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

[Sy Borg]

In other words, due to probabilities, someone with a similar disposition to you will most likely emerge in the future, and that person (or people) will live in the world that you helped to create.

The moral: Be nice to your future self. If you are, you'll be grateful to your former self for being so considerate.

No, not "someone with a similar disposition", but 'You', (the same unique property of the space your host instantaneously occupies, your unique QEF) but hosted by different atoms. No emergent property from this or any prior instances of you survives each instantiation. Not, disposition, memories, etc. there is some probability that you could be human or any other form.

How it be me? The child of [ahem, mumble] years ago is not me. The child is already long gone, as has the adolescent, the young adult and, really, I'm not much similar to how I was in middle age either. Those "mes" all share memories current with current me, and a few dispositional features remain because we share the same neurons, but we are different in many ways.

This version of me will go away too, and once all the neurons are dead, only the archetypal features and scattered molecules/atoms remain in this reality.

IMO it cannot be "me" in any sense without my neurons or memories. It's the chain of memories that creates identity. That's why the current projects to give AI memories of its previous conversations so profound. It might even be the key to sentience and sapience.

[Lagayascienza]

This version of me will go away too, and once all the neurons are dead, only the archetypal features and scattered molecules/atoms remain in this reality.

IMO it cannot be "me" in any sense without my neurons or memories. It's the chain of memories that creates identity. That's why the current projects to give AI memories of its previous conversations so profound. It might even be the key to sentience and sapience.

Yes, without our neurons which house our memories, it's hard to see how individuality could endure, or any reason why it should endure. There's no law of nature that requires it, or which supports in any way the notion of Individual Mobility.

I'm not opposed to the idea per se. I just don't see any need for it. If it's some sort immortality one is hankering after, then it would be simpler to just invoke some form of Idealism which cannot be disproved. Or even a god of some sort.

[tonylang]

The hypothesized entanglement molecule, a primordial arrangement of atoms, naturally establishes a shared information state with a form of matter called metamatter hypothesized to exist outside of our space-time within the Hilbert-space called the metverse. Today it is suspected that gravity is as weak as observed in our space-time because it too exists partially or mostly outside of our space-time. However, gravity like all known standard-model forces is governed and constrained by the laws of relativity and their effects are therefore limited at or below the speed of light in this space-time. Therefore, changes in the suns’ gravitational influence for example, take 8 minutes to reach the earth just as does the suns’ light. The only phenomenon known to science which demonstrates behavior which essentially subverts the current laws of relativity is entanglement, a type of quantum coherence. Natural entanglement is quantum entanglement implemented by natural structures like the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) complex or by the hypothesized entanglement molecule and is utilized in nature to great effect. Life is one such effect.


So what might be the origins and structure of the entanglement molecule? For starters it is most likely to be one of a finite number of known interstellar molecules. These are molecules formed from stellar or interstellar processes rather than in ecosystems. There is a good chance that whatever the structure of the entanglement molecule may have been prior to the emergence of life on earth it may since have been transformed here on Earth to be incorporated into cellular structures such as in the DNA molecule or in the FMO complex. Much of the DNA molecule remains unknown to modern science and is sometimes referred to as DNA dark-matter. This suggests that, like interstellar dark-matter, DNA dark-matter is also undefined. Nonetheless, this significant unknown portion of the molecule most influential to earth-life must be of primary interest in the search for the entanglement molecule; But what to look for? For guidance I tend to begin my scrutiny with the structure of the FMO complex. This photosynthetic antenna complex is the naturally occurring molecular structure responsible for the photosynthetic non-classical conduction observed in living plant cells via natural entanglement. In green algae it operates to overcome the otherwise inefficient latency of classical mechanisms which would result in a devastating loss of anti-entropic information needed from sunlight for the continued evolution of viable hosts on this planet, cross referenced with types of known primordial molecules. Today, in our quest for life, we tend to search only for molecules which support our current understanding of the implementation of life in this universe, which are molecules which comprise the biological structures we can readily identify, this is of course as it must be. However, there may be a more effective approach.


This alternate approach requires an understanding of the instantiation of life by natural entanglement and the subsequent development of technologies based on its principles such as a conceptual entanglement telescope. Such a telescope would reveal areas of dense natural entanglement present in living entities throughout this universe in a manner similar to the way non-optical telescopes illuminate matter. Properly designed QE detectors when exposed to the open sky will permit us to see life throughout the universe as bright star-like spots of complexity. Each such spot reveals, not the density of matter at those locations, but rather the immensely concentrated density of information complexity present in living entities at those locations, complexity which exists in much greater density in living entities than in non-living ones. In nature how does the influence and density of informational complexity encoded in living entities compare to that of inanimate matter?


Our most powerful computing systems programmed with our best models running non-stop for months can barley model the folding of a basic protein. Step that concept up to the full expression of a complex protein not to mention the Ribosome which is the tiny factory that builds proteins in living organisms, step that up all the way to modeling a living bacteria etc. This informational concentration of DNA and its systems, regardless of how we define them, is potent to the mathematics and therefore to the state of nature and each instance is a multiplier of this mathematical potency. Each instance is each DNA strand in each cell that has ever been created in the four plus billion years that DNA has existed on Earth. Put in these terms you can begin to appreciate how earth life has contributed to nature as a very potent mathematical factory contributing to balancing the existential formula.


