Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

The text from ChatGPT-40 to do with the so called "Cambrian Explosion" looks as if it was gleaned from just a couple of sources. It does not mention the developing consensus that the so called Cambrian Explosion may be more apparent then real.

The LINE Scenario elucidates that the nature of individuality is such that there can be no humans (or any Earth-life) on ECO2, and yet, you can be.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the above quote. How can I be on ECO2 if there is no human life there?

He does not understand what he means by the above quote.
THis is just AI copy and paste.

Try this:

The LINE Scenario suggests that while Earth-based life forms, including humans as we know them, cannot exist on ECO2 (an exoplanet or alternate environment with conditions vastly different from Earth), the essence of your individuality—your consciousness or identity—could potentially be transferred or replicated there. This could be achieved through advanced technological means such as mind uploading, digital consciousness, or some other method of preserving and transferring consciousness independent of the biological constraints of Earth-based life.

In simpler terms, while your physical human body cannot survive on ECO2 due to its incompatible environment, the unique essence that makes you "you" (your consciousness, memories, personality) could exist in a different form that is suited to the conditions of ECO2. This could be through an artificial body, a digital existence, or another form that can operate and thrive in that alien environment.

So, the scenario explores the possibility of transcending our biological limitations and finding ways to maintain our individuality in environments where traditional Earth life cannot exist.

[Lagayascienza]

Cheers, Sculptor1. That is English we can all understand. And the message is succinct and interesting.

Tonylang, if you could do as Sculptor1 has done above, there may be more interest in your hypothesis.

[tonylang]

...

Try this:

The LINE Scenario suggests that while Earth-based life forms, including humans as we know them, cannot exist on ECO2 (an exoplanet or alternate environment with conditions vastly different from Earth), the essence of your individuality—your consciousness or identity—could potentially be transferred or replicated there. This could be achieved through advanced technological means such as mind uploading, digital consciousness, or some other method of preserving and transferring consciousness independent of the biological constraints of Earth-based life.

In simpler terms, while your physical human body cannot survive on ECO2 due to its incompatible environment, the unique essence that makes you "you" (your consciousness, memories, personality) could exist in a different form that is suited to the conditions of ECO2. This could be through an artificial body, a digital existence, or another form that can operate and thrive in that alien environment.

So, the scenario explores the possibility of transcending our biological limitations and finding ways to maintain our individuality in environments where traditional Earth life cannot exist.

A noble effort, but I'm afraid not. Once again, try this instead, and this time ponder the words;

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

...

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 (move, travel) 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;
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.


tonylang;
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]

Key Concepts:
1. Antenna State: The idea that living hosts establish an atomic and molecular configuration that functions as a position of view (POV).
2. Telemetry Gathering: The process by which living hosts collect and process information from their environment.
3. Universally Mobile POV: The concept that individuality, as instantiated by this antenna state, is not confined to any specific form or location and can exist in any viable habitat.
Instantiation of Individuality Through the Antenna State:
1. Atomic and Molecular Configuration:
• Living hosts configure their atoms and molecules in a way that establishes an "antenna state," which acts as a POV.
• This POV is the central point through which the host experiences and interacts with the environment.
2. Function of the Antenna State:
• The antenna state allows the host to receive and process information from the environment, akin to how an antenna receives signals.
• This information is used by the host to navigate, adapt, and respond to environmental stimuli, thereby shaping its individuality.
3. Telemetry Gathering:
• Living hosts gather telemetry, or data, from their surroundings through sensory inputs, biochemical signals, and interactions with other entities.
• This telemetry is processed and integrated into the host's POV, informing its behavior and decisions.
Universally Mobile POV:
1. Form- and Location-Agnostic:
• The POV established by the antenna state is not tied to any specific physical form or location.
• This means that individuality can be instantiated in any living host, regardless of its specific biological form or habitat.
2. Dynamic and Adaptable:
• The POV is dynamic and can adapt to changing environments and conditions.
• This adaptability ensures that individuality remains consistent even as the host moves through different habitats or experiences various changes.
3. Universality:
• The principles underlying the establishment of the antenna state and the gathering of telemetry are universal.
• This means that individuality, as a form- and location-agnostic POV, can manifest in any viable habitat across the universe.
How Individuality Manifests Through the Antenna State:
1. Establishment of the Antenna State:
• At the atomic and molecular level, living hosts configure themselves to create a functional POV.
• This involves the organization of sensory and processing systems that allow the host to interact with its environment.
2. Telemetry Gathering and Processing:
• Hosts collect information through various means, such as sensory organs in animals or chemical receptors in cells.
• This information is processed to form a coherent understanding of the environment, which is central to the host's POV.
3. Expression of Individuality:
• The gathered telemetry shapes the host's behavior, decisions, and interactions, contributing to its unique individuality.
• This individuality is expressed through the host's actions, responses, and adaptations to its environment.
Conclusion:
The concept of individuality as an antenna state that functions as a POV provides a compelling framework for understanding how living hosts instantiate individuality. This POV, established through atomic and molecular configurations, allows hosts to gather and process telemetry from their environment, making individuality dynamic, adaptable, and universally mobile.

