tonylang wrote: ↑May 6th, 2024, 9:34 am
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.
The search for the entanglement cell (EC) will require the isolation and identification of critical regions of cells that may be refereed to as ‘Follicle regions’. Follicle regions in this context describes isolated diminutive groups of cells which when sufficiently disrupted appears to cause the termination of the subject in a manner difficult to distinguish from genuine EC termination. EC (Entanglement cells) being the most fundamental physical implementation of individuality of an emerged composite being, disruption of EC exclusively is hypothesized to result in disentanglement to metamatter which is deinstantiation, individual death.
Follicle regions may actually contain EC, or alternatively only cells whose function is critical to systemic function not unlike cells of the heart or liver only whose role is much less obvious. Determining which of these two possibilities is the case will require the investigation to focus on each follicle group of cells by a process of elimination to reduce the group to the barest minimum of effective follicle cells within the group and then to trace and definitively determine how those remaining follicle cells contribute to host termination.
For each follicle group this process should always lead either to the determination and identification of yet another indirect cause of death or to the discovery of the presence of genuine EC within the follicle group. These EC will be those, one or more cells which contribute only and exclusively to the observed subject termination. This process requires the discounting (not subjecting to disruption) of those cells which either cause intermediate damage to other host systems or do not directly cause host termination.
Subject termination due to EC candidate cells within the follicle group must not result in any premortem cellular disruption (non-necrotic) physically or functionally to any region outside of the follicle group. Ergo, death without damage.
Approved subjects (flies, nematodes etc.) chosen for this process may need to be high fidelity clones in order to provide the required consistent physical structure and predictable systemic cellular distribution. This is so the process of elimination may continue unabated with minimal loss of progress as subjects are terminated and new test subjects are needed to continue the investigation. Further, subjects may not need to be fully formed individuals but may be sufficiently developed living embryonic forms. Subjects viable for testing but not viable by current definitions, for independent growth.
Probing for the entanglement cell (EC) does not require physical contact with candidate cells. To the contrary, the astute investigator will quickly realize that the less physically disruptive the probing mechanism the more progress will result from the exercise. Since the task at hand is not to disrupt any cellular internal function which could kill the cell but rather to disrupt only the heterodyning mechanism by which the EC maintain the emerged individual POV. The means of disrupting EC heterodyning are potentially numerous as the monogamy of this delicate state are unforgiving. Infiltration or only identification of the entangled state may occur by the use of appropriate entanglement witnesses such as properly tailored photonic, electronic or other non physical mechanisms. Of course there is a chance that every cell is an EC. This would require a slight modification of the predictions of the theory as in such a case the heterodyned state would be far more robust than currently predicted. This is because the entangled state of emerged POV would need to survive massive changes in cell participation as cells of the holistic host are perpetually transient.
Depending on the relative orientation and positioning of EC relative to other EC the probe will need to target individual candidate cells or very diminutive groups of the same. This is because it is possible that EC may have developed in close proximity or even in direct contact with each other during the gestation period of initial conception and engaged their heterodyning of their individual QEF to establish the emerged QEF and then later physically drift apart as the billions of new non-EC cells develop as the subject grows. Or alternatively the heterodyned EC may in all or some species remain in direct physical contact with other EC to maintain the heterodyning function required for emerged individuality to persist. Therefore the probe may need to be focused down to within the diameter of a single cell and be as noninvasive as possible yet highly maneuverable as to scan many cellular diameters in rapid succession.
Given all of these requirements the inventive investigator may imagine a probe not dissimilar from the polarized blue or UV laser found in a blu-ray disc player and research labs around the world as a good foundation upon which to fashion the probe for this endeavor. The LINE hypothesis suggests that sufficient disruption of the heterodyned state of EC will deinstantiate the emerged individual even while the non-EC or even the actual EC cells remain instantiated alive as individual, functional cells. But with all cells of the host remaining fully functional, how is the deinstantiation of the emerged individual determined? There is expected to be a time lapse between POV termination and the first signs of the shutting down of cellular function associated with postmortem necrosis of the host body. But the more immediate symptom of deinstantiation may be an alteration in species or subject specific nervous system and brain functions. Each of such symptoms may be used separately or together to identify POV termination of the subject.
To the environment a living host entangled at one QEF is identical to that same host entangled at any different QEF. There is no classically detectable outward influence or behavior of the POV that can immediately effect ones surroundings which includes ones host. because the host, the species is a part of that local environment. No causal difference between one POV and another is available to the outside world, only to the individual is the difference rendered manifest by the isolation of individuality. It is only the isolation of individual instantiation and also of experience centered upon ones position-of view that affords a clear distinction of self, being, and individuality via the acquired skill of self-awareness in each being capable to fathoming the distinction. The isolation imposed upon the individual POV by a protective composite, and often disconnected host, is a solitary condition which the instantiated being strives to overcome. This is widely achieved through communication in all of its forms which includes mobility. From the single living cell to bacteria to vegetation to human beings, genetically all strive to break the isolation imposed by this fundamental living condition of life. This journey out of the isolation of the basic natural entangled state of life not only began, but continues with the living cell in all of its forms and has evolved to become the prolific, diverse eco-system we see today.
Communication requires the development, usually via evolution, of structures and functions that augment the basic implementation by which natural entanglement is hosted. Evolution no doubt favors the group, which also benefits from communication. This is not to suggest that the perception of individuality cannot be clouded perhaps by intimately integrated communication systems of both a technological and biological nature. Such augmentation could fade the experiential distinction between self and others. Even so, make no mistake, there can be no classical infiltration of the individual POV as there are strict natural monogamistic laws of quantum coherent interaction that guarantees the isolation (or forfeit) of the individual entangled state that is the position-of-view.
Most often the information of self which is acquired during a lifetime is dissipated from the individual upon deinstantiation. Some information of ones past instantiations may persist in the memories of other instantiated beings for a time or within indelable works or, in the archival repositories of advanced societies. However, currently with no means by which any reinstantiated QEF can be identified, for now, the anonymity of the reinstantiated individual remains assured. It would require the development, evolutionary or technological, of persistent personal individual inter-longevous memory or the societal archiving of such information, coupled with the capability to identify and distinguish the unique individual QEF to then inform reinstantiated individuals of their past histories. Also with this capability would emerge the even more profound capability to influence ones future instantiations by manipulating aspects of ones’ fidelity of teleportation (FT), and further, to eventually develop controlled universal travel via targeted reinstantiation as advanced enlightened species in this universe already would. In so doing a threshold would have been crossed in the maturity of a species as the accompanying enlightenment transforms life as we know it.
- By Sushan