On the other hand, we are much more capable of modeling a star like our Sun or even a black hole which we all know are both physically much larger than a DNA molecule or a Ribosome or your cat. As I'm sure you can see size doesn't matter in this regard. Likewise complexity can be deceptive to the human eye but is well defined in mathematical terms. The reason we are more able to model a Star is because the processes that implement a star and inanimate entities in general, are far simpler in mathematical and informational complexity than those that define a protein to a bacteria. Modeling a star is only a few orders of magnitude more difficult than simulating the aerodynamics and thermodynamics of the Space shuttle. Simulating even single bacteria is far, far more complex.


The theory of instantiation by natural entanglement proposes that all that you are experiencing at this moment including the body you’re in, and the reality you see as this universe, is a real-time rendering of a set of quantum wave functions of state (Hamiltonians) or qsf’s. These qsf’s comprise the metaverse if you will or Hilbert space if you won’t. They manifest a potential reality which for you, as an emerged composite being, would remain unresolved and inaccessible if not for your position-of-view (POV) produced and maintained by the entanglement molecules contained within a very special group of cells in your host form called the entanglement cells (EC). All living cells in or out of your body establish an entangled state with a form of matter called metamatter. However, most of your cells do not directly establish your emerged QE connection, your POV. It is only the EC’s that have evolved the specialization to heterodyne or combine their individual entangled state into a new unique composite entangled state to establish your individual LifeID at your unique QEF sufficiently different from that of your other cells. Together these elements establish your position-of-view (POV). The POV is the mathematical representation of the emerged individual. Each individual POV, regardless of the form taken by its host vessel, effectively provides a unique solution (practical and mathematical) which resolves, and collapses the surrounding ocean of qsf’s (Hamiltonians) that is nature, into that individuals’ reality. This collapse of quantum states into what we call reality is centered upon the individuals POV and manifests an individualized rendering of nature. Each individual rendering had by every truly living entity is similarly collapsed by those other POV’s. These realities are very similar at least for compatible POV’s such as those on earth and perhaps those that may be found throughout this universe.


Although not easy it is not impossible to detect differences between POV renderings as seen in individual observations of subtle quantum experiments (Double slit, weak-measurement etc.). Differences between individual POV’s and their resulting rendering of nature may have mostly to do with the cells that host the entanglement connection being that the QE spectrum upon which the POV is established is expected to be a significantly constant universal phenomenon. This is like saying that the audio experience produced by a radio set is primarily dependant upon the design and technology of the radio set given the same broadcast signal. In this metaphor ones’ natural entangled state is akin to the broadcast signal and your host form is the radio set. There may be many types of forms of radio sets and species but the fundamental natural implementation of both implementations, the natural entanglement spectrum and the electromagnetic spectrum, is universal.


One possible factor that may plausibly contribute to differences in POV rendering is likely to be the type of matter that comprise the host cells, or their equivalent, that is to say; normal matter as we know it versus some other form of (non-standard model) matter akin to dark-matter. Another factor is likely to be the unique degrees-of-freedom that may be indigenous to such exotic forms of matter may prove to be dominant in the description of the emerged POV’s wave functions (Hamiltonian) and interaction with nature. Liken the concept of a separate POV (which is not possible) to a CPU not yet connected to a motherboard, it is pure potential. Your position-of-view POV itself is not corporeal like a CPU but is instead essentially a standing quantum wave produced and maintained by your EC. The POV is the mathematical representation of the LifeID and both interferes and interacts and collapses natures own wave functions (Hamiltonians) which are the local superposition state of your environment (i.e. the cat is both dead and alive.) into the corporeal or particulate form your senses detect as your reality.


Ones senses, such as they’re configured in your particular host form, performs an entirely different task of rendering signals electromagnetically as telemetry gathered from this collapsed reality to form what we call experiences. Make no mistake, your position-of-view is not involved with such experiences but only serves to persist your placement as a solution of state in space-time. The collapse of the environments superposition state we call reality may not be solely or even largely performed by the living POV (arguably the electron plays a significant role in pre-rendering nature.) but nonetheless manifests the tangible physical position such experiences derives from. This is hypothesized to be the natural mechanism of ‘Being’ for every individual life-form that is implemented throughout this universe and indeed perhaps throughout existence. This is the root of the experience, or lack thereof, of life.

[tonylang]

This version of me will go away too, and once all the neurons are dead, only the archetypal features and scattered molecules/atoms remain in this reality.

IMO it cannot be "me" in any sense without my neurons or memories. It's the chain of memories that creates identity. That's why the current projects to give AI memories of its previous conversations so profound. It might even be the key to sentience and sapience.

Yes, without our neurons which house our memories, it's hard to see how individuality could endure, or any reason why it should endure. There's no law of nature that requires it, or which supports in any way the notion of Individual Mobility.

I'm not opposed to the idea per se. I just don't see any need for it. If it's some sort immortality one is hankering after, then it would be simpler to just invoke some form of Idealism which cannot be disproved. Or even a god of some sort.

