[alancalverd]

2-   The natural process that places you or any living being in the life they currently live is not dependent upon any particular chemistry, biology, species or form, evolved or otherwise. Just as for example, memory, or intelligence does not depend upon any particular brand or type of technology for its implementation.

I think it unwise to predicate any scientific argument on an irrelevant nonsequitur. "Just as" requiires a lot more explanation!

[tonylang (OP)]

2-   The natural process that places you or any living being in the life they currently live is not dependent upon any particular chemistry, biology, species or form, evolved or otherwise. Just as for example, memory, or intelligence does not depend upon any particular brand or type of technology for its implementation.

... "Just as" requiires a lot more explanation!

Exactly, and the ILNE hypothesis offers one such plausible explanation.

[tonylang (OP)]

Today the world generally unites in a communal pride in the seminal achievement of Neil Armstrong as the first among humankind to set foot on a cosmological body other than the Earth. In this achievement we acknowledge the triumph of the human spirit and intellect to measure, understand, manipulate and control the laws of nature to implement a mobility of the living form through space-time unlike any that had previously been achieved. Humankind as a species like many other hosts for life in earth’s ecosystem has evolved a basic mobility of individuality implemented via our host forms functions and structures. This local mobility is evolved for movement through direct contact with the environment. Legs, wings, fins are some of the means by which the physical mobility of the living individual is achieved by species on earth. Additionally, humankind has realized great utility in further extending this basic capability with technology. Thus the mobility of individuality on human scales has been enhanced by wheels, airframes, engines and rockets. Our thoughts often do not extend or associate this mobility of our physical form with either the local or universal mobility of our position-of-view, that is the mobility of our individuality. We have a very limited scope of extrapolating many of the implementations around us, natural or otherwise, even those that we conceive and develop ourselves, to a context greater than our immediate utility and practical concerns. However with the accomplishments of NASA’s Apollo mission’s humankind has extended its reach beyond our usual scope and in so doing has opened a new realm of mobility of individuality that must be addressed and understood. Not only in technological terms but also for what the movement and relocation of Neil’s position-of-view (POV) to the Moon’s surface says to us as individuals about our living circumstances in this universe.


We take as a foregone conclusion that life can exist anywhere in this universe so long as the resources needed to sustain it are present. This is a very complacent assumption despite the likelihood that it may very well be so. It is not too surprising that we make this assumption; after all, there are no examples to the contrary in any Earth or near Earth environment. In fact one of the underlying tenants of our present day scientific method, as implied by current measurements of the fine structure constant states that the laws of physics are upheld everywhere in this universe. This consistency offers a reasonably good basis for our certainty. Nonetheless life can be quite complicated and has many requirements and influences that are well understood, yet perhaps there are other factors critical to life yet to be discovered. We know most Earth life depends on proper sustenance (energy), water, oxygen, temperature and pressure levels to be maintained at least in the near term. We also have a longer term need for gravity or an equivalent force. Nevertheless life as we know it may yet have some undiscovered intrinsic dependency on properties in or near the area around Earth or around the Sun. Mission planners acknowledged this possibility when they sent the first ever Earth life into space on board a captured V-2 rocket on February 20, 1947. These original astronauts were a group of fruit flies, insects being as good a representation of Earth life as any other. This first volley into the unknown environment outside the Earth’s atmosphere was extremely dangerous. Not just in terms of the technological or known dangers inherent to extraterrestrial space due to its lack of the known required resources mentioned earlier but primarily because space could have proven to be fundamentally incompatible with a living entitys' instantiation, its being. So how do we know for near certain that Earth life can exist anywhere in this universe?

Interestingly the best evidence to date for the universal mobility of individuality presented itself when Neil Armstrong pressed his boot into the soft silt of the moon’s surface. Neil Armstrong’s’ surviving his “giant leap for mankind” suggests that life as we know it is not utterly dependent on any resource intrinsic or unique to the Earth, or the very local space-time around it. For example we could have evolved with a dependence on Earth’s unique magnetic field configuration, or on Earth’s specific gravitational field intensity, or some other completely unknown and unrecognized property of either Earth itself or the space near to the Earth. If this was indeed the case the crew of Apollo 11, and the fruit flies before them, could have tragically deinstantiated, ceased to live once they passed some threshold or boundary somewhere between the Earth’s surface and the moon’s surface. Perhaps once the spacecraft passed some critical flux level in Earth’s magnetic field, or once the Earth’s gravitational field density dropped below some essential level. Each of the unsuspecting astronauts, human or fruit fly could have simply extinguished immediately or gradually like light bulbs whose electric current had been turned off.  Perhaps their molecular bonds could have just dissipated due to some unknown property of space. There may yet remain some irreproducible property of our sun unknown to us that is critical to sustaining Earth life. After all Earth life has never been tested beyond the suns Helios-spheres. Presumably, each of these needs could ultimately be overcome and provided for by technology. 

