Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Lagayscienza]

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.

I’m with you there Gertie. Even if teleportation were possible, a exact dopy of you might arrive on planet XYZ, but it almost instantly wouldn’t be an exact copy because condition on XYZ will be different to what you will be experiencing on earth.

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

I don't think we need an answer to the mind-body problem to know that the two individuals will differentiate.



Tonylang, you conclude that:

...each individualized instance of life must involve a non-classical, non-local, relativistically unconstrained, scientifically describable, naturally recurring component.

I don’t see why that must be so. In the universe as we understand it nothing is unconstrained by Einsteinian relativity as far as we know. All mater is subject to the curvature of space-time and there is no simultaneity from any privileged point of view or frame of reference. And no matter can reach light speed and surpass it. It would take more than all the energy in the universe to get the full stop after this sentence (if it were printed) up to light speed.

And on other planets in other solar systems, even if the planet were almost an exact replica as earth, there is no guarantee that evolution would proceed as if has on earth. Evolution is a contingent process and no two stars or planets will be exactly alike even if the universe is infinite and there are infinitely many stars and planets. Because evolution is a contingent process, dependant on local conditions which will vary infinitely throughout an infinite universe, no exact replica of you or me will evolve.

You go on to say that:

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.

I don’t see how this must be so.

You go on to say further that:

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.

But this is pure speculation.

Then you say that:

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.

No doubt I'm missing something important, but I don’t see why this must be so. Even on a planet almost identical to earth in terms of chemistry and available free energy from its star and from thermal vents or lightening, although abiogenesis may occur and produce individual cells capable of metabolism and reproduction and which may be almost identical to those that first developed on earth, there is no reason to think that multi-cellular organisms capable of instantiating consciousness must develop. Even the slightest difference in a planet or its star (and there always will be endless variation) may send life down a path completely different to that followed by earth’s organisms, in which case it would impossible that an exact copy of me or you exists anywhere.

[tonylang]

Consider reading the exchanges between Eckhart Aurelius Hughes and myself to obtain further clarity on what the LINE scenario proposes.

[Lagayscienza]

I did read those exchanges. A few of times. But I'm still having trouble seeing how I must be instantiated elsewhere. You say:

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 ... 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'.

Firstly, even if I could live anywhere, I don't see how what is possible here means that exactly what has occurred here must occur somewhere else. I don’t see why you or I must arise elsewhere. And secondly, is it not clear why or how “some aspect of ... one's singular existence on Earth” travels anywhere, much less to some planet 10 billion light-years away.

You seem to be saying that, in an infinite universe, a replica of you and I is statistically certain to arise, that it is inevitable. But I don’t see why. And I don’t see how thermodynamics or QM require it. And even if the universe were infinite (which is not certain), it would contain infinite variation with no life forms necessarily repeated exactly.

However, it would be extremely interesting if it were true. So, I’m hoping you could you explain this a bit further for us. Thanks.

[tonylang]

I did read those exchanges. A few of times. But I'm still having trouble seeing how I must be instantiated elsewhere. You say:

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 ... 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'.

Firstly, even if I could live anywhere, I don't see how what is possible here means that exactly what has occurred here must occur somewhere else. I don’t see why you or I must arise elsewhere. And secondly, is it not clear why or how “some aspect of ... one's singular existence on Earth” travels anywhere, much less to some planet 10 billion light-years away.

You seem to be saying that, in an infinite universe, a replica of you and I is statistically certain to arise, that it is inevitable. But I don’t see why. And I don’t see how thermodynamics or QM require it. And even if the universe were infinite (which is not certain), it would contain infinite variation with no life forms necessarily repeated exactly.

However, it would be extremely interesting if it were true. So, I’m hoping you could you explain this a bit further for us. Thanks.

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

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.

What is life? The universal mobility of individuality (UMI) principle suggests that individuality is form and location agnostic. Life is the instantiation of individuality by any extant viable host form (i.e. single cell) in any viable habitat in this universe. Individuality is the temporary instantiation of a uniquely quantifiable degree of freedom of space to establish an individualized position of view (POV). The POV (individuality) in each living host, functions as an antenna, a target for telemetry gathered and produced by ones viable host form located in any viable perpetually transient habitat (Earth, Moon, Mars, ECO2) in space-time.