[Lagayascienza]

Why do you feel the need for this Universal Mobility of Individuality principle? Life develops here, it develops there. Why do you want individuals to be instantiated anywhere other than where they naturally develop?

It's an unlikely and highly speculative hypothesis whose explanation has required an even more unlikely hypothesis to do with the process of re-instantiation. There is no theoretical reason why the Standard Model of physics requires this, neither is it supported by the Standard Model, and nor is there any evidence that it has, does, or even could, happen. It's basically an unnecessary hypothesis in need of something to explain.

We have good a understanding of evolution of life on earth and some very promising ideas about how abiogenesis occurred here. If it can occur here, it is likely that it can occur elsewhere where condition allow. If the universe is fecund, why do we need this Universal Mobility of Individuality principle? There seems no need reason why re-instantiation must occur and your hypothesis within a hypothesis offers no believable explanation of how it could occur.

[tonylang]

Why do you feel the need for this Universal Mobility of Individuality principle? Life develops here, it develops there. Why do you want individuals to be instantiated anywhere other than where they naturally develop?

It's an unlikely and highly speculative hypothesis whose explanation has required an even more unlikely hypothesis to do with the process of re-instantiation. There is no theoretical reason why the Standard Model of physics requires this, neither is it supported by the Standard Model, and nor is there any evidence that it has, does, or even could, happen. It's basically an unnecessary hypothesis in need of something to explain.

We have good a understanding of evolution of life on earth and some very promising ideas about how abiogenesis occurred here. If it can occur here, it is likely that it can occur elsewhere where condition allow. If the universe is fecund, why do we need this Universal Mobility of Individuality principle? There seems no need reason why re-instantiation must occur and your hypothesis within a hypothesis offers no believable explanation of how it could occur.

In a word; Control

Currently, humankind is as are all other species in earth’s ecosystem, wild. We define wild-life as those host cultures that have not organized socially and culturally to reduce their dependence on the resources circumstantially provided by chance to some useful or perceived extent. However, this is a somewhat self-serving definition. In reality the true definition of wild-life is an ecosystems lack of a culture, consisting of any number of species, able to take deliberate control of individual instantiation into ones living circumstances. To continue, like all other species in its ecosystem to be arbitrarily reinstantiated by the probabilities of random chance which mediates when, where, and in what form one will live in your next instantiation, in your next life. Failure to have evolved sufficiently to reach this stage of development is the very definition of wild-life. Neither farming, nor art, or tool making or even genetic manipulation of living hosts alone moves an ecosystem across this life and existence altering threshold.

[Sculptor1]

...

Try this:

The LINE Scenario suggests that while Earth-based life forms, including humans as we know them, cannot exist on ECO2 (an exoplanet or alternate environment with conditions vastly different from Earth), the essence of your individuality—your consciousness or identity—could potentially be transferred or replicated there. This could be achieved through advanced technological means such as mind uploading, digital consciousness, or some other method of preserving and transferring consciousness independent of the biological constraints of Earth-based life.

In simpler terms, while your physical human body cannot survive on ECO2 due to its incompatible environment, the unique essence that makes you "you" (your consciousness, memories, personality) could exist in a different form that is suited to the conditions of ECO2. This could be through an artificial body, a digital existence, or another form that can operate and thrive in that alien environment.

So, the scenario explores the possibility of transcending our biological limitations and finding ways to maintain our individuality in environments where traditional Earth life cannot exist.

A noble effort, but I'm afraid not. Once again, try this instead, and this time ponder the words;

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

...

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 (move, travel) 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;
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.


tonylang;
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.

You do not understand these words since you have borrowed them from Chat GPT..

