[tonylang (OP)]

It is crucial to understand species and species development and evolution. However absent the comprehension of the true role of these structures one misses the reality of life in this universe.

The limited perspective of life we now embrace is akin to a distant future paleontologist eons after life has left the earth attempting to explain how uncovered vehicular artifacts could have operated all over the earth without first realizing the existence of human beings as a fundamental component of vehicular operation. Our, perhaps non-biological, dirt digger could deduce all manner of insights about the discovered operation of the cars and, aircraft parts and their operation but unable or unwilling to comprehend the existence of a naturally implemented intelligent species of the kind they have never imagined much less seen. The mystery for them would be as untenable as life presently is to us. The missing component in biology today is you.

The Monogamy of Entanglement is the fundamental scientific principle of nature which implements each instance of life (i.e. you) by natural entanglement in any viable habitat. It is the property of nature in this universe that makes individuality possible and provides the singleton, non-locality and non-relativistic characteristics of instantiation via natural entanglement.

[alancalverd]

It is crucial to understand species and species development and evolution.

Bad starting point. "Species" is an arbitrary label we attach to apparent cardinal points in a continuum. Evolution is the result of an entirely random process with a lot of failures, even more insignificant variations, and a very few significant ones, modulated by environment.

No mystery, therefore no requirement for any new molecules or hitherto undiscovered processes.

[tonylang (OP)]

Heisenberg : “The history of physics is not only a sequence of experimental discoveries and observations, followed by their mathematical description; it is also a history of concepts. For an understanding of the phenomena the first condition is the introduction of adequate concepts. Only with the help of correct concepts can we really know what has been observed.”

The corner that many well intentioned practitioners of science become hopelessly jammed in is the corner where the pages of the textbook meet. The equations and bits of understanding that we gather need context. Practitioners of science should choose a topic or phenomenon of nature that interest them and with their best scientific understanding, and logic and powers of rational deduction, and most importantly a steely objectivity, set out to conceive of how nature may implement that phenomena.

Before Darwin any suggestion that life had anything to do with cells and undiscovered molecules (DNA/RNA) in the cell which dictated most of what you are would have been scientific, what’s the word ‘woo’. Perhaps we are a bit more enlightened today. Unfortunately today it continues to be just as difficult to see nature form here as it ever has been in the past. I came to realize that at least where life is concerned we continue to be steeped in ignorance, mysticism, ideology, and denial despite the pivotally important course correction we acquired from Darwin’s insights. I came to see that any individual’s experience of life, of being, is as much part of nature as your species is and one is necessarily abstracted from the other.

You are not your cells or molecules or your atoms, in fact you shouldn't even call them yours. I came to see that the only life that exists is the living cell in all of its forms and that the natural processes that implement life are the same for the cell as it is for bacteria as it is for a fruit fly as for a human being. It is folly for us to think we could only experience life in this very temporary, randomly emerged bipedal primate form. Further, your cells and molecules come and go continuously over the course of your lifetime but nonetheless you remain you. Then there are the other trillions of living individuals in million of different forms all around us coming into being and going out of life continuously. I realized that the only form we need consider in this regard is the single living cell. The answers that are true for the cell are the answers that apply to all life. Further, you and I and your pet octopus and every living cell are instances of life, each a temporary instantiation of some very natural, empirically definable phenomena of nature. This instantiating phenomenon must have the non-relativistic reach to establish individual life (you), biological or perhaps otherwise, on any planet orbiting any star or indeed in any viable environment in the cosmos or in existence where viable hosts may emerge. It is a tragic mistake to feel that this describes something that could not possibly be natural but must be supernatural. While, as usual, nature’s genius is a practical and ubiquitous, even if a bit unfamiliar implementation. There is a phenomenon known to science for some time that meets all of these requirements: Quantum Entanglement (QE). Einstein called it spooky action at a distance. Today we play with it in the lab as a mere tech curiosity. It is the most likely candidate for the life-force.

Upon understanding this we would have turned the page in the book of life that Darwin began and the eventual effect upon global enlightenment and religions everywhere would be profound. Imagine for the first time you could tell your young children generally, or eventually, specifically how the life cycle works minus the mysticism and ideology because at that point, it would just be science.

[alancalverd]

Never mind Darwin (cells and molecules predated him by a long way), but what about William of Occam?

I think you need more than mere assertion to get anyone to subscribe to your theory.