Nonetheless the amazingly profound statement suggested by Neil Armstrong surviving his first step on the moon isn’t just that we can overcome the technological hurdles of space travel, but rather that nature in this universe permits individuality to exist elsewhere and likely everywhere; that not only the physical form, but the individuals first person position-of-view that is ones being ones natural entanglement ones instantiation is indeed mobile in this universe and perhaps throughout nature. Neil Armstrong’s giant step for mankind suggests that the individual POV can exist not just where it was instantiated, where it entangled its host form, but quite likely anywhere in this universe due to the unrestricted instantaneous universal ubiquity of natural entanglement. On the other hand, the irreversibility of extinction and evolution together with relativistic constraints mandate that the individual cannot be instantiated or rendered universally mobile by the physical forms made of local collections of atoms in this universe, because unlike NASA nature does not use spacecraft for the mobility of the individual.


Comprehending the reality of one’s living circumstances begins with the realization that Neal Armstrong’s first step on the surface of the moon, or perhaps Yuri Gagarins’ first orbit around the earth or that the intrepid voyage of those first insects, demonstrated that the mobility of individuality exists in this universe. Mobility not defined by locomotion or travel of your current host form but by a fundamental property of nature with degrees of freedom much greater than that of matter. Realize that the instantiation of any individual, ones position-of-view, may be hosted anywhere in space-time by any viable environment which happens to emerge naturally or artificially on any planet orbiting any star. This convenient environment also includes the living hosts we refer to as species. The obstacles presented by travel involve movement of the matter based components of the instantiated individual through expanses of space-time small or large. Nature in its implementation of life circumvents this issue by implementing only the mobility of the POV, the component of the individual which is temporarily instantiated by natural entanglement to a locally available form. Ergo in nature the physical host, the species is always left behind.

[tonylang (OP)]

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 ILNE 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.

[tonylang (OP)]

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 ILNE (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

[Kenyonm]

Are we alone in the universe? I'm sure you would all agree that it would take 100 years to reach a star 100 light years away in a spaceship travelling at just below light speed. Now imagine a civilisation 400,000 years further on in science ahead of us. They would look at us as we look at the stone age people. They would also see we are at war with two religions that cannot live together. They would not bother to land on earth as they would see we would cause damage to their single religion or standards of behaviour. They would have computers linked directly to their brains and know everything that their civilation knows. So they would know also that we couldn't teach them anything. So they would see no need to land here. The way they communicate would look as radio the same level of communication as using homing pigeons. They also would not want us to be able to read their signals as we can't be trusted to behave correctly as we are locked in a absurd war. In summary, with the vast number of star systems in the universe the chances of us being alone in it is the same as none of us not being able to quote pi to 300 dp

[tonylang (OP)]

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.

[tonylang (OP)]

The search for the entanglement cell (EC) will require the isolation and identification of critical regions of cells that may be refereed to as ‘Follicle regions’. Follicle regions in this context describes isolated diminutive groups of cells which when sufficiently disrupted appears to cause the termination of the subject in a manner difficult to distinguish from genuine EC termination. EC (Entanglement cells) being the most fundamental physical implementation of individuality of an emerged composite being, disruption of EC exclusively is hypothesized to result in disentanglement to metamatter which is deinstantiation, individual death.

Follicle regions may actually contain EC, or alternatively only cells whose function is critical to systemic function not unlike cells of the heart or liver only whose role is much less obvious. Determining which of these two possibilities is the case will require the investigation to focus on each follicle group of cells by a process of elimination to reduce the group to the barest minimum of effective follicle cells within the group and then to trace and definitively determine how those remaining follicle cells contribute to host termination.