For cultures of high potential emerging from it's wild state, the greatest obstacle is, initially removing from the equation what one currently sees in the mirror.

[Lagayascienza]

If you want people to read you ideas (which I personally find highly speculative but still somewhat interesting) then make them readable. I love reading science. Even if this were science, it would be unreadable.

The great slabs of text you cut and paste from your book and lob down here are just too much. I know you want to sell your book, but you are going about it the wrong way. You are making it hard for yourself. You need to make reading it easier for people. Otherwise no one, not even readers of rigorous science, will buy it.

What can be said can be said clearly. What can't be said, is said with a heap of tortured and unnecessary verbiage.

Have you considered submitting you book to a publisher of science texts? Do you think it would make the grade?

[Lagayascienza]

This version of me will go away too, and once all the neurons are dead, only the archetypal features and scattered molecules/atoms remain in this reality.

IMO it cannot be "me" in any sense without my neurons or memories. It's the chain of memories that creates identity. That's why the current projects to give AI memories of its previous conversations so profound. It might even be the key to sentience and sapience.

Yes, without our neurons which house our memories, it's hard to see how individuality could endure, or any reason why it should endure. There's no law of nature that requires it, or which supports in any way the notion of Individual Mobility.

I'm not opposed to the idea per se. I just don't see any need for it. If it's some sort immortality one is hankering after, then it would be simpler to just invoke some form of Idealism which cannot be disproved. Or even a god of some sort.

For cultures of high potential emerging from it's wild state, the greatest obstacle is, initially removing from the equation what one currently sees in the mirror.

So what do you see in the mirror? If you want to show people a different, more interesting picture than what they can currently see, you need to make the image the mirror reflects easier to read.

[tonylang]

This version of me will go away too, and once all the neurons are dead, only the archetypal features and scattered molecules/atoms remain in this reality.

IMO it cannot be "me" in any sense without my neurons or memories. It's the chain of memories that creates identity. That's why the current projects to give AI memories of its previous conversations so profound. It might even be the key to sentience and sapience.

Yes, without our neurons which house our memories, it's hard to see how individuality could endure, or any reason why it should endure. There's no law of nature that requires it, or which supports in any way the notion of Individual Mobility.

I'm not opposed to the idea per se. I just don't see any need for it. If it's some sort immortality one is hankering after, then it would be simpler to just invoke some form of Idealism which cannot be disproved. Or even a god of some sort.

For cultures of high potential emerging from it's wild state, the greatest obstacle is, initially removing from the equation what one currently sees in the mirror.

So what do you see in the mirror? If you want to show people a different, more interesting picture than what they can currently see, you need to make the image the mirror reflects easier to read.

Memory is the mirror we cannot see beyond.

[tonylang]

Presumably there is a first time for everything. Consider then this earths first life, that is to say, the first time you or I or any individual is instantiated as a living being in any ecosystem, perhaps in this ecosystem, Earths’ ecosystem. This may seem like a strange notion to consider but realize that no matter what your current belief system one cannot deny there has to have been a first instantiation for each individual even if you think this life is that first time, the only time, the last time you will live. Further, let us call this first ever host of life in earths ecosystem and perhaps first in this universe Cell-1. What individual was hosted by Cell-1? Who was it that came into being so many billions of years ago entangled by this first living host here on earth? Was it me ? was it you? Was it someone we now know? A single cell being in nature as much a living being as any other, how then could we identify this or any individual position-of-view including ones own?


Since the natural process that populates this universe with living beings is as all natural processes are, ubiquitous, prolific and may repeat whenever wherever conditions are favorable, this first individual may very well be among the living today. If you are having trouble comprehending this notion it is likely because you are thinking of individuality from a second or third person perspective, the visible tangible behavioral perspective. Instead consider individuality from ones own first person position-of-view. As with you or I, the form that any living being instantiates does not change the fundamental nature of ones position of view which is presence not experience. It is only ones form, placement and time in this universe that vary. Make no mistake the POV is not to be confused with a point of view which if had by a given species or host is a function of that particular host and is nothing more than the skills manifested by that particular entangled form. Skills manifested perhaps by cognition of a complex brain and/or nervous system, or a lack thereof.


A unique position-of-view is what defines the individual regardless of form. It is very difficult for hosts such as humankind to imagine the being of other life forms. So how does one imagine a beings POV even ones own? It isn't easy, particularly since there has never been anything one could do to change ones instantiated form, apart that is from terminating ones own life. Even then, with no natural persistent memory of ones past instantiations it is very difficult to comprehend this natural implementation. However one first step may be to realize the natural entangled mechanism of life and then to develop technologies for the detection of the living POV and to record individual inter-longevous histories.


If in fact the first host ever to exist in this universe had entangled your QEF, in nature, you would have been every bit as alive then as you ever were in any subsequently instantiated host including ones current form. When we ask what individual was cell-1? What is it that is being identified if not cell-1's host form, its body the cell and its functions and skills? The LINE hypothesis suggests it is ones unique value of some quantifiable degree-of-freedom of the entanglement spectrum the QEF, call it QEF-1 if you will. Whatever the actual value that QEF-1 turns out to be for an individual, lets say cell-1 for example, that unique value of the QE spectrum will always instantiate cell-1's POV its position-of-view, POV-1. no matter where, when or what the design, biology or technology of the available host. Long after that first host had decayed back into the anonymous atoms that had first contributed to its form its QEF, QEF-1 has likely reinstantiated on countless other occasions since then. With each instantiation, in each life, QEF-1 by entangling matter to metamatter brought the same first person position-of-view into this universe, POV-1, by providing a place and a time to something that otherwise has neither.