[tonylang (OP)]

It isn't my intention to change anyone’s mind, but rather to simply expose open minded readers to a new and practical way of thinking about a very old, perhaps the most personal of all ideas known to humankind, the recognition of a unique and scientifically plausible description of how nature governs not only species, but the individual, you. There is a very good chance, as is often the case with such invasive ideas about nature, that I and everyone who reads this post would be long gone before either the capability or the courage to honestly prove or disprove the instantiation of life hypothesis is achieved. However, every first step is worth taking.

[tonylang (OP)]

The true measure of any species’ cognitive maturity is engendered by the accuracy of what it knows or believes it knows about its own living condition.

For decades it has been understood by modern science that far reaching relocation and travel within this universe is fundamentally and practically prohibited by natural mechanisms, fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding. As is often the case however, nature presents the solution to the problems it creates. Placement and relocation of the individual within this universe is a mechanism that must have been in place long before the evolution of living biological hosts like the cell.


Natures’ means of populating this universe, not only with naturally evolved biological forms, but also with naturally instantiated individual POV’s, is likely the only answer to Humankinds' dreams of far flung interstellar or intergalactic relocation. Once we master the elements of reinstantiation of the individual we will see that our bodies are not required for relocation of the individual within this universe. True to natures design the host body is always left behind. Relocating only the individuals’ position-of-view is the only viable means of moving through a vast universe permeated by a Higgs field. Controlling the instantiation of life will permit us a degree of influence and self determinism we do not have when nature handles ones instantiation.


In theory, with the proper understanding and technologies, one could instantly, selectively reinstantiate to available preferred hosts in any viable ecosystem, located anywhere in this universe. It is preferable if not likely that this would one day become a round trip endeavor, but until then it would serve as a means of assuring ones continued participation in the human experience on or near Earth. Also, although controlled instantiation may not preserve the individual’s endearing qualities such as memories, personality, or behavior it does however offer some degree of control over one’s prospects for life which some may regard to be better than none at all. Any advanced species that share this universe with us will no doubt already understand this.

[jerrygg38]

   As I see it the universe oscillates from zero to infinity. Since man exists today here, man most likely exists all over the universe in millions of similar planet Earths. When the universe erases, the memory of man will still exist in coexisting higher universe of pure photonic energy. This is the spiritual dimension. Therefore man will always come back upon millions of Earths for all time. You will return over and over again to relive many different lives and sometimes the exact same life but the probability of exactly the same life is really zero but it will happen. You will certainly live many different lives forever. In effect each person will never die but merely sleep for long periods of time.

[tonylang (OP)]

Many years ago as I began my cognitive journey to truly comprehend these phenomena we call life, being, and individuality, I considered many ideas, some that sound very much like what you are suggesting. It soon became clear to me that it was essential for me to begin with a clean slate and a steely objectivity accompanied by fundamental scientific principles. I needed to dismiss most of the prefabricated ideas popular in the world today and historically. Ideas that are mostly self-serving, agenda based narratives. I came to realize that life and individuality must not be defined by any particular living form, including the human form. It occurred to me that the prevailing tendency to define life in terms of the human form in particular is quite obvious, being that we are human. Why not then the jellyfish or the protozoa the seagull or the single cell? I realized that all forms of life are transient and also that the over extrapolated ideas which suggest infinite anything are implausible. This human form that we are understandably preoccupied by has not been here for but an instant of Earths’ biological record and will certainly cease to exist either entirely or as we know it at some finite point in the future.  Even if another form emerged anywhere which resembles humankind, by what measure could one explicitly conclude that this other emerged species is one and the same? Further, would it matter? In fact is any individual form explicitly one and the same with any other individual form, even within the same species? Our definition of species is somewhat amorphous and self serving.

However there is another perspective that for me makes much more sense, that of individuality. It is unfamiliar I know for most to speak of individuality from an empirical tangible perspective separate and distinct from ones visible form but that should present no obstacle for the nimble minded among you.  Individuality is the aspect of life that is far more interesting and eventually we will find is just as natural, real, mobile, quantifiable and open to scientific inquiry as is ones genetics. Nature didn’t only establish a mechanism to produce a physical form anchored in this space-time; it went the extra mile and also produced a mechanism to establish individuality by way of that form. That is to give a viable physical form a position-of-view (POV) by natural entanglement, this mechanism by which a POV may be established is nature’s true innovation. These mechanisms (natural laws) necessarily existed long before viable hosts for life emerged in this universe able to instantiate and reinstantiate individuality and life wherever viable host may emerge.  These laws exist even in the complete absence of any viable hosts for life in any given universe. You are not your physical form or any of its talents, skills or capabilities. You are as are every other living entity on or off of this planet, a very real aspect of nature that requires no mysticism or super-natural manifestations.  Natural entanglement is an entity that existed before this space-time we call the universe congealed from the underlying metaverse and will likely exist long after this universe becomes non-viable for life as we know it. The ultimate demise of this universe will not matter because natural entanglement is capable of hosting individuality anywhere in existence and through any viable form including ones you could scarcely imagine.