[tonylang]

The LINE "Life Instantiated By Natural Entanglement" hypothesis presents perhaps for the first time, a practical scientifically plausible hypothesis for the natural implementation that governs the instantiation of the living individual as a being distinct from the evolution of that beings current species. It will introduce you to;


• The Instantiation Of Individuality: The natural process which establishes each instance of individual life, you.
• The Entanglement Molecule (EM); A primordial molecule, is hypothesized to naturally interact with the QE spectrum to entangle metamatter. It is the Alice in the process of natural entanglement and is utilized by the living cell to establish individualized life.
• The Position Of View (POV): That component of the instantiation process which defines your presence in your current host form within this space-time.
• The Metaverse: Hilbert-Space, the only real verse, and that from which this universe emerges.
• The Quantum Entanglement Spectrum (QE): The degrees of freedom which define the phenomenon of natural quantum coherent interaction. Einsteins' 'spooky action'.
• The Quantum Entanglement Frequency (QEF): Ones' immutable unique value of the QE degrees of freedom which instantiates your POV.
• The Cell and (Proto-Cell): The only life on Earth, natures’ entanglement circuit. The original instantiated living individual which implement all other biological hosts on Earth.
• The LifeID: A calculated value that defines ones' current unique QE connection, your LINE.
• The Entanglement Cells; Individual cells responsible for heterodyning their unique LINES in complex hosts to establish your LifeID.
• Metamatter: A non-local Weakly Interacting Cosmic Background Bose Condensate (CBBC) is hypothesized to be as necessary to life as dark-matter is to galaxy formation. Where the EM is the Alice, then metamatter is the Bob of natural entanglement.
• The Fidelity of Teleportation (FT): A calculated value that describes the individuals’ current reinstantiation prospects for your next life.
• The Monogamy of Entanglement: The property of the QE connection that enforces a singleton instance of individuality and the role of death.


The hypothesis in summary:

The most fundamental element of life is a molecule called the Entanglement Molecule (EM). This molecule composed of normal baryonic matter manifests the unique property of prolifically establishing a natural teleportation channel, which is a shared quantum coherent state, a quantum entanglement connection (QE), with a hypothesized form of matter called metamatter. Metamatter is composed of an undiscovered type of particle that necessarily resides entirely beyond this space-time, in Hilbert-space or the metaverse if you will. Metamatter is as essential to life as dark matter is to galaxy formation. Entanglement molecules in this universe are at all times entangled to particles of metamatter in Hilbert-space. It is their natural state to do so. Metamatter, as is possible with any natural entity having only subtle degrees-of-freedom within this space-time, is not subject to locality or relativistic constraints and so, via this QE connection, is non-classically, instantaneously accessible to entanglement molecules (EM) everywhere in this universe.

These entanglement molecules and metamatter are the Alice and Bob endpoints of each isolated, naturally occurring, QE connection established within every living cell that has ever existed. An entanglement molecule once arranged from its constituent atoms, not unlike the molecules in the ferrite magnet in a transistor radio, is instantly sensitive to available, uninstantiated QE degrees of freedom (DOF) of the QE spectrum, or quantum entanglement frequencies (QEF). It is the QEF that define the unique natural teleportation channel upon which to entangle available metamatter. Such isolated pairings existed on Earth for eons, and in this universe, for even longer before the naturally occurring circumstances arose, on Earth, and perhaps elsewhere, to provide a sphere of molecules that could be described as an early cell wall. Not all entanglement molecules were likely to encounter a cell wall, but those that did, enclosed by this barrier, obtained the benefit of an extra level of protection. This enclosure allowed them to develop beyond the typical. This basic entanglement relationship is the most fundamental manifestation of life. It establishes the position of view (POV). Over time other types of molecules joined with these proto-cells sometimes to their mutual benefit, sometimes not. Those that added no benefit or diminished the proto-cells survival prospects would not survive.