No second person perspective would recognize the individual that is POV-1 from the outside, in fact as with current earth-life there is often no means by which any individual could recognize itself as a recurring entity. Particularly if it were a single cell. However, perhaps if billions of such individual POV'S came to entangle highly evolved hosts possessing sufficiently high intelligence and perhaps if a critical mass of such individuals were to become enlightened, no doubt kicking and screaming every step of the way, to the reality of their living circumstances to develop technologies adequate to the task of analyzing and detecting the entanglement spectrum and the standing entanglement wave it manifests in living beings, such a species could one day measure, quantify, and identify the unique living POV of the individual no matter ones physical form. With the identification and comprehension of naturally invasive ideas often comes an ever increasing level of control. In this case it is control over the instantiation of ones own being, which is ones’ form, placement, and time in this universe.

Nature cannot be assigned the property of purpose. Nature doesn’t implement individuality in the manner in which a cognitive species such as a human might. However the ubiquitous natural universal process of instantiating a living being in any given environment ought to be quantifiable and understandable and may be described in terms of natural cause and effect. So how does the natural process of instantiating a living being resolve which QEF, who’s QEF is entangled to cell-1? Whose first person position-of-view, whose being, exists first, second, third etc. Clearly life doesn’t seem to us to be sequential but how can we know for certain?


As a thought experiment, consider that Earths’ hypothetical Cell-1 undergoes mitosis and creates a cell-2. According to the LINE hypothesis both must necessarily entangle stem-metamatter since at that time there can be no metamatter in existence which was imprinted by host species from Earths' virgin ecosystem as there would as yet have been no deinstantiation (Decoherence of an emerged individual), no death. Death is necessary to provide disentangled imprinted metamatter for future generations of life in any ecosystem. Further if cell-2 later divides to create a new cell; cell-3 before cell-1 dies then cell-3 will, as did its two living relatives, also entangle any viable host to stem-metamatter to instantiate yet another original POV never before instantiated in this or perhaps any ecosystem in this universe. Why? Because Cell-1, if it is anything like a modern cell, likely has a mechanism like DNA to transfer its hosts' design information physically generationally and so each host offspring, each relative, be it familial, spicial, or ecological, imprints upon metamatter with a diverging degree of similarity. All of this coherent cellular and QEF state information stored in metamatter attracts future generations of genetically similar hosts to entangle this metamatter. Presumably as is usually the case the individual is unaware of any of this as are even complex species such as present day human beings.


Alternatively, consider if cell-1 instead had disentangled, died before cell-2 divided to produce cell-3, then the LINE hypothesis suggests that this newly minted host (cell 3, grandchild of cell-1) would be more likely to reinstantiate its bygone relatives' QEF (QEF-1). Host cell-1 and 3 are in this scenario generationally, physically related due to their common DNA, and cell-1 over the course of its lifetime has imprinted metamatter, as do all living entities, with information from both their physical component (DNA etc.) and also from its’ unique entangled degrees-of-freedom (QEF-1). The QEF is not part of the cell nor is it an aspect of metamatter it is of the entanglement spectrum. The entanglement spectrum exists as a distinct implementation of nature with properties, characteristics and degrees-of-freedom which define it as such, not unlike the electromagnetic spectrum. These three elements of nature operate in concert to make individuality and life possible and mobile (teleportable) in this universe.


QEF-1 now uninstantiated and unentangled, mediated by the monogamistic rules of quantum coherent interaction becomes available universally for future instantiation with viable hosts. So cell-3 (grandchild of deceased cell-1) with DNA more compatible with deceased cell-1's existing residual metamatter imprint than not, will more readily attract or enter into an entangled state at cell-1’s QEF-1 and its existing recently disentangled metamatter in liew of widely available stem-metamatter. So the individual, the POV that instantiated previously to host cell-1 is now reinstantiated to its own offspring host cell-3. The possibility of familial reinstantiation is likely highly dependent upon the actual resolution of the theorized imprinting upon metamatter by the living cell. For familial reinstantiation ones fidelity of teleportation may need to be above some pivotal value (i.e. .75 or greater above the classical limit), any lower and only species and inter-species entanglement may become likely.


Nonetheless, Cell-3 the individual the world sees as the grandchild of deceased cell-1 could once again host POV-1. Such is the nature of life. It is only when there are no compatible imprinted and simultaneously disentangled metamatter and compatible hosts available that a newly emerged host will entangle stem-metamatter to establish an original (to this ECO system) position-of-view. In nature the laws of conservation mandate that every interaction has an effect and induces a change in its participants. Whether or not we can sense, measure or understand the interaction or the effect it produces. On human scales the gentlest touch transfers heat, induces friction, deformation etc. Electromagnetism changes the atoms and electrons it interacts with or there would be no electronics. A subatomic particle entangled with another or with others interact regardless of distance or time (even when in different temporal frames of reference). By this natural mechanism metamatter, ones non-corporeal life-matter if you will, is changed as it entangles with your cells over the course of each lifetime.


