Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[tonylang]

The LINE Scenario: A Thought Experiment;

Earth is gone. Complements of some natural occurrence, you name it. Perhaps a primordial black hole or giant rogue planet that happens to be passing through this solar system which sends the Earth into direct collision with Jupiter. Or perhaps there is an immense solar flare that perturbs Earths' orbit, sending our magnificent crucible for life careening into the sun. Result? All that you, and I, and your pet otter were, every cell and every DNA molecule, every atom that was on, or in the Earth, is now ionized nuclear fuel within the sun. The Darwinian evolved chemistry and biology that many fall back upon to describe life on Earth, particularly human life, has ceased to exist in this solar system. Along with its thermodynamically described chemistry and biological processes once used to describe the entirety of Earths' ecosystem.

Additionally, imagine if you will that there is life elsewhere in this universe. Let us imagine there exists at least one other evolved ecosystem (ECO-2) capable of hosting Darwinian life. Different from Earth but governed by the same laws of physics and biology and thermodynamic processes that manifested Earths' ecology. This planet orbiting a viable star may be located anywhere in this universe since the laws of physics are expected to be consistently applied throughout. Also for this anecdote, let us say that this other bastion of life is some 10 billion light-years from Earths' sun. A distance so vast it would take much longer than the age of the big-bang to relativistically travel that distance, assuming, of course, there were any classically defined remnants of ones' biology left to make the journey.

The question becomes; could you or I or any individual formerly hosted by Earth's ecology ever find oneself a part of ECO-2s' ecology? Is the nature of life in this universe such that one could at some point find oneself naturally born to ECO-2 in the form of a species indigenous (present or future) to ECO-2, just as we were born on Earth to species indigenous to Earths' ecology? If one adheres solely to the classically understood, thermodynamically described, relativistically constrained mechanisms to explain life writ large then you are forced to say no, and in so doing you would necessarily be Earth and human-centric as one discounts the rest of the cosmos. Because in nature, what is possible here is necessarily possible elsewhere, ergo; if you can live here, you can live anywhere. And yet, clearly, some aspect of what biologically, thermodynamically, chemically, defined ones' singular existence on Earth, must relativistically (Below the speed of light) travel to bridge the unbridgeable distance between your last physical location, Earths' solar system, and ECO-2s'.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, tonylang,

That's very interesting thought experiment and question! Thank you for posting it!


Any question or idea or thought that involves the concept of self is going to inherently be very spiritual (by definition) and open a can of worms philosophically. In other words, the conversation instantly gets into the weeds of both philosophy and spirituality the moment the concept of the self is referenced at all.

That generally includes any question, argument, statement, or post that contains any of these words or any like them: self, itself, himself, herself, the self, you, me, I, consciousness, true self, your true self, my true self, the real you, the real me, etc.

Generally, anytime anyone uses any one of those words or phrases they are deep in the trenches of both philosophy and spirituality.

And, don't misunderstand my words above: epistemologically, I am extremely skeptical. I aggressively use Occam's Razor. By the word 'spirit', I just mean consciousness, the one thing we know exists more than anything. 'Spiritual', thus, just means 'of or related to consciousness'.

My book, In It Together, explains in detail the concept of (as it calls it) "The Two Yous".

Accordingly, any question that involves any of those self-related words (e.g. me, you, I, itself, myself, etc.) has at least two answers that can be seemingly opposite but both be equally true and right. That's not to say it's a matter of opinion or subject. No. It can be a 100% objective question with 100% objective answers, but the answers are word-for-word opposites.

It's like asking if the weapon-having snake is armed.

One person may say that yes, the snake is armed. Another may say no, the snake is not armed. Both may be objective statements that are objectively correct, despite being opposites.

Due to the equivocality of language, the question can have opposite equally right answers because it has opposite equally valid interpretations. The same way the word 'armed' can mean two different things, the word 'self' (or 'you') can mean (at least) two very different things.

Neither way of using the word is right or wrong; human language is just equivocal like that.