For each follicle group this process should always lead either to the determination and identification of yet another indirect cause of death or to the discovery of the presence of genuine EC within the follicle group. These EC will be those, one or more cells which contribute only and exclusively to the observed subject termination. This process requires the discounting (not subjecting to disruption) of those cells which either cause intermediate damage to other host systems or do not directly cause host termination.
Subject termination due to EC candidate cells  within the follicle group must not result in any premortem cellular disruption (non-necrotic) physically or functionally to any region outside of the follicle group. Ergo, death without damage.

Approved subjects (flies, nematodes etc.) chosen for this process may need to be high fidelity clones in order to provide the required  consistent physical structure and predictable systemic cellular distribution. This is so the process of elimination may continue unabated with minimal loss of progress as subjects are terminated and new test subjects are needed to continue the investigation. Further, subjects may not need to be fully formed individuals but may be sufficiently developed living embryonic forms. Subjects viable for testing but not viable by current definitions, for independent growth.

[McQueen]

I don’t think the point of the question “Are we alone in the Universe?” is as important as the fact that to all intents and  purposes we are alone in the Universe and manifestly seen to be alone. This raises the question as to “Why we are alone?”  We are light years away from the nearest star, and hundreds of light years away from the nearest star with a planetary system, in a Universe where nothing can move close to or near to the speed of light.  “What does it all mean?” “Is it a testing ground, from which we can graduate to a better life as the Bible seems to hint? ”  Or is it a place from which to be freed as Buddhism teaches. Or is it a place which, with belief in the right God, serves as a prelude to undiluted bliss as the Muslims believe? Or is  life with its ups and downs just a respite from something unthinkably arduous? Who can tell, all one can do is look around and learn from example and hope that it is good enough! What we can tell for sure if we possess even an inkling of intelligence, is that it doesn't end here!

[tonylang (OP)]

To the environment a living host entangled at one QEF is identical to that same host entangled at any different QEF. There is no classically detectable outward influence or behavior of the POV that can immediately effect ones surroundings which includes ones host. because the host, the species is a part of that local environment. No causal difference between one POV and another is available to the outside world, only to the individual is the difference rendered manifest by the isolation of individuality. It is only the isolation of individual instantiation and also of experience centered upon ones position-of view that affords a clear distinction of self, being, and individuality via the acquired skill of self-awareness in each being capable to fathoming the distinction. The isolation imposed upon the individual POV by a protective composite, and often disconnected host, is a solitary condition which the instantiated being strives to overcome. This is widely achieved through communication in all of its forms which includes mobility. From the single living cell to bacteria to vegetation to human beings, genetically all strive to break the isolation imposed by this fundamental living condition of life. This journey out of the isolation of the basic natural entangled state of life  not only began, but continues with the living cell in all of its forms and has evolved to become the prolific, diverse eco-system we see today.

Communication requires the development, usually via  evolution, of structures and functions that augment the basic implementation by which natural entanglement is hosted. Evolution no doubt favors the group, which also benefits from communication. This is not to suggest that the perception of individuality cannot be clouded perhaps by intimately integrated communication systems of both a technological and biological nature. Such augmentation could fade the experiential distinction between self and others. Even so, make no mistake, there can be no classical infiltration of the individual POV as there are strict natural monogamistic laws of quantum coherent interaction that guarantees the isolation (or forfeit) of the individual entangled state that is the position-of-view.

Most often the information of self which is acquired during a lifetime is dissipated from the individual upon deinstantiation. Some information of ones past instantiations may persist in the memories of other instantiated beings for a time or within indelable works or, in the archival repositories of advanced societies. However, currently with no means by which any reinstantiated QEF can be identified, for now, the anonymity of the reinstantiated individual remains assured. It would require the development, evolutionary or technological, of persistent personal individual inter-longevous memory or the societal archiving of such information, coupled with the capability to identify and distinguish the unique individual QEF to then inform reinstantiated individuals of their past histories. Also with this capability would emerge the even more profound capability to influence ones future instantiations by manipulating aspects of ones’ fidelity of teleportation (FT), and further, to eventually develop controlled universal travel via targeted reinstantiation as advanced enlightened species in this universe already would. In so doing a threshold would have been crossed in the maturity of a species as the accompanying enlightenment transforms life as we know it.