The QE connection gave surviving proto-cells something very special. It gave the otherwise inanimate molecular components on the inside of this early cell a form of intra-cellular communication. That is, the ability to interact at a distance, but more critically at that point, the QE connection gave the proto-cell the capacity to share or imprint internal cellular state information upon its entangled metamatter. Metamatter because of its extra-dimensional, non-locality and relativistically unconstrained nature essentially acts as a kind of cloud-storage for information accessible instantaneously from any location in this universe, and in any other as well. This universal cloud storage repository of information is the critical factor required to get evolution started. This natural cosmic background Bose condensate (CBBC) is what makes being possible anywhere in this universe. At that point, evolution existed only via random environmental contact between proto-cells with other structures in the primordial environment of early Earth.

Thus, the cell became natures' biological entanglement circuit. Each such entanglement pairing constitutes an instantiation of life, whether on Earth, elsewhere in this universe, or anywhere in existence. Consequently, life could now be hosted by any viable formation of cell(s) that may emerge anywhere in existence. Ones' instantiation is established at one specific QEF, a unique value of the degrees of freedom among the infinity of possible values on the quantum entanglement spectrum. A QEF that is unique in all existence to each individual and to no other, but only while that QE connection, ones' natural teleportation (LINE) channel, persists. These yet to be determined DOF's, perhaps frequency and others, on the QE spectrum, is the singular property in nature that defines each living individual. All other components of the instantiation process may change or be exchanged, but it is your QEF that positions you as the central and only target of your instantiation, of your life, and not someone else's. Change or retune ones' QEF enough, and you change the being, the individual. You are your QEF; you are not your cells or your metamatter.

It is very likely that the QE spectrum predated even the big bang. Your QEF is the immutable, the classically indestructible you. When entanglement molecules, contained within viable hosts such as the cell, located on any viable planet, orbiting any viable star, anywhere in existence, entangles metamatter at your QEF, that is where you will instantiate. That is where you will be. A place such as that is where you are right now. A place such as that is where you are likely to have been many times before your current instantiation. Places such as that are where you will inevitably reinstantiate many more times in your future. This is instantiation; this is life. You and I, and your pet otter, every insect, every cell and every organization of cells, all life anywhere in existence instantiates by this mechanism. While each cell entangles at a unique QEF, a few specialized cells in complex organisms, called entanglement cells (EC), have evolved to heterodyne, or combine their own unique QEF's. This combination of distinct LINE channels entangle metamatter at yet a different unique QEF, called a composite or emerged QEF, thus instantiating the emerged individual, you.

This composite degree of freedom called the QEF together with the metamatter it entangles is called the lifeID. No memories or behavior of the host body is carried or transferred by the lifeID. In nature, such properties are electromagnetic manifestations of the host species or vessel only. The closest cultural meme to the lifeID come via religions throughout human history having referred to this, using one word or another, as the soul. Once any QE connection is terminated, by sufficiently disrupting the cellular component (inducing death of the host vessel), the previously entangled metamatter becomes available for entanglement by other cells. However, this particular metamatter has been imprinted to some extent by its previous entanglement. Each generation of entanglement, each instantiation, each life, imprints information from both the host and QEF, to its entangled metamatter. The degree of this imprinting is yet to be determined.

This time-dependent, perishable imprinting of cellular state in metamatter becomes available to future cells that entangle this metamatter while simultaneously limiting its entanglement opportunities to cells of matching state. The passage of time decays the imprint left on metamatter causing a return to a state best described as stem-metamatter (to be discussed later in this volume). This transfer of cellular state information may impact cellular behavior and development and to the extent that this imprinted information manifests an advantage for the cell, may provide a survival benefit. This is the evolutionary mechanism used by early life that predated the development of the DNA and RNA molecules. With QE communication, ergo; life, the proto-cell became the laboratory of evolutionary innovation we see today from which emerged a great many useful cellular structures and processes, but most pivotally, a clear benefit to augment the cloud storage mechanism of metamatter with a more local, more expandable and flexible information storage mechanism which became RNA and eventually DNA. This was the birth of the modern living cell. Much is yet to be learned but the implications of this process are vast and pervasive.