[Lagayascienza]

In a word; Control

Currently, humankind is as are all other species in earth’s ecosystem, wild. We define wild-life as those host cultures that have not organized socially and culturally to reduce their dependence on the resources circumstantially provided by chance to some useful or perceived extent. However, this is a somewhat self-serving definition. In reality the true definition of wild-life is an ecosystems lack of a culture, consisting of any number of species, able to take deliberate control of individual instantiation into ones living circumstances. To continue, like all other species in its ecosystem to be arbitrarily reinstantiated by the probabilities of random chance which mediates when, where, and in what form one will live in your next instantiation, in your next life. Failure to have evolved sufficiently to reach this stage of development is the very definition of wild-life. Neither farming, nor art, or tool making or even genetic manipulation of living hosts alone moves an ecosystem across this life and existence altering threshold.

Ah, so, it's about having control. It's about avoiding death by getting to live on elsewhere, albeit in another host. Where have we heard this sort of speculation before? Souls going to a posited heaven, individual consciousnesses rejoining a posited universal consciousness. Not a chance!

Do you really think the universe gives a sh*t about whether individual organisms like you or I live on? And do you think that, if the universe ends in a Big Crunch, or eventually evaporates into nothing as per thermodynamic "heat death", any organisms would survive ? It seems to me that it's just the same old wishful thinking around which you have built a new fiction. In short, it's mysticism.

[tonylang]

Where is everyone?

As we probe the depths of the known universe with increasingly majestic instruments based upon the detection of electromagnetism, and as of very recently, gravity waves, it becomes increasingly apparent that the proliferation and distribution of living ecosystems in this universe is curiously low. Today we refer to this absence of detectable extraterrestrial living contact in the cosmos, as the great silence. What could account for this apparent barrenness in a universe known to host at least one prolific, remarkably diverse, extremely long lived habitat for individualized life?

Historically, humankinds search for extraterrestrial life has been based upon a premise that may be false. We consider the prospects for life beyond the earth to be loosely based on the Drake equation (N = R * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * L). This formula, conceived by Frank Drake in 1961, considers the quantity of possible extraterrestrial civilizations to be dependent upon a number of factors all of which considers only the presence and duration of classical matter based entities and conditions. However, nature has never proven to be as simplistic as humankind may first imagine. The LINE hypothesis suggests that individual life throughout this universe is instantiated and mediated by the entanglement spectrum and it is this pervasive non-local natural medium which ultimately determines the quantity of simultaneous living individuals that is possible in this universe.

The QE spectrum is hypothesized to naturally limit this universes capacity for life. Not unlike the electromagnetic spectrum which although also quantifiably infinite, is practically limited in its utility for simultaneous useful unique channels by classical technological devices. However, for the QE spectrum and life in this universe, this is not only a limitation of biology or even of technology, but is a limitation imposed by the topography between this verse and the underlying metaverse which define this universes local QE spectrum. If life and individuality are indeed dependent upon unique singleton teleportation channels of the QE spectrum, hence, it is hypothesized that there exists a maximum number of simultaneous living individuals possible in this universe, regardless of location or host form. This capacity is described by this universes laws of physics to be some finite, potentially calculable population regardless of the number of viable habitats for life that may exist. This capacity for life is called the LINE Capacity (LC) and is the number of instantiations of individual life that may exist simultaneously in this universe.

This living population represents not only the number of POV’s had by emerged multi-cellular hosts like humans or whales or ants, but far more significantly, includes the number of instantiations of fundamental hosts, such as individual cells, currently in existence whether composing such emerged hosts or not. On earth this is a large number. In nature, each count as one instance of individual life. At any one time a human host consists of perhaps 100 trillion cellular instantiations and over a lifetime, many more than that, plus one additional. That additional instantiation is you. Ones POV heterodyned by the entanglement cells (EC) is one of nature’s pinnacle evolved invocations in Earths ecosystem. It is hypothesized that once a verses living population exceeds its LC, any additional viable ecosystems that emerge will only be perfectly habitable yet completely barren worlds, like so many well constructed houses with no one home. Near the LC, for the emergence of life to take hold, such habitats will need to remain viable for the emergence of life for a time during which the QE spectrum simultaneously has available bandwidth viable for the instantiation of living individuals, i.e. cells, to entangle at unique uninstantiated degrees of freedom (DOF) of the entanglement spectrum. Thereby initiating an indigenous genesis of life.