There certainly could be many atom-by-atom copies of "Eckhart Aurelius Hughes" on atom-by-atom copies of Planet Earth that are each scattered through the universe (and/or through all the verses of the multiverse if there is a multiverse). In fact, if the universe is infinite, then it's practically guaranteed that there are infinite exact atom-by-atom copies of Planet Earth each with their own atom-by-atom copy of "Eckhart Aurelius Hughes". In analogy, if you have an infinite series of random numbers, then not only (1) will any pattern of numbers will appear in that series, but also (2) it will appear infinite times in that infinite series.

But then you can ask, "Am I Eckhart Aurelius Hughes? Is this particular atom-by-atom arrangement of atoms me? If this body we call Eckhart Aurelius Hughes was vaporized but then re-built atom-by-atom into an exact copy of what it was before it was vaporized, would I still exist?"

Those questions are like asking, "is the weapon-owning snake armed?"

One who has read my book, In It Together, will be able to answer those questions easily, as well as easily answer any others like them.

For the real me, the answer is that I am not Eckhart Aurelius Hughes except in the sense that I am also Eckhart's son Tristen and his daughter Amaya and Socrates and Hitler and each lion and each antelope, and every conscious person and conscious creature on every planet everywhere.

In terms of the unreal me(s), i.e. the other me(s), they die and are reborn in a slightly different image all the time.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Surabhi Rani]

The concept is clear to me. The core idea of this thought experiment is 'the real me' or the self or the consciousness. It is unchangeable. If this body was vaporized but then rebuilt atom by atom into an exact copy of what it was before it was vaporized, it would still exist because the inherent spirit is universal in nature.

[Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango]

The concept of self exists within you but thar self can also mean something else. I love your answer to his question

[tonylang]

Your responses are appreciated.
The proposal being made is that if you can live in one viable habitat, i.e. Earth, then the very laws of physics that guide our scientific method demand that you can also live in any other viable habitat i.e. ECO-2 in this universe. Ergo; Earth is not special, at least not that special. The distance factor (10B LY) is the interesting bit. How can one be naturally reinstantiated (born) elsewhere regardless of distance and with no physical travel (no comets or spacecraft or photons from Earth can reach ECO-2)?

The trouble most will have with this realization is one's individuality has always been misperceived to be instantiated by one's host form, one's species. However, the atoms and molecules that compose your body, is a part of the current indigenous ecosystem, Earth or ECO-2. The demand this realization makes upon all cognizant living beings is the acceptance of the abstraction of one's current host form (body) from your universally mobile position of view (POV), one's individuality. This implies the universal mobility of individuality and demands a natural, scientifically describable mechanism for its implementation. Earth's, ECO2's and all viable ecosystems and their individuals are in perpetual motion through space. Velocities and distance between viable habitats and their indigenous host forms, great or small, are thereby relative and necessarily inconsequential to the instantiation of individuality.

[Sushan]

The thought experiment you've described challenges us to consider the nature of life beyond Earth and the fundamental principles that define it. Philosophically, it raises profound questions about identity, continuity, and existence across cosmic scales. If life on Earth can emerge and thrive under specific conditions, then theoretically, similar processes could manifest elsewhere in the universe, governed by the same physical laws. However, the transfer of one's consciousness or life essence from Earth to another ecosystem light-years away, like ECO-2, confronts the limits of our understanding of biology and physics. Scientifically, classical mechanisms describe life as confined to its original ecological context, making such a transfer improbable under current understanding. Yet, this scenario invites us to ponder deeper philosophical implications about life's universality and our place within the cosmos.

[tonylang]

Consider that devices such as radio, TV, smartphones, etc. composed of inanimate atoms are engineered to instantiate certain degrees of freedom (electromagnetic spectrum) of the space such devices instantaneously occupy as information programming (sounds, sights, data, etc.) even as such devices perpetually transition with Earth, ECO2, Sun, and galaxy through space. Similarly, living host forms; proto-cells, cells, amoeba, insects, fish, humans, whales, etc. composed of inanimate atoms have naturally evolved to temporarily instantiate certain degrees of freedom of the space such viable forms instantaneously occupy as individuality, 'You'.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Consider that devices such as radio, TV, smartphones, etc. composed of inanimate atoms are engineered to instantiate certain degrees of freedom (electromagnetic spectrum) of the space such devices instantaneously occupy as information programming (sounds, sights, data, etc.) even as such devices perpetually transition with Earth, ECO2, Sun, and galaxy through space. Similarly, living host forms; proto-cells, cells, amoeba, insects, fish, humans, whales, etc. composed of inanimate atoms have naturally evolved to temporarily instantiate certain degrees of freedom of the space such viable forms instantaneously occupy as individuality, 'You'.