The degree to which metamatter is imprinted by its entangled host and unique QEF will determine, after deinstantiation (death), the likelihood that your imprinted metamatter will, for a time, reject entanglement opportunities from dissimilar host cells (of even your same or similar species), in favor of entanglement with cells that contain your familial DNA. These are cells that are more compatible with its imprinting. Thereby increasing the probability of reinstantiating you into your former family line, or if less finely imprinted, to any random line in your previous species or if less finely tuned still, to another species entirely. Longevity may be a factor in this regard. Also when we discover the entanglement molecule in nature or within the cell, just as we eventually discovered the DNA molecule in the cell decades after Darwin presented his theory of evolution by natural selection, likewise this may allow us to develop technologies capable of detecting and tracking each individuals unique QEF in this life or across multiple instantiations. This will change the world, at the very least it will change the way we write our wills. As for practical implementations, discovering and using metamatter could change everything. Metamatter satellites would be very different yet similar to regular orbital satellites, even though they will reside outside of this space-time they'll permit instantaneous communication with any point in the cosmos. This will forever alter the human relationship not just to each other, but to all living creatures biological or otherwise. Also for the first time in human history, we could begin to take practical actions in life that would affect the individuals' reinstantiation prospects into ones' next life, thereby tailoring your next instantiation ahead of time, minus the mysticism and ideology.

[Lagayscienza]

I see. Thanks for that.

[tonylang]

I see. Thanks for that.

At first the comprehension that ones’ first person individuality is abstracted, separate, and distinct from the evolution, development, and life of ones’ cells is a tough hurdle for the mind to overcome. Even as it is viewed from various perspectives, and in the absence of clarifying empirical evidence, it requires some time alone in contemplation and a steely objectivity to come to realize the truth of it. However humankind has had this problem before.


It is essential to recognize that maintaining life and maintaining an emerged individuality are both essential but separate functions of living hosts. The hosting of life via natural entanglement is an evolved property of inanimate matter whereas emerged individuality (Heterodyned by EC's) is an additional evolved skill of living multi-cellular organisms. The function of the entanglement cells (EC) in complex hosts is not to establish life in a multi-cellular organism. Each cell is already alive complements of the natural entanglement by its entanglement molecules (EM). Rather the role of the EC is to instantiate individuality, establish the position-of-view as the target for experience of the emerged being. This unique composite natural entanglement with metamatter is separate and distinct from the natural entanglement established by each of the other (non-EC) living cells that comprise ones’ host body. Ergo; in nature, you are not your body. This is why you can sever an entire leg or destroy a large portion of your brain, or drink beer and remain you. That is to say, maintain your individuality. This individuality is not about appearance or behavior or personality or intelligence or even consciousness, it is ones’ continued position–of-view via natural entanglement. You remain you because the emerged individual is separate and distinct from that of the trillions of non-EC cells that maintain its operation.

Every single cell which comprises your body is itself naturally entangled and is in nature a living individual, as is the emerged individual, you whose multi-cellular form and functions each non-EC cell help to maintain. This says nothing of your individuality. Further, this same implementation operates for leaves, trees, hair, internal organs, etc. each is clearly multi-cellular and is alive but may only be collections of individualized living cells that are held together, and perhaps on some level, function together. Such an association of living individuals may or may not have evolved the capacity to heterodyne to establish a secondary emerged natural entanglement connection to metamatter. That is to say, they have not become an emerged individual like a beaver or a dolphin, human or an ant. Making a distinction between the position-of-view of a cell or a simple association of cells and the heterodyned composite POV of an emerged individual is a tenuous endeavor fraught with uncertainty absent the principles described in the instantiation hypothesis. In earth-life it is the hypothesized entanglement cells that are the evolutionary components of living hosts responsible for this advanced feature of emerged individuality. These terms and distinctions are necessary because our eyes and instruments deceive us; the largest life-form in earth’s ecosystem the sequoia tree may very well not possess an emerged individuality whereas some of the smallest may.

Nature implements life by the same fundamental mechanism no matter the hosts' form. In nature, this sort of scalable, extensible implementation is the very definition of simplicity. It is the entanglement molecule that is hypothesized to fundamentally establish and maintain all life via natural entanglement in every living cell. One QE connection at some unique QEF is one individual. How this QE connection is established or maintained, composite or not, is irrelevant to nature's design. Earth-life offers one (carbon-based) approach to hosting nature’s implementation of life. Other planets may very well evolve other approaches. We may someday manufacture yet another. This implementation is what permits the universal mobility of individuality. Hosts for life and their constituent components whether single cellular or otherwise are local in space-time and have no natural universal mobility requiring physical travel (i.e. via comets or spacecraft).

