What is a living individual and is it naturally universally mobile?

Continued...

However, reality may not be quite this simple. What other aspects of one’s QEF, of one’s host form, and of its circumstances in life might there be that are imprinted to metamatter, which may influence ones FT? What properties of the cell are conserved via natural entanglement after death? Which degrees of freedom of the QE spectrum imbue this conservation of local living information to the non-local, more permanent, more accessible universal medium of metamatter? For now, the LINE hypothesis suggests volume of imprinting per cell, per host, and lifespan, but what of the type, or the nature of information imprinted? What other factors might there be as we live life which may creep into ones metamatter and effect ones FT via a complex nervous system bonded to a unique teleportation channel that is the POV-host bond (POVH) which constitutes the mind? Whether in a human or a whale, the answers to this question essentially form the basis for a new list of commandments. Not unlike the commandments of religions which purport to influence what comes next for the individual. The natural, empirical information which actually, naturally influences ones FT does likewise. Species do undergo Darwinian type evolution, but it is also driven by natural entanglement and punctuated by the evolution of forms like the entanglement cell, the pivotal catalyst for the formation of complex hosts in this ecosystem. Due to the EC being a host form, the remains of which will never be found in any shale, the Cambrian appears to be a true mystery until viewed through the prism of the LINE hypothesis.
 
You didn't answer my question. This is a discussion forum, not a blog. You said you thought your idea was suitable for discussion.

Can you explain in small words how my transistor radio is "perpetually transitioning ... with the galaxy?"
In particular, the flavour of the word "transition" you are employing.
 
Again, what is your best explanation of the word "transition" in this context? If I feel you are being intellectually honest I will engage.
 
Again, what is your best explanation of the word "transition" in this context? If I feel you are being intellectually honest I will engage.
The context in which you are using it does not make any sense. There is no definition of the word transition that appears to apply here. Transistor rdios do not "transition with the galaxy" in any normally apparent way.

So I am asking a question, looking for clarification. I get to do that.

You claim this topic is ripe for conversation but so far you are merely blogging and not engaging in conversation. That is not intellectualy honest. This is a discussion forum, not a blog.

Last chance.
 
The Cambrian explosion is one of the great mysteries of evolutionary science today. It marks the sudden emergence of complex species from a significantly microbial ecosystem with little evidence of corresponding intermediate evolution in the fossil record. To shed light on this conundrum, we need to view the Cambrian through the prism of the LINE hypothesis to understand what effect does living have on the individuals prospects for life after death. This will be a central question for all sufficiently developed, intelligent, self-aware beings throughout nature. For human life on earth it is also the question that many religions have sought to address throughout human history, via one mythological narrative or another. Through their doctrines, such belief systems suggest what are the rules to live by which will influence whatever it is those myths determine will become ones destiny after ones’ current life ends. These questions regarding living influences, as it turns out, are very good questions to ask. They, necessarily must have corresponding answers. Answers which can and must be founded in nature and accessible and describable by natural law and eventually by science, otherwise you couldn’t be alive. What natural, scientifically inclined basis can be used to make such determinations for ideas critical to science, yet long held close to the vest by religions throughout human history?


The LINE hypothesis suggests that metamatter is imprinted via natural entanglement. This QE connection persists throughout the course of each individual’s lifetime, no matter ones living form. While instantiated to fundamental forms, such as hosts in earths micro-biome, such hosts necessarily imprint metamatter in low volumes, or densities, given that a microbe is composed of only a single cellular instantiation. This combined with the incredibly short life-cycle, and high reinstantiation rate of life in the micro-biome, given sufficient time, causes this low information throughput to accumulate, and aggregate to become immensely significant to evolution on earth. The information volume imprinted to metamatter by such fundamental forms is very low in content and therefore has a very low impact or influence on the individuals FT. As a result this renders such host forms very weakly tuned to the individuals’ QEF, and therefore for future instantiations, renders the individual more open to arbitrary natural entanglement with a wide range of compatible hosts, ergo other microbes. On Earth prior to the Cambrian, with no forms of greater complexity available at that time, this condition persisted for billions of years. Should it persist, this period in the evolution of life in any ecosystem, results in a vast accumulation of evolutionary potential which may result in an explosion of complexity. Such inflations in ecological complexity cannot be explained by bottom up, random mutation, and natural selection alone. Ergo, today the influence not considered in Darwinian evolutionary science, is the influence of the LINE process.