You are likely correct regarding individuality being eternal but not, I think, because one is infinitely simultaneously instantiated (living) throughout existence. The monogamy of entanglement prohibits this. The monogamy of entanglement enforces a singleton instance of each individual. To reinstantiate one must first disentangle, also known as death. Reinstantiation is as you pointed out inevitable and with time disentangled being no factor to the individual’s experience of life; one will consequently only know life while entangled. Nonetheless there are factors, details and influences to the reinstantiation of individuality as there are to the genetic science and biology of its physical component. The instantiation hypothesis describes cellular entanglement with a form of matter akin to dark-matter called metamatter because entanglement is known to be at least a binary phenomenon (involving two or more entities) also the mobility of individuality requires access to all points in existence simultaneously and instantaneously because hosts may emerge anywhere. Metamatter emerged from these requirements and is theorized to have an influence on the cell with which it is entangled. This entanglement relationship is likely a form of extra-universal cloud storage not for ones lifelong memories and aspirations and personality but rather is more likely an exchange of fundamental cellular state information likely perishable with time which could in some way govern or influence ones instantiation prospects and cellular evolution. The study of the instantiation of individuality will ultimately spur a new scientific understanding of our true place in nature.

[tonylang (OP)]

Species Loyalty: Why should Mr. Zebra or any living individual seek to preserve its current species?


Every living entity possesses an entangled position-of-view. This axiom emerges from an understanding that nature must have only one implementation for life no matter what that entities visible appearance or structure or placement in space-time may be. This may eventually prove to be true only for earths’ particular genesis of life, but such an amendment would need to await our discovery of another unique genesis of life which demonstrates a non entanglement based implementation. Until then it remains prudent to assume that this natural entanglement is pervasive throughout nature. To the outside world each instantiation of any individual is a different unique instance of life, however to the individual, ones’ first person position of view is a singular and ongoing phenomenon of experience or the lack thereof, regardless of form or location of ones host. Persistent, retrievable memory spanning multiple instantiations is likely to be a very rare occurrence in living hosts. Nonetheless, nature provides a limited storage reserve of anti-entropic cellular state information imprinted in metamatter during the course of each instantiation, each lifetime. This information is accessible to any emerged hosts for life which utilizes natural entanglement to metamatter to instantiate a living being. It is hypothesized that the genesis of life in any ecosystem is bootstrapped by this universal cloud-storage reserve of anti-entropic cellular state information, and is made accessible by the entanglement molecule in a manner metaphorically similar to how a transceiver (ham-radio) may make information accessible to someone lost in the middle of a remote expansive desert. It is probable that the longer an individual’s lifespan the greater the influence of this stored imprint upon ones reinstantiation prospects is likely to be.


This may be the basis, the justification for species loyalty. Premise; is there any reason for any individual during any given instance of life to be loyal to ones current species besides a conscious immediate circumstantial need to survive? Many species demonstrate some partiality to their current species or host form. Why is this the case? Given that without the instantiation hypothesis most believe with varying degrees of certainty that ones’ current being will eventually cease to exist and this will be an eternal condition. However, the instantiation hypothesis mandates that there is a certainty of continued life, but not a certainty of form. Further, the instantiation hypothesis describes a mechanism which may influence ones reinstantiation prospects whereby the amount of imprinted familial metamatter in existence (entangled by family members with similar cellular DNA) positively biases ones prospects of reinstantiating into ones recent family line and thereby into ones recent species. How so? Cellular Natural entanglement is facilitated by any metamatter which is more similarly imprinted to the cellular state of the host cell(s) seeking entanglement. This is essentially a tuning relationship. Think of tuning a transistor radio to a specific electromagnetic frequency to receive a specific radio station which is broadcasting at that same frequency. Likewise a cells’ internal state which is largely dictated by its DNA and immediate circumstances is essentially a tuned entity.