[Gertie]

tony

I'm completely lost on the science you reference I'm afraid. But a few points come to mind, for what it's worth.

* neural correlation is probably the biggest clue we have about the mind body relationship. For me, the natural implication is there's something which neurons acting in certain ways might be what gives rise to experience. I think this is a common assumption amongst physicalists and neuroscientists. Rather than all biological cells have the necessary ingredients to act as 'radio receivers' to universal forces which somehow instantiate experience.

I don't dismiss the possibility (I actually have a pet theory about a field of consciousness something like the Higgs), but the former seems less speculative to me.

* the combination/binding problem of how millions of cells in my body simultaneously have individual first person povs, plus the entirety of the body 'gertie' also has an individual discrete and unified first person pov.

* how the same gertie can exist in two places at once (see my transporter argument). I can in principle concede the possibility of two identical gerties existing (before one changes a moment later because of non-identical environments), but not two Mes. As soon as Me1 and Me2 open our eyes to different environments we will know we're not the same Me-Here-Now-Experiencer person with one first person POV.

* more generally you're extrapolating a lot from the boundaries of our knowledge where we necessarily have to be speculative and there's no obvious way to test such hypotheses. Again, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but it's an area I imagine is ripe for such speculation. I say go for it and lets see what pans out, but lets be cautious about over-confidence.

Just some thoughts from a scientific idiot

[tonylang]

The LINE hypothesis is a plausible hypothesis for the axiom; Individuality exists and it is naturally mobile throughout this universe. Given the current state of scientific understanding the only exhibit of evidence for individuality that can be offered to you, is you. So it falls upon each of us to decide if oneself is an individual or not. Further, each instance of life, to any other instance of life, is only an extrapolation or an assumption of individuality currently based upon appearance and behavior. The affirmation of ones' own individuality, at least for most reasonable minded individuals can be accounted for. If we agree to the axiom that you and perhaps I as well as every other discernibly living entity is an individual instance of life then this conversation as challenging as it may be toward strongly held beliefs or ideologies may proceed.

No aspect of the modern scientific understanding of biology or its empirical descriptions is being challenged. The cell and the verifiable aspects of its biological evolution are as science currently describes them. The LINE hypothesis begins where the modern scientific narrative admittedly, voluntarily abstains and, traditionally, religions are permitted to fill what is arguably the most important of all voids, and likely the only void any living being may actually care most about. That is, the natural mechanisms governing the instantiation of life. It is for this reason that humankind has fought and prayed for a time far longer than science itself has existed. It is much overdue for the narrative to be extended not by mysticism or ideological entrenchment but by well reasoned, steely objective thought, because clearly not just some, but all of nature is ultimately science.

The LINE hypothesis suggests that each life is an instance of a specific individual. Also, the natural process that instantiates an individual to that host (i.e. species) is independent of the specific biology, chemistry (i.e. carbon, silicon etc.) or technological principles upon which such forms may be evolved, implemented or depend for function or for its local evolution. Therefore, any individual may instantiate (live) in any viable form in any viable environment in this universe. Ergo Earth is not special.

1-Individual life (you) is species independent.

2-The natural process that places you or any living being in the life they currently live is not dependent upon any particular chemistry, biology, species or form, evolved or otherwise. Just as for example, memory, or intelligence does not depend upon any particular brand or type of technology for its implementation. That is to say, memory is abstracted from its implementation. Likewise, in nature is the individual life abstracted from any specific implementation of host form, or species.

The belief that you are your body stems from a lack of an alternative perspective and supporting evidence as well as from tradition also from the powerful visual perspective imposed by sight and a prominent physical form. It is as much a misperception as was humankinds' long-held belief in the Earth-centric universe. Likewise, it is a very convincing visual misconception only made more so by the advent of biology and genetic science which describe the evolution and development of the physical forms presently on Earth. This misconception is further compounded by the very illogical belief, held even by educated individuals, that the function and operation of the brain defines ones' individuality in nature. Clearly, this last point cannot be so since most life forms on Earth do not have a brain and are not even multi-cellular.

[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.