[tonylang (OP)]

Probing for the entanglement cell (EC) does not require physical contact with candidate cells. To the contrary, the astute investigator will quickly realize that the less physically disruptive the probing mechanism the more progress will result from the exercise. Since the task at hand is not to disrupt any cellular internal function which could kill the cell but rather to disrupt only the heterodyning mechanism by which the EC  maintain the emerged individual POV. The means of disrupting EC heterodyning are potentially numerous as the monogamy of this delicate state are unforgiving. Infiltration or only identification of the entangled state may occur by the use of appropriate entanglement witnesses such as properly tailored photonic, electronic or other non physical mechanisms. Of course there is a chance that every cell is an EC. This would require a slight modification of the predictions of the theory as in such a case the heterodyned state would be far more robust than currently predicted. This is because the entangled state of emerged POV would need to survive massive changes in cell participation as cells of the holistic host are perpetually transient.

Depending on the relative orientation and positioning of EC relative to other EC the probe will need to target individual candidate cells or very diminutive groups of the same. This is because it is possible that EC may have developed in close proximity or even in direct contact with each other during the gestation period of initial conception and engaged their heterodyning of their individual QEF to establish the emerged QEF and then later physically drift apart as the billions of new non-EC cells develop as the subject grows. Or alternatively the heterodyned EC may in all or some species remain in direct physical contact with other EC to maintain the heterodyning function required for emerged individuality to persist.  Therefore the probe may need to be focused down to within the diameter of a single cell and be as noninvasive as possible yet highly maneuverable as to scan many cellular diameters in rapid succession.

Given all of these requirements the inventive investigator may imagine a probe not dissimilar from the polarized blue or UV laser found in a blu-ray disc player and research labs around the world as a good foundation upon which to fashion the probe for this endeavor.  The LINE hypothesis suggests that sufficient disruption of the heterodyned state of EC will deinstantiate the emerged individual even while the non-EC or even the actual EC cells remain instantiated alive as individual, functional cells. But with all cells of the host remaining fully functional, how is the deinstantiation of the emerged individual determined? There is expected to be a time lapse between POV termination and the first signs of  the shutting down of cellular function associated with postmortem necrosis of the host body. But the more immediate symptom of deinstantiation may be an alteration in species or subject specific nervous system and brain functions. Each of such symptoms may be used separately or together to identify POV termination of the subject.

[tonylang (OP)]

https://s31.postimg.org/q8yz2g9jv/Resizeof_Lineconnecttoperson4a.jpg

Within this space-time we are all too familiar with aspects of matter which are exclusionary in nature, that is, properties which 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’s and the valuable information encoded therein simultaneously pervade the propagating waveform as it travels through space-time. Like all thing s 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 become may effect reception of you TV signal. Likewise the aspect of instantiation of the individual life responsible for the mobility of individuality in this space-time share exclusionary features that are similar to matter even if in an unfamiliar implementation. Ones QE connection (the LINE’s in the depiction) to metamatter in Hilbert-space (the white area in the depiction) is similarly exclusionary in its behavior as it entangles your living host form wherever viable forms emerges in this universe (the cosmic disc in the depiction) . Each LINE is a unique value among the infinite possibilities of the DOF’s of the entanglement spectrum (a property of  Hilbert-space). One of these LINE’s belong 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 (little circle at the ends in the depiction). And like matter or the cable on the back of your PC cannot be shared but must be terminated before a new entanglement a new instantiation a new life is established. This is the monogamistic, singleton or 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 matter is what defines ones 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 are governed and mediated by the rules of monogamy of entanglement and also 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 them eco-systems in this universe and their evolved living hosts has essentially tuned metamatter by storing information into this bootstrapping cloud-storage repository of nature. This began the propensity at first of 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 ecosystems unique evolutionary signature genetic or otherwise?

[Alan McDougall]

I would say yes that the only life in our vast universe exist on earth, for a reason that I will not bring up here

Alan

[tonylang (OP)]

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 eco-system 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 determine 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.

[tonylang (OP)]

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 that is the mobility of individuality. It is only local circumstances which determine a habitats 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 which together are 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 which in any way diminishes how wondrous and rare the processes by which living hosts have emerged on this planet. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that similarly wondrous processes can occur throughout this or in other 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 on board 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 is 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.

[tonylang (OP)]

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, 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 are prone to accept established ideas which we were thought or exposed to early in ones current instantiation. Most are ideas which 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 its 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 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.