An apt analogy for how the LINE process may lead to an explosion of complex life is with the printing of information by a computer printer. Consider the natural teleportation channel that is the LINE hypothesized QE connection to metamatter, established by the entanglement molecule within each single cell, as being like one element on a computer print-head. Each cell possesses the information transfer capability of just one such element per cellular instantiation in any host form. So, if your form is composed of just one cell, you have one print element with which to imprint metamatter in your ‘name’, that is to imprint metamatter at your QEF. In this analogy the more print elements there are in a print-head (living host), the more information can be transferred to the sheet of paper (metamatter), and the larger ones information bandwidth. The 100 trillion cells of a human host imprints that many times more than an ameba, bacteria, or a protozoa. Each cell of your host, whether one or many, are imbued similarly with some common degree of freedom (DOF) of your unique QEF and is therefore able, to some degree, to imprint, or otherwise contribute, to metamatter on your behalf. This metamatter ultimately informs one individuals fidelity of teleportation (FT) and ones future prospects for reinstantiation.


In this analogy a microbe is metaphorically equivalent to one print element which imprints metamatter during a great many, very short life spans, due to the incredibly rapid life, mortality, and reinstantiation rate of the microbial world. In this way an individual’s QEF imprints small volumes of metamatter, but very frequently, with information from many iterations of simple living forms repeated over epochs of ecological time. On earth, such forms dominated the planet for billions of years before more complex forms became possible. This information stored in metamatter is theorized to influence the evolution of living hosts on earth and universally. Eventually this imprinting by fundamental living hosts became a huge volume of evolutionary information stored in this non-local universal repository. Together with local conditions and circumstances on the early earth, this lead to the emergence of the entanglement cell (EC). Once the entanglement cell came onto the scene, it brought with it the capability to heterodyne individual cellular QE connections to establish the earth’s first generations of secondary emerged QE connections to metamatter , the position-of-view (POV). A heterodyned POV establishes a secondary emerged individuality, you. With it, the evolution of vastly more complex host forms became possible. On earth, this essentially marked the emergence of life 2.0, if you will. The wide proliferation of the EC began the amazing period in earth history known as the Cambrian explosion.


During the Cambrian, the newly emerged EC together with instantaneous universal access to a vast volume of imprinted metamatter, drove the unification and specialization of many formerly distinct living forms into complex communities, marshaled by new organelles able to distribute common aspects of the POV to all cells of the holistic host form, to propel the formation of new complex species. These new species quickly evolved due to the new emerged secondary entangled state, and the interaction at a distance resulting from the sharing of common degrees of freedom of the POV which describes this natural teleportation channel to metamatter. This metamatter imbued with evolutionary information from earths billions of years of fundamental life, as well as information from other life hosting ecosystems in this universe, gave the Earths new species a sudden and tremendous boost in complexity not possible by random mutation and natural selection alone. Hence, the QE connection soon evolved not only into the earth’s first POV’s, but eventually, into the earth’s first minds.


Further, individual QEF, having participated in countless instances of microbial life, hosted by Earths local ecosystem, and with FT’s by then highly tuned by terrestrially imprinted metamatter, burgeoning to propel a great transition, that is the natural teleportation of those individuals from simpler forms to more complex forms, became eminent. This new innovation which permits the sharing of common degrees of freedom by all cells in an emerged complex host with EC, bonded to one POV via the POVH bond, permits the organism to evolve in sudden and remarkable ways previously unattainable absent the EC. These more complex evolved forms will consist of increasingly larger numbers of fundamental hosts, such as cells. Each a metaphorical print element for metamatter and also, by virtue of an evolved protective host form, may live longer life spans for imprinting matamatter. This accelerates the imprinting of matamatter at the individuals unique QEF and further probabilistically tunes the individuals FT for compatibility with even more complex and compatible host forms, whether such forms were evolved, or engineered. On Earth the human form, for example, may consist of 100 trillion individual instantiations and many more than that counting from the point of QEF instantiation in the womb, up until deinstantiation, death.