So too is metamatter which has been imprinted over the course of a lifetime by cells of similar DNA and entanglement frequency (QEF). Compatible hosts and metamatter will therefore become more likely to engage in a natural entanglement relationship. Stem-metamatter is essentially un-imprinted metamatter and will therefore display no predisposition, or bias to entangle any specific host. In other words stem-metamatter will entangle any available viable host regardless of its form. If an individual’s metamatter is permitted to revert to a stem condition this suggests that this individual which has few or no compatible hosts in existence in the form of offspring or familial relations therefore has a statistically smaller probability of entangling a host from its former family line and an increasing probability of eventually (over time) entangling non-familial hosts in its former species. Further, with longer spans of time spent unentangled (dead, uninstantiated, not alive), this would increase the probability of entangling a host increasingly dissimilar to one’s previous host.


This natural implementation sheds some light on the demonstrated motivation of living individuals throughout earths ecosystem to procreate often at the expense of all else. Why should Mr. Zebra seek to preserve its current species? He isn’t really; Mr. Zebras’ DNA is in fact seeking to increase its chances of entangling similar metamatter by spreading copies of itself far and wide and in so doing it increases the individual’s, Mr. Zebras’ chances of reinstantiating into its current form. Any individual zebra or lion or ameba or human tends to subconsciously exercise this behavior even if it means eliminating any or most of its current species. On occasion this drive is seen to be partial to siblings and such but is largely self-serving. Seen from the outside, and in the absence of the understanding provided by the instantiation of life hypothesis, this behavior appears to be some sort of social loyalty of Mr. Zebra to zebras as a species, and is often described by a situational narrative or cognitive dedication to family and so forth. The truth is a more fundamental reality of natural cause and effect.

[alancalverd]

Species Loyalty: Why should Mr. Zebra or any living individual seek to preserve its current species?

Wrong forum. Science is about how, not why. But I'll happily answer "how".

Zebras, humans, fish, all enjoy sexual intercourse (I've never quite understood fish, but they certainly seem to pursue one another with gusto when in season). Sexual intercourse often produces offspring of the same species, so the preservation of species, and indeed the evolution of species, derives from the voluntary and pleasurable actions of species. It's a consequence, not an objective. 

We can delve a little deeper by considering plants rather than animals. There's clearly less voluntary action involved but Darwin gives us a helpful hint: those that didn't produce pollen and seeds, died out within a generation, whilst those that did, populated the planet in the absence of such competition.

The question arises as to why zebras only mate with zebras, and cherry trees with cherry trees. If your "metamatter" were the driving force we would expect to see a lot more cherry-zebras if there was only one kind of metamatter. So there must be at least as many kinds of metamatter as there are non-interfertile species in the universe. Which would be fine if it were not for the fact that species seem to evolve and diverge by wholly explicable variations in their DNA. Occam's razor says we don't need to postulate any other mechanism or entity, and common sense says that if metamatter is species-specific, it must be evolving too. Somehow I think the precise parallel and synchronous evolution of some hitherto-undetected entity that we don't actually need to explain our observations, is a postulate too far. 

[PmbPhy]

Wrong forum. Science is about how, not why. But I'll happily answer "how".

I disagree for the same reasons I have several times in the past. While I don't believe that physics has a set procedure for answering "why" questions, that can't be taken to mean that it's not the goal of science to do so. E.g. In the opinion of Mendel Sachs, from Concepts of Modern Physics: The Haifa Lectures page 4

Though some scientists believe that the descriptive level of science is al that there is to know, that is, they believe that scientists should only ask 'what' questions, I believe that the explanatory level that follows the descriptive level is the actual goal of science - the answers to the 'why' questions.

Alan Lightman made a remark when he wrote the foreword to Alan Guth's book The Inflationary Universe noting that Guth was seeking to answer a 'why' question which then led him to the Inflationary Universe model. On the first page of the foreword Lightman wrote

In the 1970’s, the study of cosmology went through a major conceptual change. Prior to this time, modern cosmologists asked such questions as: What is the composition of galaxies and where are they located in space? How rapidly is the universe expanding? What is the average density of matter in the cosmos? After this time, in the “new cosmology,” cosmologists began seriously asking questions like: Why does matter exist at all, and where did it come from? Why is the universe as homogeneous as it is over such vast distances? Why is the cosmic density of matter such that the energy expansion of the universe is almost exactly balanced by its energy of gravitational attraction? In other words, the nature of the questions changed. The questions became more fundamental. “Why?” was added to “What?” and “How?” and “Where?”. Alan Guth was one of the young pioneers of the new cosmology, asking the Whys, and his Inflationary Universe theory provided many answers.