By this process individuality emerges in otherwise inanimate matter and gives rise to a living being that has either never lived in this ecosystem before or may have never lived in this universe previously, The implications for individuals currently instantiated on Earth, as in any viable ecosystem, are that ones future place (reinstantiation) in this eco-system is all but guaranteed barring some global scale catastrophe which erases all life on earth leaving only the possibility of reinstantiation elsewhere, barring such a catastrophe the entire DNA pool of earth-life will attract your QEF to available metamatter to host you once again.

[Lagayascienza]

I still can't make much sense of it. Too many DOFs, ECs, QEFs, POVs, FTs, FMOs, EMs, all mixed up with mountains of excess verbiage.

It's as if you set out deliberately to make what you have to say opaque and impenetrable, even to readers with a good command of English who are comfortable with rigorous science writing. I don't understand why you do it and why you continue to knock back suggestions as to how to make your writing and formatting better. Oh, well, I've tried.

It's a shame because the basic idea is intriguing even if highly speculative. But I'll try one more time.

Give us a precis in two or three short paragraphs without sentences comprised of a bunch of neologism, acronyms and multiple embedded clauses that that run on forever. This just loses the reader. Especially when your paragraphs are as thick as doorsteps. Keep the length of your paragraphs in check. And they don't have to be all the same size. A good paragraph can be as short as one sentence.

It can't be that hard, FCS! What can be said can be said clearly.

[tonylang]

How does a living being with the capacity to do so begin to determine ones future prospects for life after death? The LINE hypothesis suggests it is via the determination of ones’ fidelity of teleportation (FT), a little understood but very real property of quantum information transference which is one metric that governs the instantiation of a living individual. It is the mechanism which the LINE hypothesis describes as the natural process that distributes individuality throughout this universe and likely throughout nature. Estimates of one’s FT is perhaps the value most important to any living being capable of fathoming its importance, no doubt followed closely by the value of ones QEF.

The FT value describes the accumulated probabilities that will influence an individuals’ next instantiation. There are always going to be uncertainties involved in determining ones reinstantiation prospects but generally some of these influences can reasonably be assumed to be constant. Factors such as the assumed persistence of conditions for life within earths ecosystem, and thereby the likelihood of the continuation of ones current species, ones DNA line. Extinction being a fundamental aspect of host evolution is an eventuality that may be generally deferred for such a consideration. Factors such as the proliferation and similarity of ones’ existing familial DNA as well as lifespan species and near-species population, also volume and resolution of imprinted metamatter may all be more dynamic factors relevant to ones FT value and reinstantiation prospects. Ones prospects for reinstantiation describes what host form, or species an individual might entangle in ones next life. Where one entangles that form depends entirely on where such compatible hosts are located in this universe.

Each currently living individual has more likely than not undergone numerous instantiations and lived many lives, many presumably may have entangled hosts right here on earth. Earth being the only known ecosystem with hosts for life that are compatible with your current indigenous earth form, whatever that form may be. Some day the Moon or Mars may become seeded, non-original bastions for earth life. This makes Earth a factory of imprinted metamatter and therefore a powerful attractor, if not the only existing attractor, for the reinstantiation of any being currently alive on Earth. Given that ones metamatter imprint is expected to lose its resolution over time spent uninstantiated, compatibility with hosts that emerge in extraterrestrial ecosystems becomes increasingly possible over time. Other ecosystems that emerged on other planets or in other viable environments in nature will host living forms with different indigenous designs, however the one common mechanism for life is the entanglement molecule, responsible for the QE connection to and the imprinting of that unique design upon metamatter.

Familial reinstantiation may be most desirable to the individual, whether consciously by enlightened consideration or only subconsciously by genetic evolution, but may nonetheless be a very high bar to expect of a pervasive universal natural process such as natural entanglement. Even if, in nature, familial reinstantiation is possible the frequency of it actually occurring may be quite low, or tenuous absent synthetic intervention. Factors competing for influence of the reinstantiation process are in nature likely to be quite aggressive and disruptive to the delicate resolution required for predictable, forecastable familial DNA entanglement. More frequent in nature may be the occurrence of species and near species reinstantiations. Particularly for species with many large populations of close genetic variations simultaneously in existence such as beetles, finches, or cichlids. Further, in natural settings, distance although irrelevant to the coherent information teleportation of natural entanglement, remains a very real obstacle to genetic proliferation across space-time. After all in the entire history of earth life the number of viable hosts that have left Earths ecosystem are negligible at best. Most may never even have left their landmass or lake of origin. Hence the LINE hypothesis predicts the probability of reinstantiating in ones current planetary ecosystem to be quite high due to the localization of corporeal genetic material that is similar to ones existing imprinted metamatter. It is obviously possible for ones QEF to entangle hosts indigenous to other original ecosystems in this universe but the probabilities involved with such stem-metamatter instantiations are comparatively very low, very unlikely, requiring the passage of relatively long spans of time. Of course to the individual any span of time uninstantiated is inconsequential since the uninstantiated individual QEF is removed from space-time and devoid of experience.