Yes, a very common analogy often given by many neuroscientists and philosophers to explain a possible conjecture of the nature of consciousness (a.k.a. self-hood or spirit-having-ness) is that of a radio, where the brain is the analogue of the radio, but the consciousness is like the music and/or the pattern of waves in the electromagnetic field that exist even if the radio is off or broken or not yet made or altered (e.g. bass turned up, or volume turned down). In that model (which may or may not be an accurate analogy), the brain/body acts like a receiver and/or transformer that can be tuned, and thus it can easily be mistaken as primarily generating the music it plays and can hide the realer and more fundamental invisible and indirect thing(s) of which it is just one temporary receiver/transformer. It's like mistaking the lense of one's glasses as actually containing what is being seen by the eyeball looking through them.

One can imagine many different radios can be playing the same one station, with the electromagnetic waves that make up the music they all are playing being something singular that will still exist and be unaffected even if all the radios are destroyed or heavily altered.

This is where the value of the concept of "The Two Yous" from my book is very useful and can make talking about these kinds of things much easier and clearer for all involved. One of the two yous is the electromagnetic field and/or radio station that the radios (if they exist) are receiving differently and each playing slightly differently. The other of the two yous is one of the infinite radios playing that same one station from that same one omnipresent electromagnetic field.

This is a very intriguing topic. Thank you for posting about it!


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[tonylang]

You are very welcome. Past thinkers on the hard problem of individuality often fly close to the proverbial flame of truth on this topic but never land on it. The LINE scenario proposes that individuality is form and location agnostic hence is universally mobile. If individuality is indeed universally mobile as the Earth's and ECo2's relativistic motion through the cosmos demands, then the DOF of occupied space by which living forms instantiate individuality is both non-local and monogamous (one singleton instance of a specific DOF (individual) at a time). Hence, cannot be the electromagnetic spectrum (EMF). The EMF is non-monogamous, TVs, radios, etc. can instantiate the same DOF of the EMF at the same time, so we can all enjoy the World Cup simultaneously. Also, the EMF is local (restricted by the speed of light). Individuality, by definition, is monogamistic (one 'You' at a time, hence death). Consequently, to instantiate individuality in any frame of reference (Per Einstein's relativity) individuality must be non-local (not restricted by the speed of light). Also, to understand the fundamental nature of individuality in this universe, for now, forget all complex forms (especially humans). If we can't scale this mountain by only considering the single living cell or proto-cell then we are on the wrong path. Life, and individuality began on Earth some 4 billion years ago, no tree of life or brains existed then.

[Gertie]

The LINE Scenario: A Thought Experiment;

Earth is gone. Complements of some natural occurrence, you name it. Perhaps a primordial black hole or giant rogue planet that happens to be passing through this solar system which sends the Earth into direct collision with Jupiter. Or perhaps there is an immense solar flare that perturbs Earths' orbit, sending our magnificent crucible for life careening into the sun. Result? All that you, and I, and your pet otter were, every cell and every DNA molecule, every atom that was on, or in the Earth, is now ionized nuclear fuel within the sun. The Darwinian evolved chemistry and biology that many fall back upon to describe life on Earth, particularly human life, has ceased to exist in this solar system. Along with its thermodynamically described chemistry and biological processes once used to describe the entirety of Earths' ecosystem.

Additionally, imagine if you will that there is life elsewhere in this universe. Let us imagine there exists at least one other evolved ecosystem (ECO-2) capable of hosting Darwinian life. Different from Earth but governed by the same laws of physics and biology and thermodynamic processes that manifested Earths' ecology. This planet orbiting a viable star may be located anywhere in this universe since the laws of physics are expected to be consistently applied throughout. Also for this anecdote, let us say that this other bastion of life is some 10 billion light-years from Earths' sun. A distance so vast it would take much longer than the age of the big-bang to relativistically travel that distance, assuming, of course, there were any classically defined remnants of ones' biology left to make the journey.