Further, as any universes living population approach its LC, any ecosystems therein actively hosting life will begin to experience increasingly higher mitosis, gestation, and birth mortality rates. This occurs as the existing living hosts, unbeknownst, continue to procreate, to create new viable hosts for life which then fail to instantiate the crucial teleportation channel needed to establish the living individuals position-of-view (POV). In circumstances where the universal living population remains near its LC, like an establishment approaching its fire occupancy limit, the life and death cycle of living beings throughout the universe becomes increasingly influential as it essentially consumes and liberates QE bandwidth universally. Like occupants entering and leaving an establishment, this flux of instantiation increasingly informs the availability of unique QEF to instantiate new living beings. It is highly probable in most evolved ecosystems still possessing a robust micro-biome, that this outage of life will be largely absorbed first in the vast mortality rates of diminutive host forms such as single cell life and colonies thereof. Hence, primarily by mere attrition, this outage may only rarely effect the heterodyned QEF of more complex emerged multi-cellular hosts (with EC) such as mammals, birds, fish or insects.


A universal LC potentially informs the local success rates of new life in wild ecosystems such as Earth. Further, if the LC of this universe is near some integer factor of the current population of life on earth, or even if the LC is several million times that population, nonetheless, such a finite capacity for living beings combined with this universes unfathomable vastness probabilistically infers that humankind may never detect extraterrestrial life. At least not by classical means, because where the QE spectrum reigns, neither distance nor time holds sway. In light of this possible upper limit to the natural instantiation of individuality, it should come as no great surprise that this universe appears to be so devoid of extraterrestrial life. Ergo, it is not simply a consideration of matter or of the habitability of worlds that dictate and mediate the proliferation of life in this universe. No wild ecosystem can know where its universes living population currently lies relative to its LC absent a deep command of the principles described by the LINE hypothesis.

[Lagayascienza]

No, I'm not reading another of these slabs. Like reading the Koran, your slabs of prose are incantatory, and repeated rather than developed.

[Lagayascienza]

"What can be said, can be said clearly.' Witt

[Lagayascienza]

"And, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent."

[tonylang]

In a word; Control

Currently, humankind is as are all other species in earth’s ecosystem, wild. We define wild-life as those host cultures that have not organized socially and culturally to reduce their dependence on the resources circumstantially provided by chance to some useful or perceived extent. However, this is a somewhat self-serving definition. In reality the true definition of wild-life is an ecosystems lack of a culture, consisting of any number of species, able to take deliberate control of individual instantiation into ones living circumstances. To continue, like all other species in its ecosystem to be arbitrarily reinstantiated by the probabilities of random chance which mediates when, where, and in what form one will live in your next instantiation, in your next life. Failure to have evolved sufficiently to reach this stage of development is the very definition of wild-life. Neither farming, nor art, or tool making or even genetic manipulation of living hosts alone moves an ecosystem across this life and existence altering threshold.

Ah, so, it's about having control. It's about avoiding death by getting to live on elsewhere, albeit in another host. ...

Why necessarily elsewhere? How about here, wherever here is for any individual in this universe?

[tonylang]

The monogamy of entanglement is the law of nature that isolates an entangled state from intrusion by non-participant, non-indoctrinated entities. So how is it that the organelles in any given cell manage to share a common entangled state to the exclusion of other entities that may violate the cells wall? Isn’t the law of monogamy being violated? No, the law of monogamy isn’t being violated anymore than the law of gravity is being violated when we construct and fly 100-ton airliners carrying hundreds of passengers thru the atmosphere. As is always the case the laws of nature are never violated only manipulated and utilized to achieve the desired behavior. So it is in the living cell. To understand the living cells' utilization of a common entangled state think of a cruise ship at sea, it either has an onboard wireless communications transceiver (ham-radio etc.) or it doesn’t. A ship with such a device may allow its hundreds of crew members each in possession of their own hand units (talkies) to communicate with one another but also it permits the ship as an entity to communicate and share its state information with the cloud that is the outside world. In this scenario the crew shares a common channel of communication which is isolated from intrusion by some common degree-of-freedom defined by some uniquely quantifiable aspect of the electromagnetic spectrum. Usually, that property is electromagnetic frequency modulation combined with a layer of encryption derived from a private encryption key for added security.


In the lab today we understand the promise of entanglement as a security encryption protocol primarily because of its monogamistic properties. We see that we may use the public and private key approach for encrypting and decrypting information securely. Likewise the cell utilizes a sort of private encryption key process to indoctrinate new entities manufactured within the cell from the cells own DNA to become participants, new organelles within the cell. This private key bestows upon newly minted entities a common shared degree-of-freedom defined by this individual cells’ specific quantum entanglement frequency (QEF). The QEF is a uniquely quantifiable aspect of the quantum entanglement spectrum. It is exposed only via the cells entanglement molecules which at this stage in evolution of earth-life have likely been fully incorporated within the molecular structure of the cell’s DNA.