The specific implications for human culture and survival of understanding the actual natural mechanism for the mobility of individuality in this universe is unpredictable but will be profound. Humankind up to now has essentially suffered from a form of existential dislocation syndrome. The result of appearing in a place for a time with the capacity to comprehend ones own existence but with a deficit of ideas and information adequate for realizing the natural mechanism governing ones presence, ones being, ones position-of-view. This deficit fosters erroneous ideas of life, species, and self, leading to destructive and unfulfilling self-actualization schemes such as intolerant religions, scientific over-extrapolation, bigotry, and speciesism which corrode social and ecological cohesion necessary for the survival of a species such as humankind.

[Sy Borg]

It would be awesome if Tony's hypothesised "metamatter" exists, allowing for our identity to be kept in a kin of cold storage when our "flash disc" selves break down.

I once had an idea that, since no event can happen at the Planck scale, information from any event will be permanently stored. Thus, the exponential expansion of the universe would actually be the accumulation of a growing "universal database" at the Planck scale. There might be a touch of John Hagelin's "unified field".

The human mind is skilled at coming up with ways that we may avoid total annihilation at death, which may well be caused by a survival instinct that simply doesn't know when to quit.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, I think avoiding annihilation at death is the source of all religion, mysticism, spiritualism and philosophical idealism.

I'm still not across "metamatter" and I don't have the maths to get into Hilbert Space.

[tonylang]

It would be awesome if Tony's hypothesised "metamatter" exists, allowing for our identity to be kept in a kin of cold storage when our "flash disc" selves break down.

I once had an idea that, since no event can happen at the Planck scale, information from any event will be permanently stored. Thus, the exponential expansion of the universe would actually be the accumulation of a growing "universal database" at the Planck scale. There might be a touch of John Hagelin's "unified field".

The human mind is skilled at coming up with ways that we may avoid total annihilation at death, which may well be caused by a survival instinct that simply doesn't know when to quit.

Well said. However, we know that humankind has no idea how individuals inhabit this universe hence thousands of religions and evolution (yes, species evolve but you didn't). The UMI and LINE are primarily about how you, and I, and that fly on the wall, individualize via inanimate atoms here or anywhere, for a time, in relative perpetual motion through space regardless of distance, and what that implies for what can come next. Missing or ignoring the details exposed by the LINE scenario is what defines the wild state of life.

[Sy Borg]

It would be awesome if Tony's hypothesised "metamatter" exists, allowing for our identity to be kept in a kin of cold storage when our "flash disc" selves break down.

I once had an idea that, since no event can happen at the Planck scale, information from any event will be permanently stored. Thus, the exponential expansion of the universe would actually be the accumulation of a growing "universal database" at the Planck scale. There might be a touch of John Hagelin's "unified field".

The human mind is skilled at coming up with ways that we may avoid total annihilation at death, which may well be caused by a survival instinct that simply doesn't know when to quit.

Well said. However, we know that humankind has no idea how individuals inhabit this universe hence thousands of religions and evolution (yes, species evolve but you didn't).

Hmm, H. sapiens certainly did evolve, reportedly from H. habilis. We just seem strange because we either outlasted our competition, or ate them. Think of what would happen to any species that challenged humans, even today. They all simply disappear ...

Humans just have an extra feature - we can perceive time. This is an innovation equivalent to Cambrian animals first developing true eyes, as opposed to just detecting light and dark). Now, thanks to our ability to perceive the flow of time, humans can plan enough to create technology that is also evolving, or might be thought of how humans are evolving.

[tonylang]

Within this space-time we are all too familiar with aspects of matter which are exclusionary in nature, that is, having properties that enforce a singleton behavior to the way all matter-based entities occupy this space-time. In short, no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. When you plug a video cable into a video port on the back of your PC that port becomes occupied and cannot be re-occupied until you remove the current connection freeing the port, freeing the space-time it occupies for future connections. This behavior is taken for granted by our interpretation of reality. Even in circumstances that may seem to defy this behavior it doesn’t. For example, two glasses of water poured into a vase may seem to occupy the same space at the same time but make no mistake even the molecules and atoms that compose this and every other fluid jostle each other and also any pollen grains in their midst for a singleton position in space-time. A thorough description of this behavior served Albert Einstein well when it earned him a Nobel Prize in 1921 for his paper on Brownian Motion.


Such exclusionary behavior exists throughout nature in many different implementations and yet, not in others. For example, electromagnetism is famously nonexclusive in sharing or exposing its quantifiable degrees of freedom such as frequency, wavelength, polarization, intensity, etc. Otherwise, we would all have to take turns enjoying our favorite stations on our fancy TV and radio sets. Electromagnetism travels outward from its source in waves and is constrained by the Higgs field to travel at or below the speed of light yet its DOF and the valuable information encoded therein simultaneously pervade the propagating waveform as it travels through space-time. Like all things in nature the specific magnitudes of these properties imprinted on the waveform immediately begin to circum to the laws of nature so distance or weather may affect the reception of your TV signal. Likewise, the aspect of instantiation of the individual life responsible for the mobility of individuality in this space-time shares exclusionary features that are similar to matter even if in an unfamiliar implementation. Ones' QE connection to metamatter in Hilbert-space is similarly exclusionary in its behavior as it entangles your living host form wherever viable forms emerge in this universe. Each LINE is a unique value among the infinite possibilities of the DOF of the entanglement spectrum (a property of Hilbert-space). One of these LINEs belongs to you, it always has and it likely always will, at least as long as Hilbert-space exists as it currently does.