The question becomes; could you or I or any individual formerly hosted by Earth's ecology ever find oneself a part of ECO-2s' ecology? Is the nature of life in this universe such that one could at some point find oneself naturally born to ECO-2 in the form of a species indigenous (present or future) to ECO-2, just as we were born on Earth to species indigenous to Earths' ecology? If one adheres solely to the classically understood, thermodynamically described, relativistically constrained mechanisms to explain life writ large then you are forced to say no, and in so doing you would necessarily be Earth and human-centric as one discounts the rest of the cosmos. Because in nature, what is possible here is necessarily possible elsewhere, ergo; if you can live here, you can live anywhere. And yet, clearly, some aspect of what biologically, thermodynamically, chemically, defined ones' singular existence on Earth, must relativistically (Below the speed of light) travel to bridge the unbridgeable distance between your last physical location, Earths' solar system, and ECO-2s'.

This looks like a variation of the Star Trek Transporter conundrum. If you stepped into the transporter and your body was destroyed, but different particles were assembled somewhere else which exactly mimic those of your now destroyed body - would you step into the transporter?

I'd need to know the answer to the mind-body problem before I risked it. It might be that my consciousness is transferable if particles identically configure elsewhere through some means which exactly mimic my body, but we have no testable theory which supports the possibility.

However it seems more likely to me that a new conscious person just like me would be created, rather than my consciousness is transferred to another bodily vessel.

Here's a couple of things which sway me.

First neural correlation. We can now identify using scanners that my specific body's neuron interactions correlate with my conscious experience. Not with yours, not with atoms floating around nearby. My body's here-and-now neurons apparently correlate with my here-and-now experience.

Secondly, I can play out the thought experiment a little differently, and not die when I step into the transporter, my physical body remains intact. And I decide not to bodily travel to ECO2. The atoms located on ECO2 are still assembled in an exact copy of my body, neurons and all. So now there are two identical gertie bodies (for a moment at least), both with identical brains. And presumably both with the same memories, personality, emotions, loves and hates, etc.

Are they both me? I don't think so. Because the next move either of us makes will change our brains, and we'll go on to live different physical and conscious/experiential lives.

So it seems like my conscious experience is attached in some way to this specific body.

Tho as I say, without an answer to the elusive (perhaps insoluble) mind-body relationship, we can't know for sure what would happen.

[Jeff Kanda]

Hi Tonylang,
Welcome and thanks for the fascinating and thought provoking question.

I read somewhere that between the next 4 to 6 billion years, our Galaxy (the Milky Way) will collide with Andromeda Galaxy. If this happens, and I don't wish so, I believe we will all vaporize from the explosions of stars.
We have known Jupiter to be a failed star and this is what makes it absorb the heavenly bodies that aim earth and thus it is always protecting us. However, this time, I think Jupiter may absorb our planet, if not the sun. But before this happens, if we will have made advances in space exploration, we may have space ships that might prevent the human species from extinction.

Back to your question, based on what we know about life, it would be impossible for someone or something from the Earth's ecology to become part of ECO-2 through natural processes.
This is because of the uniqueness of the Earth's chemistry. All living things have very specific elements like Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen, with complex DNA proteins. These elements could be existing elsewhere but not in the exact combination as in our planet. Life in ECO-2 could be based on an entirely different chemistry, and it could not be compatible with ours on earth.
Naturally, Earth's exact life forms can't exist elsewhere in the universe or the multiverse. But if an intelligent species exists in ECO-2, and they somehow get to how to rearrange these elements, ECO-2 will be our new home!