[tonylang (OP)]

IMAGE CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/05/04/human-embryos-kept-alive-in-lab-for-unprecedented-13-days-so-sci/


By the 11th day of gestation of a human embryo, for example, being no bigger than the head of a pin yet it contains many hundred cells every one of them a living individual in nature. Among these cells, early in the formation of a new life, are the LINE hypothesized Entanglement Cells (EC), some of which are likely visible in this photograph. Entanglement cells are very special cells which together heterodyne their own unique individual entangled states to manifest a new state established at a unique QEF,  your QEF.  This instantiation manifests a new life, a new emerged LifeID, your position-of-view (POV), not unlike their own but at a different unique quantifiable value of the entangled degrees-of-freedom (QEF’s) of the immutable entanglement spectrum. This is approximately the stage in gestation of a viable host where instantiation occurs, the point at which you the individual, become tethered to this particular growing host form and not to some other.


Why you? In this there can be no; Why, only; How. Via a combination of natural circumstances, some predicted by the LINE hypothesis, this particular host has heterodyned at your QEF. This occurs whether the form be  human, or any other viable living form that happens to exist in any temporary, no doubt extinction laden eco-system. The Earth is but one such habitat. This is but one instance of countless such processes of instantiation by natural entanglement that occur second by second throughout existence. By this process the mobility of individuality is made possible in a vast Higgs universe, together with the  non-locality of metamatter and the non-relativistic reach of the entanglement spectrum. These features make individuality and life possible on Erath and  anywhere, wherever viable forms happen to emerge, in that place a new instance of life is established whether single or multi-cellular. Empirically proving or disproving the existence and theorized function of the EC and identifying the ubiquitous entanglement molecule which makes this all possible will be greatly facilitated by using subjects that are at this early pivotal stage of development.


This initial two week stage in human gestation, for example, marks the point where the embryo may form one or more hosts (i.e. twins etc.). Also at this stage the characteristic central structure of the host form begins to emerge. It is very likely that the EC are present but have not yet heterodyned at this juncture. At this stage the embryo remains a collection of distinct individual cells each with a specific, or soon to be determined mission. Once the EC combine their individual entangled states to establish the one or more new emerged entangled states and the POV’s define therein, an equal number of new instances of individuality come into existence perhaps for the first time, or perhaps not for the first time. The one certainty in this process is that this particular host has never before existed and never will again.   


Further, we may inquire; at what stage in its evolution does an emerged species gain its EC and go from being a colony of individual cells , to become an emerged form hosting a position-of-view with a unique emerged QEF? To understand this It would help to seek living forms representative of  each evolutionary stage of development. Species that straddle the evolutionary line between a colony of living individual cells and an emerged living being with a POV distinct from its other non-EC’s. Such species no doubt exist but are not easily categorized. For some reason evolution seems to favor full emergence once a colony develops the EC, like a switch being flipped. This is not to suggest that such recently emerged species would immediately possess highly integrated systems like a central nervous system which links its disparate regions of specialization. Such complex features would take time to evolve but the QE connection to metamatter had by all living forms requires no such embellishments.


Also, how might a species respond evolutionarily to developing a newly established POV as compared to being a colony of living individuals? This would be a truly fascinating study to undertake. The LINE hypothesis suggests that imprinted metamatter influences evolution throughout this universe in ways that should not be underestimated and may very well play a crucial role in disseminating this amazing capability to eco-systems separated by distances that are otherwise physically unbridgeable. Thus, like all other features of the cell, the capability to combine the natural entangled  state first evolves in cells which then further specialize. Thereby passing on their newly acquired talents to offspring. Together these new EC perform the initial combination of their individual QE connection to establish the new emerged individuals position-of-view thereby marking the emergence of a new host form for emerged individual life, a new species.


From an evolutionary standpoint, one may be tempted to expect a dramatic transformation to accompany  the transition from the collection to the emerged host, but this is unlikely to be the case. More probable is a slow evolution out of the  hitherto normal behavior of that particular colony as new possibilities slowly take hold of its evolutionary trajectory. Thus the cloud-storage repository of newly entangled metamatter further shapes the destiny of a new species. The science which describes POV evolution will, like all aspects of living biology, be deep and complex in its own right. The evolution of a species has many influences and likely goes step-wise with the evolution of its POV as both number and complexity of EC may evolve over time.


So if you, whatever your species, are impressed and proud of the evolved capabilities of your living form, it is well and good that you should be, but also realize that none of those known features can be considered to be more impressive than the feature of natural entanglement heterodyning evolved in the EC. This remarkable feature permits nothing less than the establishment of complex emerged beings, like you, in this universe. If not for this amazing feature of the cell only individual cells and colonies thereof would populate the Earth. This is not to suggest what forms such colonies might take, but the distinction between a colony of individual cells and an emerged being such as a human or a millipede or a finch is significant and important. Today science defines no clear basis for such a distinction, the LINE hypothesis does.