It is through the utilization of the cells entanglement molecules that the individuals unique QEF is made available as a private key for the indoctrination of new cellular organelles. In our cruise ship analogy, consider a responsible crew member is tasked to program secure hand units (talkies) with the ships unique frequency and encryption key and then to distribute those units to each new member of the crew. This enables each new arrival to become a participating member of the ships staff thereby animating the ship as a self contained living organism. In the living cell it is hypothesized that a similar activity is undertaken when a ribosome manufactures a new protein line from its’ RNA and DNA within the cell’s nucleus. All new organelles are imbued with a common aspect of the entanglement spectrum. This property is exposed by the entanglement molecule within the cells’ DNA and permits the otherwise inanimate organelle to utilize the cellular natural entanglement connection to metamatter. In so doing the organelle is not entangled but like the crew members on the ship is in communion on some level with other cellular entities and also able to shares cellular state information with the universal cloud-storage of metamatter accessible by other naturally entangled host anywhere in this universe. No doubt today in the modern living cell this is a complicated process to describe and document but it is nonetheless recognizable through this analogy. This describes the natural implementation that is the predominant difference between a living entity and a non living one and the instantiation of the individual by natural entanglement.


The monogamy of entanglement enforces the integrity and isolation of an existing entangled state such as the hypothesized position-of-view (POV). It is in fact nature’s last line of defense against infiltration upon any entangled state. This effect can essentially be thought of as a self-destruct mechanism. The concept of defense by self destruction appears at times in implementations both technological and natural. In human affairs when vital information needs to be isolated or otherwise protected from infiltration at any cost we wire the asset for destruction with explosives or such. In nature the integrity of a law of conservation is often when such an effect is observed. In the case of an entangled state it is indeed when the conservation of information, one of nature’s fundamental laws, is threatened with violation is when the asset, the entangled relationship, forfeit. If one wired an asset to explode upon infiltration or upon specific violation then one would also need to broadcast this fact to interested parties for it to be an effective deterrent. Alternatively, one would need to erect obstacles of a defensive, offensive, and perhaps cognitive nature to actively keep out unwanted intrusions upon the protected asset. This is exactly what living hosts (species) are.


This evolutionary arms race to protect the individuals’ vital asset the POV began with a simple cell wall in the early proto-cell. This cell wall may be metaphorically compared to the posts of timber erected by early peoples that settled in a new land. They often erected a defensive barrier to keep out environmental threats and also to protect vital assets on the inside of the encampment. Today these walls have grown and evolved substantially both in nations and in the living cell. In the living cell and in any other host all systems are evolved to support in the protection of the POV the entangled state maintained by the entanglement molecules within the single cell. In complex (multi-cellular) hosts the POV is the entangled state maintained specifically by the entanglement cells (EC) which must be protected from intrusion or infiltration while sacrificing many other non-EC cells in due course.


Another apt metaphor for this idea is the starship enterprise on the popular iconic TV show star trek. Though the enterprise bristles with offensive as well as defensive and cognitive systems, both living and non-living, the last line of protection is to isolate or protect the information content inherent in the enterprise from infiltration. This is accomplished similarly by annihilating the ship. So it is that the well known self-destruct system of the enterprise is ushered into service at the last possible moment. Likewise the monogamy of entanglement as previously stated is nature’s last line of defense of the law of conservation of information in this universe. Make no mistake this is purely a cause and effect mechanism of natural law. Quantum coherence and its monogamistic properties are observations made in the laboratory and are given labels, names. No one should suggest at this juncture to know the fundamental underlying implementation in nature of these phenomena. However, plausible well considered hypothesis are welcome.

[Lagayascienza]

Neither a posited "law of nature that isolates an entangled state from intrusion by non-participant, non-indoctrinated entities" (whatever that means) nor a so called "monogamy of entanglement" to "conserve information" (again, whatever that means) would seem to have anything to do with the actual laws of nature as we currently understand them. What reason in there to think that your post above is not just more verbiage in need of something to explain?

Absent sound theoretical or empirical reasons to believe that any such hypotheses are needed to explain anything, why should we entertain them? There is no reason to think that the universe could give, a sh*t about "information content" or "individuality" or anything else. What is most likely is that certain humans, intent on finding some way for their insignificant individuality to survive their death and/or intent on making money now by selling a book full of it, care about such stuff.

Why is all your verbiage not just wild, wishful and wooly thinking? Why should anyone think that it is not of a piece with the New Age nonsense that the likes of Fritjof Capra go on with in order to sell books to the gullible?