unknown to modern science and is sometimes referred to as DNA dark-matter.
Click to expand...
Huh? The entire human genome has been sequenced, so the whole molecule is known. We still have a lot to work out about what all those genes do, exactly. Is that what you meant?
tonylang said:
Our most powerful computing systems programmed with our best models running non-stop for months can barley model the folding of a basic protein.
Click to expand...
Actually, AI analysis has effectively solved the protein folding problem, as far as I am aware. It was in the news recently. It's a lot faster now than it used to be. Maybe you're a little out of date on this?
tonylang said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sheer size is not really the deciding factor, as you're no doubt aware. A star is, in lots of ways, quite a simple thing. Our Sun, for instance, mostly consists of hydrogen ions buzzing around, along with some helium. The main processes that determine its characteristics are reasonably well understood. They include nuclear fusion, gravitation, the physics of gases and plasmas and so on. Of course, like most things, the more your drill down into the nitty gritty, the more complexities and nuances you tend to find. For instance, over 80 elements have been detected in the Sun, even though 78 of them occur in relatively minute quantities compared to H and He. But the Sun is, at a crude level of description, a big homogeneous ball of gas. One hydrogen ion is very like every other hydrogen ion. In contrast, the sequences of bases in a DNA molecule are many and varied; they encode instructions for building things that perform many different biological functions.
tonylang said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's good to see that we appear to agree on this point, at least.
tonylang said:
The theory of instantiation by natural entanglement proposes that all that you are experiencing at this moment including the body you’re in, and the reality you see as this universe, is a real-time rendering of a set of quantum wave functions of state (Hamiltonians) or qsf’s.
Click to expand...
That's the same thing that normal, run-of-the-mill quantum theory says, too, more or less.
 
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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
James R said:
Ooh! tonylang posted something about science. Perhaps we can discuss that for a moment.

A Hilbert space is a mathematical abstraction. It sounds like you're imagining it to be like a physical space. That would be a category error.

Suspected by whom? Anybody whose opinion is worth paying attention to?

The local curvature of spacetime affects things here immediately, regardless of whether whatever it was that originally caused that curvature is far away. Sure, changes to gravity propagate at the speed of light (probably), but if you're considering a static gravitational field, its "effects" in causing masses to fall down and so on are, in effect, instantaneous. That's what relativity says, anyhow. A quantum theory of gravity would look a little different.

In what way(s) do you understand entanglement to subvert the laws of relativity? Can you explain?

Huh? The entire human genome has been sequenced, so the whole molecule is known. We still have a lot to work out about what all those genes do, exactly. Is that what you meant?

Actually, AI analysis has effectively solved the protein folding problem, as far as I am aware. It was in the news recently. It's a lot faster now than it used to be. Maybe you're a little out of date on this?

Sheer size is not really the deciding factor, as you're no doubt aware. A star is, in lots of ways, quite a simple thing. Our Sun, for instance, mostly consists of hydrogen ions buzzing around, along with some helium. The main processes that determine its characteristics are reasonably well understood. They include nuclear fusion, gravitation, the physics of gases and plasmas and so on. Of course, like most things, the more your drill down into the nitty gritty, the more complexities and nuances you tend to find. For instance, over 80 elements have been detected in the Sun, even though 78 of them occur in relatively minute quantities compared to H and He. But the Sun is, at a crude level of description, a big homogeneous ball of gas. One hydrogen ion is very like every other hydrogen ion. In contrast, the sequences of bases in a DNA molecule are many and varied; they encode instructions for building things that perform many different biological functions.

It's good to see that we appear to agree on this point, at least.

That's the same thing that normal, run-of-the-mill quantum theory says, too, more or less.
Click to expand...
A wild culture, at every point in its history, remains entrenched in what it thinks it knows about its living circumstances and will defend its ignorance against all comers until the wild culture eventually transforms or perishes.
 
tonylang said:
A wild culture, at every point in its history, remains entrenched in what it thinks it knows about its living circumstances and will defend its ignorance against all comers until the wild culture eventually transforms or perishes.
Click to expand...
Do you want to talk about science, tonylang, or do you just want to blog your Grand Theory of Everything?

Are you entrenched in what you think you know about your living circumstances, or is that a fault that only the rest of us suffer from?

Will you defend your ignorance against any comers? Or do you just want to talk at people rather than with them?
 
James R said:
Do you want to talk about science, tonylang, or do you just want to blog your Grand Theory of Everything?

Are you entrenched in what you think you know about your living circumstances, or is that a fault that only the rest of us suffer from?

Will you defend your ignorance against any comers? Or do you just want to talk at people rather than with them?
Click to expand...
I think that question was answered in 2017, by you, actually:-

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

Within this space-time we are all too familiar with aspects of matter which are exclusionary in nature, that is, properties which enforce a singleton behavior to the way all matter based entities occupy this space-time. In short no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. When you...
www.sciforums.com www.sciforums.com
 
James R said:
Do you want to talk about science, tonylang, or do you just want to blog your Grand Theory of Everything?
Click to expand...
Loathe as I am to even think the idea, Tony might be served better if he started a new thread for each discrete idea of his. Otherwise, as we see, he'll just keep cross-referentially jumping from one word salad to the next in a big ring.

Of course, now that I think about it, that won't fix anything. He'll just refer farther afield to his other threads for his pet ideas.

nm
 
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.
 