[tonylang (OP)]

The ability to realize beyond ones species is a hard earned capability. Would an ant, an earth species naturally equal to any other, consider importance, if it could, beyond the concerns of the nest? Could a bee realize concerns beyond the interests of the hive and if they could what might they ponder? In what do we, as equal tenants of life, find importance beyond our own immediate concerns, being perhaps the only species in the history of earth-life with the capability to entertain such considerations? What aspect of nature might all life share commonly with immediate local urgency beyond all of the interests of their respective cultures regardless of their location in space-time? Human religion has long invented such a universally shared entity in the form of various Gods. A god by its very description is considered to be a common cause a shared universal concern of all life and of every individual.  That which transcends place as well as time. However, might there be a somewhat less mystical more empirical natural implementation which fits this description of common cause for life and individuality regardless of which star or planet or perhaps universe one may live?


Of local interest for individuals on earth may be concern for the state of earths ecology as a viable habitat to sustain ones current host form, ones species. Also the stability and trajectory of the sun and indeed all matters relevant to our common star. Also our common planets’ fate would certainly top such a thoughtful list. Excluded may be internal strife and politics and such for such cultural local distractions are not often shared by other forms, at least prior to humankind. Testament to this is the fact that when any human, for example, is confronted with the inconvenience of say a thriving bee hive or ants nest or termite mound in ones vicinity no consideration is ever given to which individuals  therein are deserving of benevolent consideration or are right minded. Nor is any consideration given by us to which termites can be considered above the fray, which individuals are good or bad hearted among its kind. No, we simply torch the entire culture. This is perhaps as it will be in all such encounters.


Nonetheless, The LINE hypothesis suggests that there may yet exist universally immutable natural implementations, not unlike a common atmosphere or shared star or habitat. Natural implementations seen or unseen which may be of common importance to all living individuals regardless of form or location in this universe or indeed in existence. Such aspects of nature would be of common importance to individuality everywhere? For example, what might  earth species hold in common regard with say indigenous mars-life if it existed? Perhaps matters concerning the condition and fate of the Sun since  the survival of both depend on the state of our common star. Not on each list may be concerns for the state of the others eco-system since we are not affected by conditions on the surface of mars or Venus or any other planet. Also present on such a list may be the goings on in the asteroid belt and ort cloud as both could affect all life within their reach. Further, if we consider this same conundrum from the perspective of species separated by the vastness of interstellar space sharing no classically described resources or structures in common dependence what else then might there be to include on such a list? Perhaps the ultimate fate of the universe itself is about all that meets with our traditional misconceptions about life and individuality.


This suggests that the internal goings on of any species is irrelevant to nature writ large. So then might there be something more? Could there exist in nature considerations of greater and common relevance and dependence? Is there  a common list of concerns and implementations that can be made by  members of any species no matter where they may be located in this or perhaps any universe no matter their form or local culture or circumstances ? A list of actual, no doubt natural, structures and considerations whatever their description whose existence or state will ultimately matter simultaneously indelibly to all life to every living being. What ideas or entities or phenomena might such a perennial list detail?


The entanglement spectrum and the imprinting of cellular state information upon metamatter described by the LINE hypothesis during the instantiation period,  the lifetime of any individual QEF is such a common cause. This information transfer may be compared to the formatting of a computer hard-drive by its electronic circuitry. In this analogy metamatter is akin to the unformatted ferrite coating of the HD disc surface.  During the course of every lifetime the cell, natures entanglement circuit, writes or imprints  information via its entanglement molecules to entangled metamatter. This information transferred to the universal repository of metamatter is essentially evolutionary formatting via natural entanglement and occurs during the course of each lifetime by every living hosts specific DNA and entangled degrees of freedom (QEF). As the ferrite particles of a HD are altered or formatted by the computers programmed circuitry via electromagnetism so too is matamatter by the host and its LifeID via the entanglement spectrum.   As any individual POV establishes  yet another place and time in any universe this conservation of information transfer or imprinting upon meta matter occurs and in so doing this universal cloud storage repository of state information stored in metamatter becomes the major driver behind evolution and the emergence of initial  or existing host forms throughout nature. Neither distance nor time nor the persistence of any particular matter structure be it species, planet, star, galaxy or perhaps even universe is  essential for the continuation or proliferation  of this mechanism because the viability of such forms to host life are all that is required. These matter based components are one means by which a POV may be hosted but are not necessary for the instantiation of the individual thus are properly transient and temporary. The instantiation of life by natural entanglement occurs with equal persistence regardless of the location or proliferation of living hosts in the immensity of the cosmos. The only mechanism which possesses the natural description to implement such an amazing feat is a natural immutable universal quantum entanglement spectrum.