I’m with you there Gertie. Even if teleportation were possible, a exact dopy of you might arrive on planet XYZ, but it almost instantly wouldn’t be an exact copy because condition on XYZ will be different to what you will be experiencing on earth.

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

I don't think we need an answer to the mind-body problem to know that the two individuals will differentiate.

Yeah exactly, the bodies and experiences might be identical for an instant, but the two Mes' first person POVs will soon diverge. So it makes more sense I think that even at the moment of being identical there were two Mes, each with their own first person POV. It just seems to be that my here-and-now experience is correlated to this specific here-and-now body.

If you only look at hypotheticals where the first Me is destroyed you don't have to notice that point. If your atoms when you enter the transporter are destroyed or literally transported it's not so much a problem, likewise if ECO1 is destroyed.

- The mind-body caveat remains pertinent for me, because it potentially goes to the fundamental nature of reality in order to explain it.

[tonylang]

Testable Elements Of The LINE Hypothesis;

One initial approach would be to seek evidence for, or against some fundamental aspect of the working hypothesis: Test for the existence, or lack thereof, of the proposed entanglement cells (EC) that establish and maintain life via the QE connection in complex hosts: Termination of the hosts' EC's and no other cells, should result in the termination of the subject.

Premise: Can death be induced without damage? Can an otherwise healthy living subject be terminated with empirically no physical damage contributable to subject termination? Baring any limitations of technical proficiency or of equipment in analyzing and identifying the root cause of subject death.

Axiom: There exists some absolute minimum number of cells that may be terminated in any complex organism whereby such cells may be scientifically established to be the root and only cause of death of the subject organism with no premortem adverse effects to other cells in the subject. Cells that meet these criteria are candidates for the theorized entanglement cells, and the collection has a high probability of including some or all of the subjects' proposed entanglement cells.

Practical Test: Perform controlled experiments using approved subjects, i.e., fruit flies, to terminate the minimal number of cells per specimen to conclusively induce death of the test subject. Carefully repeat and document the number and location of target cells per subject for each scientifically substantiated successful sample. Repeatability per species is mandatory as the specifics may vary from species to species or subject to subject. In qualifying samples the cells that are the root cause of death must be gradually minimized and physically isolated. Cellular damage must be limited to only the target cells for a duration beginning at the time of the target cells' death up to and including the time of confirmed subject death. In other words, for a successful trial, no cells in the subject other than the target cells may be adversely physically affected premortem.

Reasoning:

Postulate: Any natural phenomenon that can occur may by definition also reoccur and therefore there must exist some natural mechanism or process, understood or not, that describes its natural implementation. As far as life (Being) of the individual (regardless of species) goes there is one of two possibilities:

Scenario one: In nature (in this universe) each individual instance of life, each living being (you) are a singleton, a one-off occurrence unique in eternity both prior and future to one's current life. If this is indeed the case then there isn’t much more to be said on the topic. (This scenario violates the stated postulate.)

Scenario two: In nature, an individual’s being (you) are not a one-off singular occurrence but is a current instance of some naturally definable process or mechanism that may repeat given adequate circumstances. If this is indeed the case then the conversation ensues. Describe the natural implementation of the repeatable individual experience of being regardless of species, of life.

Scenario two is one basis upon which the LINE hypothesis is conceived.

Unfamiliar though it can be, only physics describes your presence in whatever environment one finds oneself. The question is; what are the actual physics that mediates how you instantiate on any particular randomly emerged planet among the untold number of planets that happen to be viable for life regardless of the distance between them, that can exist either naturally or artificially (ergo; A Mars colony)?

You were born to an existing species on this planet just a few decades ago. After you’re done here the same physics demands repeatability and will operate similarly again whether on earth, if it still exists and viable, or elsewhere. Clearly, neither Earth nor any species on it are permanent (ergo the scenario). Therefore science demands that other viable instances of planet and species must circumstantially fulfill the same requirements in your future. To doubt this is to be Earth and human-centric (ergo; religious). This natural mechanism must be non-local because planets and species are local but can emerge anywhere in space-time. Spooky as it may be, this mobility of individuality demands an empirical scientifically describable mechanism ergo: Physics.

[tonylang]

tony

I'm completely lost on the science you reference I'm afraid. But a few points come to mind, for what it's worth.