James R said:
Ooh! tonylang posted something about science. Perhaps we can discuss that for a moment.

A Hilbert space is a mathematical abstraction. It sounds like you're imagining it to be like a physical space. That would be a category error.

Suspected by whom? Anybody whose opinion is worth paying attention to?

The local curvature of spacetime affects things here immediately, regardless of whether whatever it was that originally caused that curvature is far away. Sure, changes to gravity propagate at the speed of light (probably), but if you're considering a static gravitational field, its "effects" in causing masses to fall down and so on are, in effect, instantaneous. That's what relativity says, anyhow. A quantum theory of gravity would look a little different.

In what way(s) do you understand entanglement to subvert the laws of relativity? Can you explain?

Huh? The entire human genome has been sequenced, so the whole molecule is known. We still have a lot to work out about what all those genes do, exactly. Is that what you meant?

Actually, AI analysis has effectively solved the protein folding problem, as far as I am aware. It was in the news recently. It's a lot faster now than it used to be. Maybe you're a little out of date on this?

Sheer size is not really the deciding factor, as you're no doubt aware. A star is, in lots of ways, quite a simple thing. Our Sun, for instance, mostly consists of hydrogen ions buzzing around, along with some helium. The main processes that determine its characteristics are reasonably well understood. They include nuclear fusion, gravitation, the physics of gases and plasmas and so on. Of course, like most things, the more your drill down into the nitty gritty, the more complexities and nuances you tend to find. For instance, over 80 elements have been detected in the Sun, even though 78 of them occur in relatively minute quantities compared to H and He. But the Sun is, at a crude level of description, a big homogeneous ball of gas. One hydrogen ion is very like every other hydrogen ion. In contrast, the sequences of bases in a DNA molecule are many and varied; they encode instructions for building things that perform many different biological functions.

It's good to see that we appear to agree on this point, at least.

That's the same thing that normal, run-of-the-mill quantum theory says, too, more or less.
Click to expand...
The foundation of the universal mobility of individuality lies in the perpetual relative motion of your atoms through space.
 
A final one with a bit of me in there.

"Quantum consciousness in the universe is entangled in spontaneous fulfillment"​

 
Pinball1970 said:
Are you using the Deepak Chopra word generator?

wisdomofchopra.com

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator

Random Deepak Chopra quotes generated at www.wisdomofchopra.com
wisdomofchopra.com wisdomofchopra.com

Example here "Eternal stillness is inherent in existential silence"
Click to expand...
“Perpetual relative motion of your atoms through space” would seem to mean no more than that we are made of matter, seeing as our atoms move, due to zero point motion, even at absolute zero. So quite meaningless.
 
This may be more interesting on the evolution of a living individual. This the stuff of living organisms.

From above link

DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF THE PROKARYOTIC AND EUKARYOTIC CYTOSKELETON​

In the following section, the dynamic properties of the prokaryotic and eukaryotic cytoskeleton are compared. Prokaryotic filament-forming systems show remarkable properties that, in many respects, prefigure the dynamic, self-organized properties of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton
Click to expand...



(Fig. 4).1716608219287.png
Dynamic properties of the cytoskeleton. Dynamic properties and self-organized patterns of the prokaryotic (A-F), and eukaryotic (G-K) cytoskeleton. (A) Filament nucleation by a dimeric nucleus, (B) dynamic instability, (C) filament capping, (D) treadmilling, (E) bipolar growth of antiparallel filaments, and (F) higher-order structures, such as filament pairs, asters, meshes, sheets. Eukaryotes, in addition, display (G) filament branching, (H) dynamic overlap of antiparallel filaments, (I) spindle and asters, (J) filament severing, and (K) actin networks, axoneme, and basal bodies.

The dynamic features of prokaryotic filaments include filament nucleation (Lim et al. 2005), polymerization and depolymerization, dynamic instability (Garner 2004), treadmilling (Larsen et al. 2007), directional polarization with plus and minus ends (Larsen et al. 2007), the formation of higher-order structures (Szwedziak et al. 2012), and force generation by filament growth, shrinkage, or bending. These features enable prokaryotic filaments to perform various functions such as the positioning of membranous organelles, chromosome and plasmid segregation, cell-shape changes, cell division, and contribution to the mechanical integrity of the cell (Wang et al. 2010).
Click to expand...
The eukaryotic cytoskeleton shares all of the above features with the cytomotive filaments of prokaryotes (Fig. 4), but evolved additional features (Table 1). First, the dynamic properties shared between prokaryotes and eukaryotes are discussed. Then, an overview is given of the unique properties of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton that represent evolutionary innovations during the origin of eukaryotes.
Click to expand...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Origin and Evolution of the Self-Organizing Cytoskeleton in the Network of Eukaryotic Organelles

The eukaryotic cytoskeleton evolved from prokaryotic cytomotive filaments. Prokaryotic filament systems show bewildering structural and dynamic complexity and, in many aspects, prefigure the self-organizing properties of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton. Here, ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
James R said:
Do you want to talk about science, tonylang, or do you just want to blog your Grand Theory of Everything?
Click to expand...
tonylang said:
The foundation of the universal mobility of individuality lies in the perpetual relative motion of your atoms through space.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're incapable of having a discussion with another person, unfortunately.

Best wishes for the future, tonylang.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top