Via natural entanglement, ones' LINE may non-relativistically connect any viable host in this universe with any metamatter in Hilbert-space to instantiate your position of view (POV). Like matter or the cable on the back of your PC, ones POV cannot be shared but must be terminated before a new entanglement a new instantiation a new life is established. This is the monogamistic, singleton, and exclusionary nature of life. It is why one must die to instantiate anew. Which particles of metamatter or of matter are involved or their location in this universe is completely inconsequential as both are completely transient, which is what makes it so ridiculous to think that matter is what defines one's individuality. Any matter and any metamatter will do just fine. Of course, what any species may care most about is its form at least at first. So what influences may be brought to bear on this implementation to offer beings like us some semblance of control over our own instantiations? Ones entangled metamatter in Hilbert-space and matter in this universe is nonspecific and are currently biased toward a specific QEF only by circumstances that are quite arbitrary in nature. Nonetheless, ones' instantiation is governed and mediated by the rules of monogamy of entanglement and by whatever influences happen to arise that might affect ones' Fidelity of teleportation (FT) and metamatter imprint.


This mutual tuning of the Alice and Bob components of individuality is the only means by which any possible control may be exacted. Though the entanglement spectrum must have existed for time untold even before the big-bang, this bias of stem-metamatter began when entanglement molecules first joined with other matter structures to form the first viable hosts for life. Ever since then, eco-systems in this universe and their evolved living hosts have essentially tuned metamatter by storing information into this bootstrapping cloud-storage repository of nature. This began the initial propensity for eco-systems to become obtuse attractors of metamatter that has been imprinted by these first generations of QEF’s entangled to hosts which evolved and still exist within its unique habitat for life. This describes the beginning of the process which tunes the individual FT. With time this process becomes or evolves to be progressively more finely tuned to individual LINE’s or QEF’s. Theoretically eventually this bias may evolve or may be manipulated to favor even specific familial DNA traits as metamatter becomes more finely imprinted. This begs the question; Can other eco-systems be targeted for specific individual instantiation by synthetically detuning or retuning ones imprinted metamatter to another ecosystem's unique evolutionary signature genetic or otherwise?


An understanding of ones’ living circumstances in this universe remains equally important even if there are actually no other life-hosting environments other than the Earth. This is because regardless of ones' current location in this space-time the mobility of individuality described by the LINE hypothesis also describes how one instantiates not only throughout this universe but also within ones' current local environment which is just as interesting and important as knowledge of life elsewhere. We too often expend our concerns on finding extraterrestrial life in lieu of understanding the natural implementation by which nature populates this universe with living individuals. This latter point does not negate the importance of seeking other life in this universe, quite to the contrary. However, it may alleviate the concern caused by never actually finding such life which is highly probable in a universe as vast as, and having the laws of physics of, this universe. The laws of physics that placed you in the ecosystem in which you currently live didn’t do so because there are fundamental laws of nature that are exclusive and unique to this planet, solar system, or even galaxy. The fundamental laws of nature are expected to operate equally at every point in this space-time, thus all phenomena are also possible at every point in this universe including the phenomena that is you. It is only the circumstantial probabilities of state that vary from point to point and moment to moment that determines local outcomes. Hence, life and individuality are circumstantially possible everywhere in this space-time. More profoundly, we know without question that life and individuality is a fact and the principle of natural reoccurrence guarantees that anything that has occurred can reoccur.


Viewed in this light concerns about the eventual expiration of the sun or the end of this universe when considered through the prism of the LINE hypothesis takes on a decidedly reduced urgency. As we realize that even as you read these words countless ecosystems, stars, galaxies and perhaps even universes have come and gone in the eternal history of nature prior. So too has countless instances of individual life, some even your own. Yet here you are alive with precious little memory or consideration of the vast history of both nature and you that came before, and so it shall be again. With this enlightenment, the urgency of the fate of specific conditions and objects or collections thereof, small or large, becomes somewhat less significant as we realize our true place in the permanent structure of nature and that although all stars die and this universes may eventually become non-viable for life the immutability of the quantum entanglement spectrum and its underpinnings is fundamental in nature and the mobility of individuality ultimately sacrosanct.


In this endeavor we call science you will find, I think, there is no stranger beast than Nature herself. Contrary to the suggestion of the Anthropic Principle, this universe is not as astronomers observe it simply because astronomers exist, or because they are here to measure it. Rather, astronomers can and will exist anywhere in nature where circumstances and conditions are right for life and for astronomers. Earth’s solar system is just one such place. The distinction between these two points is not at all trivial. In fact it is profound. Because the latter point supports one particular conclusion as posed by the LINE hypotheses which is the mobility of individuality. It is only local circumstances that determine a habitat's viability for individual life. By this definition, any ‘Here’ in this universe could host individual life.