* neural correlation is probably the biggest clue we have about the mind body relationship. For me, the natural implication is there's something which neurons acting in certain ways might be what gives rise to experience. I think this is a common assumption amongst physicalists and neuroscientists. Rather than all biological cells have the necessary ingredients to act as 'radio receivers' to universal forces which somehow instantiate experience.

I don't dismiss the possibility (I actually have a pet theory about a field of consciousness something like the Higgs), but the former seems less speculative to me.

* the combination/binding problem of how millions of cells in my body simultaneously have individual first person povs, plus the entirety of the body 'gertie' also has an individual discrete and unified first person pov.

* how the same gertie can exist in two places at once (see my transporter argument). I can in principle concede the possibility of two identical gerties existing (before one changes a moment later because of non-identical environments), but not two Mes. As soon as Me1 and Me2 open our eyes to different environments we will know we're not the same Me-Here-Now-Experiencer person with one first person POV.

* more generally you're extrapolating a lot from the boundaries of our knowledge where we necessarily have to be speculative and there's no obvious way to test such hypotheses. Again, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but it's an area I imagine is ripe for such speculation. I say go for it and lets see what pans out, but lets be cautious about over-confidence.

Just some thoughts from a scientific idiot

Take a moment, take two, and ask yourselves, from a natural first principles perspective, for any individual; 'You' to live (to instantiate in this universe) do you propose that this specific planet; Earth, its specific evolved ecosystem, its specific defined tree of life, one specific viable form; human, one specific body; 'You" needed to have emerged or else you could'nt otherwise live?

[tonylang]

Figure 3:13 day old human embryo. (IMAGE CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Human embryos kept alive in lab for unprecedented 13 days so scientists can watch development
Human embryos have been kept alive in a petri dish for an unprecedented 13 days, allowing scientists to finally see what happens in the mysterious days after implantation in the womb.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk



By the 11th day of gestation of a human embryo, for example, being no bigger than the head of a pin yet containing many hundred cells every one of them a living individual in nature. Among these cells, early in the formation of a new life, are the LINE hypothesized Entanglement Cells (EC), some of which are likely visible in this photograph. Entanglement cells are very special cells which together heterodyne their own unique individual entangled states to manifest a new state established at a unique QEF, your QEF. This instantiation manifests a new life; a new emerged LifeID, your position of view (POV), not unlike their own, but at a different unique quantifiable value of the entangled degrees-of-freedom (QEF's) of the immutable entanglement spectrum. This is approximately the stage in the gestation of a viable host where instantiation occurs, the point at which you the individual, become tethered to this particular growing host form and not to some other.

Why you? In this there can be no; Why only; How. Via a combination of natural circumstances, some predicted by the LINE hypothesis, this particular host has heterodyned at your QEF. This occurs whether the form is human, or any other viable living form that happens to exist in any temporary, no doubt extinction laden eco-system. The Earth is but one such habitat. This is but one instance of countless such processes of instantiation by natural entanglement that occur second by second throughout existence. By this process, the mobility of individuality is made possible in a vast Higgs universe, together with the non-locality of metamatter and the relativistically unconstrained reach of the entanglement spectrum. These features make individuality and life possible on Earth and anywhere, wherever viable forms happen to emerge, in that place a new instance of life is established whether single or multi-cellular. Empirically proving or disproving the existence and theorized function of the EC and identifying the ubiquitous entanglement molecule which makes this all possible will be greatly facilitated by using subjects that are at this early pivotal stage of development.

This initial two-week stage in human gestation, for example, marks the point where the embryo may form one or more hosts (i.e., twins, etc.). Also at this stage, the characteristic central structure of the host form begins to emerge. It is very likely that the EC are present but have not yet heterodyned at this juncture. At this stage, the embryo remains a collection of distinct individual cells each with a specific or soon to be determined mission. Once the EC combine their individual entangled states to establish the one or more new emerged entangled states and the POV's defined therein, an equal number of new instances of individuality come into existence perhaps for the first time, or perhaps not for the first time. The one certainty in this process is that this particular host has never before existed and never will again.