[tonylang]

The LINE Scenario: A Thought Experiment;

Earth is gone. Complements of some natural occurrence, you name it. Perhaps a primordial black hole or giant rogue planet that happens to be passing through this solar system which sends the Earth into direct collision with Jupiter. Or perhaps there is an immense solar flare that perturbs Earths' orbit, sending our magnificent crucible for life careening into the sun. Result? All that you, and I, and your pet otter were, every cell and every DNA molecule, every atom that was on, or in the Earth, is now ionized nuclear fuel within the sun. The Darwinian evolved chemistry and biology that many fall back upon to describe life on Earth, particularly human life, has ceased to exist in this solar system. Along with its thermodynamically described chemistry and biological processes once used to describe the entirety of Earths' ecosystem.

Additionally, imagine if you will that there is life elsewhere in this universe. Let us imagine there exists at least one other evolved ecosystem (ECO-2) capable of hosting Darwinian life. Different from Earth but governed by the same laws of physics and biology and thermodynamic processes that manifested Earths' ecology. This planet orbiting a viable star may be located anywhere in this universe since the laws of physics are expected to be consistently applied throughout. Also for this anecdote, let us say that this other bastion of life is some 10 billion light-years from Earths' sun. A distance so vast it would take much longer than the age of the big-bang to relativistically travel that distance, assuming, of course, there were any classically defined remnants of ones' biology left to make the journey.

The question becomes; could you or I or any individual formerly hosted by Earth's ecology ever find oneself a part of ECO-2s' ecology? Is the nature of life in this universe such that one could at some point find oneself naturally born to ECO-2 in the form of a species indigenous (present or future) to ECO-2, just as we were born on Earth to species indigenous to Earths' ecology? If one adheres solely to the classically understood, thermodynamically described, relativistically constrained mechanisms to explain life writ large then you are forced to say no, and in so doing you would necessarily be Earth and human-centric as one discounts the rest of the cosmos. Because in nature, what is possible here is necessarily possible elsewhere, ergo; if you can live here, you can live anywhere. And yet, clearly, some aspect of what biologically, thermodynamically, chemically, defined ones' singular existence on Earth, must relativistically (Below the speed of light) travel to bridge the unbridgeable distance between your last physical location, Earths' solar system, and ECO-2s'.

This looks like a variation of the Star Trek Transporter conundrum. If you stepped into the transporter and your body was destroyed, but different particles were assembled somewhere else which exactly mimic those of your now destroyed body - would you step into the transporter?

I'd need to know the answer to the mind-body problem before I risked it. It might be that my consciousness is transferable if particles identically configure elsewhere through some means which exactly mimic my body, but we have no testable theory which supports the possibility.

However it seems more likely to me that a new conscious person just like me would be created, rather than my consciousness is transferred to another bodily vessel.

Here's a couple of things which sway me.

First neural correlation. We can now identify using scanners that my specific body's neuron interactions correlate with my conscious experience. Not with yours, not with atoms floating around nearby. My body's here-and-now neurons apparently correlate with my here-and-now experience.

Secondly, I can play out the thought experiment a little differently, and not die when I step into the transporter, my physical body remains intact. And I decide not to bodily travel to ECO2. The atoms located on ECO2 are still assembled in an exact copy of my body, neurons and all. So now there are two identical gertie bodies (for a moment at least), both with identical brains. And presumably both with the same memories, personality, emotions, loves and hates, etc.

Are they both me? I don't think so. Because the next move either of us makes will change our brains, and we'll go on to live different physical and conscious/experiential lives.

So it seems like my conscious experience is attached in some way to this specific body.

Tho as I say, without an answer to the elusive (perhaps insoluble) mind-body relationship, we can't know for sure what would happen.

Naturally invasive scenarios such as this don't reveal questions posed by individuals, but questions posed by nature. Such scenarios essentially ask; how could it be otherwise? Such questions reveal their own answers to any species sufficiently developed to comprehend and honestly confront them. The point of this scenario is the inescapable conclusion that each individualized instance of life must involve a non-classical, non-local, relativistically unconstrained, scientifically describable, naturally recurring component. This individualizing phenomenon must exist separately and distinctly from any local physical form and must be definable by some discretely quantifiable property of nature with degrees-of-freedom much greater than that of matter. Such a mechanism may also not be indigenous to this universe but instead is native to the underlying Hilbert-space, or 'Metaverse' if you will. This need for non-locality is necessary to instantiate individuality not just on Earth while it exists and is viable, but also within the systems and galaxies of this vast Higgs constrained universe, and throughout nature.