There have been times when I've asked myself Why does ...? and in some cases go answers. An important one that readily comes to mind is the "why" question Why does E = mc²? Before I got an answer it was always impressed on me by others that this question can't be answered when in fact I found that it could, and I did. It's too complicated to post in a thread and I don't like  posting new theories in physics forums myself. Therefore when I write it up I'll post a link to it. That will take some time because its a low priority for me.

[alancalverd]

Bit of a diversion here, but as the Michelin Guides say, worth it!

"Why" implies a search for purpose. This further implies control by a sentient being with a sense of time and mortality (otherwise why do it now? It is bound to happen eventually!) and produces anthropomorphic statements like "the electron chooses the path of least action to the anode"  when we mean "is constrained to..."

"Why" is kinda fun for teaching primary school, but at some point we need to grow up and realise that the universe taken as a whole is entirely mechanistic, with no evidence of gods or entanglement molecules* floating about to direct the processes of chemistry and physics.

In the worst case, you can fall into a trap of selfdelusion like our friend jccc who starts with a model and asks why the universe doesn't behave like his model predicts. Far better to start from the observation that the hydrogen atom is stable, or that E = mc² balances your equations, and use that to generate a model that explains and predicts how other stuff works.


*OK, not so much a diversion as a pretty route.

[jccc]

you can fall into a trap of selfdelusion like our friend jccc who starts with a model and asks why the universe doesn't behave like his model predicts.

my model says the space is infinite, time is infinity, there is only 1 force that rules the universe.

i never started a model and ask why the universe doesn't behave like my model predicts.

can you prove me wrong?

good morning!

[PmbPhy]

"Why" implies a search for purpose.

Perhaps in your mind but not in the minds of the physicists who ask those kinds of questions. E.g. I was never asking about any purpose when I was asking "why" E = mc^2. People don't ask about any purpose when they ask "Why is the sky blue?" and Guth didn't wonder about any purpose when he asked "why" the uniform was so homogeneous.

This further implies control by a sentient being with a sense of time and mortality ..

Not at all. How did you ever arrive at such a conclusion by what Lightman and Sachs wrote?

[tonylang (OP)]

Species Loyalty: Why should Mr. Zebra or any living individual seek to preserve its current species?

Wrong forum. Science is about how, not why. But I'll happily answer "how".

Upon reading, and with reasonable comprehension, of the above post it should at least become clear, whether one agrees with the ideas or not, that what is being proposed is a natural, purely cause and effect, ultimately testable description for observations which have gone either unexplained or described by less plausible means, invocations of gods and spirits etc. not required. I recognize that this hypothesis treads on observational territory which has long been addressed by religious narratives as were ideas concerning the living form before 1859 (On the Origin of Species) and the ensuing genetic revolution.

As I mentioned in another post it soon became clear to me that it was essential to begin consideration of these concepts with a clean slate and a steely objectivity accompanied by fundamental scientific principles. I needed to dismiss most of the prefabricated ideas popular in the world today and historically. Ideas that are mostly self-serving, agenda based narratives. To be clear this does not suggest an avoidance of any particular result. If my best considered, rational, logical, objective conclusions lead to a man with a crown of thorns, on a cross impaled and dying, then so be it. Further, if the instantiation hypothesis in its current form is reminiscent of any of countless ideas of resurrection or reincarnation or such, then so be it.

The historical nature of human understanding has never emerged from a lack of intellect but from a deficit of information. So it should come as no great surprise if our ancestor’s beliefs may not have been completely wrong and science today may not be completely right.  Instead the reality we live and experience is a stunningly flexible and amazing hybrid implementation of nature which ironically incorporates necessary elements of several schools of thought. This hybrid implementation makes life possible; it makes you possible anywhere in existence. Such a truth would be embraced by few in their current instantiation but would be embraced more readily by those same individuals in their future instantiations. Progress by reinstantiation, today we call it mortality, has been one of the primary vehicles of progress for humankind since the beginning of human history.