Further, we may inquire; at what stage in its evolution does an emerged species gain its EC and go from being a colony of individual cells, to become an emerged form hosting a position of view with a unique emerged QEF? To understand this, it would help to seek living forms representative of each evolutionary stage of development. Species that straddle the evolutionary line between a colony of living individual cells and an emerged living being with a POV distinct from its other non-EC's. Such species no doubt exist but are not easily categorized. For some reason, evolution seems to favor full emergence once a colony develops the EC, like a switch being flipped. This is not to suggest that such recently emerged species would immediately possess highly integrated systems like a central nervous system which links its disparate regions of specialization. Such complex features would take time to evolve but the QE connection to metamatter had by all living forms requires no such embellishments.

Also, how might a species respond evolutionarily to developing a newly established POV as compared to being a colony of living individuals? This would be a truly fascinating study to undertake. The LINE hypothesis suggests that imprinted metamatter influences evolution throughout this universe in ways that should not be underestimated and may very well play a crucial role in disseminating this amazing capability to eco-systems separated by distances that are otherwise physically unbridgeable. Thus, like all other features of the cell, the capability to combine the natural entangled state first evolves in cells which then further specialize. Thereby passing on their newly acquired talents to offspring. Together these new EC perform the initial combination of their individual QE connections to establish the new emerged individuals position of view thereby marking the emergence of a new host form for emerged individual life, a new species.

From an evolutionary standpoint, one may be tempted to expect a dramatic transformation to accompany the transition from the collection to the emerged host, but this is unlikely to be the case. More probable is a slow evolution out of the hitherto normal behavior of that particular colony as new possibilities slowly take hold of its evolutionary trajectory. Thus the cloud-storage repository of newly entangled metamatter further shapes the destiny of a new species. The science which describes POV evolution will, like all aspects of living biology, be deep and complex in its own right. The evolution of a species has many influences and likely goes stepwise with the evolution of its POV as both number and complexity of EC may evolve.

So if you, whatever your species, are impressed and proud of the evolved capabilities of your living form, it is well and good that you should be, but also realize that none of those known features can be considered to be more impressive than the feature of natural entanglement heterodyning evolved in the EC. This remarkable feature permits nothing less than the establishment of complex emerged beings, like you, in this universe. If not for this amazing feature of the cell only individual cells and colonies thereof would populate the Earth. This is not to suggest what forms such colonies might take, but the distinction between a colony of individual cells and an emerged being such as a human or a millipede or a finch is significant and important. Today science defines no clear basis for such a distinction, the LINE hypothesis does.
human-embryos-kept-alive-in-lab-for-unprecedented-13-days-so-sci.jpg (71.15 KiB) Viewed 559 times

[Lagayscienza]

This is all very interesting. And it would be great if it were true. However, my enthusiasm is tempered by the lack of anything in the way of empirical evidence. As far as I can tell, the LINE hypothesis is nested in a lot of other hypotheses for which there is also no evidence.

I don't say that the LINE hypothesis is wrong. And I'd like it to be true. I just need something in the way of evidence to hold onto. You mentioned something a couple of posts back about how some of it might be testable. Maybe I need to go back and read that post again. But you don't make it easy.

Could you do a precis for lay-people who wouldn't know Hilbert space from any other abstract mathematical space? I don't think it is enough to simply say that if individual cosmic mobility can happen it must happen, not when we aren't even sure that it CAN happen.

I want it to be possible. I just need some hint of how it COULD be possible.

[tonylang]

This is all very interesting. And it would be great if it were true. However, my enthusiasm is tempered by the lack of anything in the way of empirical evidence. As far as I can tell, the LINE hypothesis is nested in a lot of other hypotheses for which there is also no evidence.

I don't say that the LINE hypothesis is wrong. And I'd like it to be true. I just need something in the way of evidence to hold onto. You mentioned something a couple of posts back about how some of it might be testable. Maybe I need to go back and read that post again. But you don't make it easy.

Could you do a precis for lay-people who wouldn't know Hilbert space from any other abstract mathematical space? I don't think it is enough to simply say that if individual cosmic mobility can happen it must happen, not when we aren't even sure that it CAN happen.

I want it to be possible. I just need some hint of how it COULD be possible.

The details you seek are what this thread will provide one post at a time. Or, you can skip ahead by purchasing the book; [spam link removed]