Given all of these alternative locations for being, a better question for the individual may be; Then why here? Here being this star this planet this body, this cell. If neither place nor form persists the individual, then what does? If you are having difficulty fathoming this notion keep in mind that as you read these words you are yourself on a planet orbiting a star that together is both traveling through space-time at approx. 225 km/sec. So if you think it is some particular space-time location that has defined your presence, your being then the earth’s and your location is changing every second. If it is the atoms and molecules on and in the earth that you believe tether you to your form on this spherical rocket-ship through the cosmos, think again, the atoms and molecules of the earth and your body owe no allegiance to me or thee.


If location, which includes the space within all of the atoms of the Sun, the Earth, and your body and their relative location in space-time, is purely circumstantial then the inescapable conclusion favors that the mechanism which places any living individual where they are, when they are, must operate throughout existence. You live here because you are entangled here. Entangled to a temporary corporeal physical host which happened to emerge from local material in an ever-changing location in nature that is no more special than anywhere else. Make no mistake, this is not a conclusion that in any way diminishes how wondrous and rare the processes by which living hosts have emerged on this planet. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that similarly wondrous processes can occur throughout this or in another universe where circumstances happen to be right and there you may be as alive as you are here at this moment only necessarily, superficially, differently.


Further, these superficial differences won’t matter as they don’t now matter. Any astronomer any living being inhabits nature by the laws of instantiation. You will be, you can live, anywhere circumstances are right. Regardless of how one makes the journey, whether one manages to take ones' current entangled form along onboard a spacecraft or if by reinstantiation by natural entanglement. The mobility of individuality in this universe is replete with opportunities for life and experience. Placing restrictions on what’s ‘right’ for life as we currently do today in biology and life sciences are missing the natural implementation of life and individuality. Genetics describes living hosts Earth-style. The LINE hypotheses describes natural entanglement as the host form agnostic mobility of individuality, of you, throughout nature.


The realization of the science which describes the mobility of individuality in this universe, of the kind suggested by the LINE hypothesis, adds yet another layer of ethical concern to the already ethically laden endeavors of modern-day genetics. That is the manipulation of existing, and the proposed resurrection of bygone species. Naturally evolved hosts, even those that were bread by us, are generally of sound evolutionary foundation. Humans, dogs, cats, pigeons, and bacteria are made viable by natural selection even when deliberately bread by humankind. However, with the advent of genuine genetic manipulation of the sort made possible by the discovery of the Crisper CAS9 gene comes a new level of divergence or even a complete disassociation from the process of natural evolutionary selection.


Further, in the presence of complete ignorance regarding the implementation by which nature distributes individuality in living beings throughout this universe these concerns today give rise only to relatively moderate levels of controversy and discussion. We consider the question of should we manipulate and create new species from a naively disassociated perspective which just barely rises to the level of personal concern. We may consider our distress in eating a genetically modified cow or chicken or feel some displeasure in seeing an unfamiliar host resulting from the more esoteric or misguided attempts at genetic manipulation or perhaps we worry about creating a species that could threaten our current life in some manner. This is largely because we do not see how we may one day be the direct recipient of a synthetically manipulated host.


Most of humankind is prone to accept established ideas that we were thought or exposed to early in ones' current instantiation. Most are ideas that were last exposed to the bright light of cognizant consideration many hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Careful rules of non-questioning tradition and the hierarchical consideration of new ideas have been erected to protect the status quo from the corrosive influence caused by the acquisition of factual scientific information over time. Ironically even specific scientific ideas regarding the possible nature of individuality is guilty of this protectionism. Or perhaps it's not at all deliberate but a natural evolutionary implementation meant to protect the self-aware mind, We may be largely ignorant by evolutionary design. A form of mental protection akin to the shell of an egg for the conscious intelligent self-aware mind. Perhaps some things are best left unknown.


Nonetheless, the time to break through the shell of ignorance is upon us. Shortly it will become increasingly difficult to ignore the mechanism by which individuality is distributed throughout nature. With the discovery of thousands of planets, all evolved similarly to earth but with different specific circumstances, questions will arise in the scientifically alert nimble minds that are proliferating in today’s dynamic information culture. Questions like; What is the mechanism that places me here to experience life from this body which is a part of this particular planet as opposed to some other? Why are you in that body and not me and on this planet or on some other planet? These questions can be posed from the perspective of each of the trillions of living beings alive on or off the Earth at any given moment in time. In dealing with these questions one is almost certainly either in scientific denial or you cling to some religious narrative. You see science doesn’t try to explain these questions because for most of its history there was insufficient information to address them. This is no longer quite the case. We know of the mechanisms and are beginning to develop the principles for understanding how nature universally mediates the mobility of individuality.


Realize that the collection of species that exist on earth or on any viable planet at any time is the repository of living hosts from which nature will probabilistically naturally entangle a viable form to host ones next instantiation. This combined with the realization that there is a universal phenomenon mediated by the quantifying quantum measure described by ones unique QEF and fidelity of teleportation is what will define your existence in nature for perpetuity. As we are discovering more often than not, just about anything in nature is susceptible to some level of manipulation, and with such influence is born control.