[tonylang (OP)]

In the presence of ignorance questions of “How” and “Why” both go unanswered and both questions are as untethered kites fluttering arbitrarily in the wind, each open to all manner of mystical, fanciful or ill conceived musings or agenda inspired narratives. When the question as to how any observation is as it appears becomes finally resolved so is the why of it. Not until the question of how is answered does the question of why become tethered, understood and explained. Why and how is the sky blue?… Why and how does the apple fall? How and why are babies made? How and why are you here? The real question asked (or denied) by each living individual, consciously or not, is; what about me?

We often misrepresent this as what about my species? But this latter question is a miscomprehension of the reality of life in this universe. You see taking your current species with you is a nonstarter in a vast expanding universe permeated by a Higgs field. We have always entertained the notion that we can take our form with us since we are a somewhat mobile species. We have legs, we are able to travel. So it is that we attempt to travel as far and as wide as we are able to cajole the resources of nature we find around us into facilitating our journey from our origins. So it is an understandable and noble endeavor that we explore the limits of feasibility of our locomotion through space-time to the extent that the laws of nature may allow. But make no mistake; this universe is an individualized universe. This is a universe in which mobility of the individual component of life is implemented not the mobility of its’ host form.  So it is that the question; “What about Me” goes misunderstood as we misrepresent our being with our form.

Charles Darwin cast the first tether of understanding for the ideas surrounding hosts for life on earth, species. Many have been, and are convinced that it is the only tether of explanation needed to answer the question of “How” is the individual implemented in this universe. However, many aspects of nature suggest that Darwins ideas are only part of the reality of life in this universe. Once again we have been placated by notions which either misrepresent the reality of life, or as is the case today, only exposes a part of its true implementation in this universe. The instantiation of life hypothesis offers a description for the missing tether of understanding.

The instantiation hypothesis suggests that natural entanglement places no restrictions or limitations on the form or general function of potential host. It is the local environment which dictates such stresses and thereby shape and define the forms that emerge. Ergo “cherry-zebras” if they can emerge in any given environment, are welcome. Natural entanglement permits individuality to occur anywhere viable host may emerge.  The primary point being submitted for your collective consideration is; Form vs being is not a chicken or the egg question, rather it is a statement of clarification that a universe may be a living universe even in the absence of any living forms or hosts so long as such a universe possesses the basic implementation for individualized being via natural entanglement. Conditions which prohibit the formation of living hosts may predominate in a universe for too long a time for hosts to emerge or a universe may exist for too short a time for such hosts to emerge yet such a universe may have the natural framework for an individualized position-of-view. Of course one without the other, for all practical purposes, is inconsequential. Nonetheless, for understanding the true nature of life it is fundamental to realize this structure in nature.

[tonylang (OP)]

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 a 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.   

[Ethos_]

"Why" is kinda fun for teaching primary school, but at some point we need to grow up and realise that the universe taken as a whole is entirely mechanistic, with no evidence of gods or entanglement molecules* floating about to direct the processes of chemistry and physics.

Webster's does assign to the word "why" the notion of "reason or purpose". However, for many of us, this word simply asks for an explanation that leads to the understanding of a physical occurrence.

Nevertheless, I do understand the point you've made about a few members here using the word "why" in a philosophical or religious sense. But in those cases, it becomes evident very quickly that they are trying to assign a purpose to the use of this word. However, for those of us that are interested in the reality of the physics involved, the word is simply asking for an explanation about the physical events revolving around the phenomenon.

[alancalverd]

The problem with allowing "why" questions is that they tend to lead to anthropomorphic explanations ("the electron wants to...") which can mislead people into thinking that classical mechanics can be applied at all levels of analysis, or that nature must obey laws.

Fact is that QM describes what is, and how things evolve, with no overarching reason, and physical "laws" are no more than convenient mathematical descriptions of apparently universal phenomena.   

[Ethos_]

The problem with allowing "why" questions is that they tend to lead to anthropomorphic explanations ("the electron wants to...") which can mislead people into thinking that classical mechanics can be applied at all levels of analysis, or that nature must obey laws.

I find myself agreeing with you on every point except one alan. While it's true that those predisposed to the anthropomorphic "religious" point of view, will tend to explain events by invoking the supernatural, I find it inconsistent with the typical researcher to not ask "why?". Research is BTW, initiated because an unanswered "question" has been asked or at least entered the consciousness of the researcher. I nevertheless concede to the danger you have warned us about and the misdirection it can often produce if the supernatural is allowed to enter the equation.