The only life that has ever existed on Earth is the living cell, in all of its forms. The aspect of being and individuality had by a single living cell is that which defines all life, no more and no less is required. This aspect, which instantiates the first person being of a single cell as a living individual every bit as alive as any multi-cellular creature, is the position of view (POV). All of the skills and talents that tend to distract from this fact are only emergent features of the host form. Beneath it all is ones' POV. In this universe, there isn't one implementation of life for mammalian forms and another for insects, and yet another for vegetation or microbial forms of life. Nature is an efficient system of cause and effect, and life is one holistic effect. It isn't my intention to change anyone's' mind on this topic. Rather, to expose open-minded readers to a new and practical way of thinking about a very old, perhaps the most personal of all ideas known to humankind. The recognition of a unique and scientifically plausible description of how nature governs not only species but the individual, you. There is a very good chance, as is often the case with such invasive ideas about nature that I and everyone who reads this volume would be long gone before either the capability or the courage to prove or disprove the LINE hypothesis is achieved. However, every first step is worth taking.

The natural processes that implement life are the same for the cell as it is for the bacteria as it is for a fruit fly as for a human being. It is folly for us to think we could only experience life in this very temporary, randomly emerged bipedal primate form. Further, your cells and molecules come and go continuously over the course of your lifetime. Nonetheless, you remain you. Then there are the other trillions of living individuals in millions of different forms all around us coming into being and going out of life continuously. I realized that the only form we need to consider in this regard is the single living cell. The answers that are true for the cell are the answers that apply to all life.

Furthermore, you and I and your pet octopus and every living cell are instances of life, each a temporary instantiation of some natural, empirically definable phenomena of nature. This instantiating phenomenon must have the relativistically unconstrained reach to establish individual life (you), biological or perhaps otherwise, on any planet orbiting any star or indeed in any viable environment in the cosmos or in existence where viable hosts may emerge. It is a tragic mistake to feel that this describes something that could not possibly be natural, but must be supernatural. While, as usual, natures' genius is a practical and ubiquitous, even if a bit unfamiliar implementation. There is a phenomenon known to science for some time that meets all of these requirements: Quantum Entanglement (QE). Einstein called it spooky action at a distance. Today we play with it in the lab as a mere tech curiosity. It is the most plausible mechanism by which individuality is universally instantiated.

[Kajori Sheryl Paul]

A very thought-proving post that invites us to think about life beyond Earth.

Welcome aboard tonylang!

[Sy Borg]

Any life "out there" will conform to a number of the same basic archetypes as humans, given that these predate humans.

In fact, such archetypes precedes biology. Consider the protoplanetary disc before the planets formed. The objects within would be dominants, servants of those dominants, "predators" which aggregate smaller objects, "prey" objects, inner circle denizens, and those on the fringes ... exiles, catalysts, the lucky and the unlucky, and so forth.

In every domain of reality, large and small, biological and abiotic, more or less these same relationships and qualities can be observed.

[tonylang]

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 Earths' 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, flagella, 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 NASAs' Apollo missions humankind has extended its reach beyond our usual scope. In so doing, we have 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 Neils' position of view (POV) to the Moons' surface say 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 tenets 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 that 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 long-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 onboard 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 Earths' 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 individual 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 moons' surface. Neil Armstrong surviving his "giant leap for mankind" suggests that life as we know it is not utterly dependent upon 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 Earths' unique magnetic field configuration or on Earths' 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 de-instantiated, ceased to live, once they passed some threshold, or boundary, somewhere between the Earths' surface, and the moons' surface. Perhaps once the spacecraft passed some critical flux level in Earths' magnetic field, or once the Earths' gravitational field 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 only 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 (POV), that is, ones' being, ones' natural entanglement, ones' instantiation, is indeed mobile in this universe, and perhaps throughout nature. Neil Armstrongs' 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 universal mobility of the individual.


Comprehending the reality of ones' living circumstances begins with the realization that Neal Armstrongs' 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. These convenient environments also include the living hosts we refer to as; species. The obstacles presented by travel, involve the 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.