The metamatter imprinted over the course of an increasingly longer lifespan, by any host, is potentially cumulatively significant to ones FT. For humankind this is not necessarily more so than the imprint made on metamatter by other, non-human, equally long lived host forms in earths ecosystem. In other words human beings may not be the undisputed champions of FT stability currently on earth. FT stability tuned by increasingly greater volumes of similarly imprinted metamatter describes the individuals chances of naturally entangling a particular host form, and perhaps of greater interest, reinstantiating to ones current host form. So, if sperm whales, having perhaps 1000 times more cells than the average human, and living equally long life spans on average, will imprint, at least by volume, orders of magnitude more cellular state information to metamatter than humans. This says, at least on its face, that whales may be a more stable, and more forecastable host for reinstantiation than the human form. That is to say, an individual QEF instantiated to a whale, all things being equal, may be more likely to reinstantiate to that same form than a QEF instantiated to a human form would likely be to reinstantiate to a human form in ones next life.
Reported for spamming again.
Idiot.
 
The context in which you are using it does not make any sense. There is no definition of the word transition that appears to apply here. Transistor rdios do not "transition with the galaxy" in any normally apparent way.

So I am asking a question, looking for clarification. I get to do that.

You claim this topic is ripe for conversation but so far you are merely blogging and not engaging in conversation. That is not intellectualy honest. This is a discussion forum, not a blog.

Last chance.
I'm done, I will be checking in only to see if his stupid crap has been shut down.
 
'Transition' in this context refers to the perpetual relative motion of matter (electronic devices, living entities, Planets, stars, galaxies etc.) through space.

Key Concepts:
  1. Antenna State: The idea that living hosts establish an atomic and molecular configuration that functions as a 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.
 
Last edited:
I've asked for clarification of your use of a word - a known word, with known definitions - and your answer is simply 'no'?
That seems like a discussion-closer.

Again, you question my intellectual honesty while being intellectually dishonest yourself. Can you clarify that?
 
Last edited:
[...]
  • Form- and Location-Agnostic:
    1. The POV established by the antenna state is not tied to any specific physical form or location.
    2. This means that individuality can be instantiated in any living host, regardless of its specific biological form or habitat.
  • Dynamic and Adaptable:
    1. The POV is dynamic and can adapt to changing environments and conditions.
    2. This adaptability ensures that individuality remains consistent even as the host moves through different habitats or experiences various changes.
  • Universality:
    1. The principles underlying the establishment of the antenna state and the gathering of telemetry are universal.
    2. This means that individuality, as a form- and location-agnostic POV, can manifest in any viable habitat across the universe.
[...]

If this was simply about generic mind or consciousness being multiply realizable (in theory) via many different physical forms and habitats across the universe, but cloaked in unconventional terminology... Then it would be a trivially commonplace idea rather than controversial.

However, repeated use of "individual" and "individuality" suggests that it is not emergent agency in a general sense that is being referred to, but possibly particular identities with distinct memories and personal characteristics/inclinations being able to occur or reappear in countless locations.

Which is to say, what "individual" and "individuality" means here needs to be unpacked in an unambiguous or non-evasive manner.
_
 
The LINE hypothesis suggests that a single living cell 4 billion years ago on earth is life, a living individual from which all other living hosts evolved no minds or consciousness, self-awareness, or personality existed then. Life in that cell, as do you and every living cell in your body maintains a position of view (POV) an antenna state that is the target, the natural receiver for telemetry that defines individuality in all life in this universe.
 
The UMI principle speaks to a topic so unintuitive to human minds that it has eluded humankind since we could be called human. Discussions on topics such as the UMI and LINE can easily fill volumes. There is no version of this that does not involve a moderate amount of writing and reading. Maybe someday Neuralink will change that but not today. However, today there are free AI services available to assist with comprehension if needed. I will field any relevant novel inquiries if I have time.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Back
Top