[tonylang (OP)]

Why should any living being love or care for its offspring, or about its family, about ones species, for ones village and country, or about your eco-system and planet, or even your local Star? How does any individual assign concern to these locally interdependent physical forms? Any assignment of concern in this regard depends on ones species and culture. The sea tortoise lays her eggs in a carefully excavated hole on a particular beach then gently covers them over with sand then leaves them forever to the not often tender graces of circumstance. The bald eagle pairs with a mate for a time to prepare a nest for her eggs and together they care and rare their young to a viable state of readiness for its new life. Human beings have taken the raring of familial members to an extreme mostly as a cultural demand. With adequate enlightenment we begin to extend our concern to other members of our and other defined species and the communities they form and the environment which makes it all possible? All this occurs in the absence of any certainty about the true nature of one’s living circumstances.  How are we here? Where were we before? What or where comes next. For some, abject denial offers occasional respite from the unknown, however, eventually no human escapes the wonderment endemic to the conundrum of life. 


The layers of concern we manifest for the various structures that form our existence and upon which we depend for survival and well being at this emergent macroscopic level can be described as a sphere or bubble of concern. This bubble describes all of the cultural and instinctual notions which form an individual’s concerns for its surroundings. For humankind this bubble may be manifested by particularly rich narratives based on instinct, imagination, fear, ambition, perceptions, and as of relatively recently on empirical data. Each host form or species and the individuals instantiated therein may be circumstantially free to define its own unique bubble of concerns which describe the day to day trajectory of the individual’s current life.  The stresses intrinsic to being alive for any living being able to fathom such notions are significant and unavoidable. The bubble of concern comes from an evolved need to survive not just physically but also cognitively. Ones bubble of concern contributes to the definition of one’s living reality.
     
The evolution of experience which defines the sphere of concern in living hosts often fosters a progressive increase of sensitivity to the environment. Being overly sensitive or overly sensory in an entropic universe may not be the best condition for a living being. Humans have five major senses but this by no means defines a limit for viable hosts. We need not think about all which we cannot sense just as do other creatures that share this ecosystem with us. What of the world might a being with more than five senses glean? Are there host forms possessing sensory implementations that permit a being to sense the state or condition of its ecosystem perhaps as a kind of emotion? Or sense the presence of a POV, the presence of life itself? It is difficult to imagine what experiences there can be which you can't, however, the fundamental natural implementation of life in this universe, natural entanglement, which brings no experience of its own, does indeed accommodate an untold diversity of living forms and their emergent skills and accompanying spheres of concern limited only by the metaphorical imagination of nature herself.

However, Just beyond the proverbial skin of this sphere are the natural laws of cause and effect that determine when where and how any living being is located in space-time, ones position-of-view (POV). A POV, instantiated by natural entanglement, is the rigid framework which defines and drives the presence of individuality throughout this universe. With distance being no barrier to this teleportation channel, as living hosts emerge and evolve out of the isolation of initial living forms, biological or otherwise, and as living hosts evolve to permit survival of the entangled state and experience, these also define ones unique sphere of concern centered upon ones the POV, upon you. The POV is the naturally teleportable definition, the instantiation, the kernel, of one’s individuality in this universe.

This behavior of concern or caring, whether instinctual or cognitive, although mostly culturally defined at the emerged host level, fundamentally derives from the basic natural cause and effect implementation of life itself, an implementation about which most life on earth today is utterly unaware including humankind. The imprinting of metamatter caused by the instantiation by natural entanglement that defines you, the individual, your position-of-view, is the source of this perceived concern. For offspring of basic hosts, like a single cell that divides to create new cells, it is only the cause manifested from the imprinting or tuning of metamatter by similar genetic progeny that renders apparent attachment to offspring. For a cell or microbe it is nothing more than the evolved tendency of like to seek like.

Metamatter imprinted by a newly available host’s progeny enters more easily into an entangled state with that new host, thereby increasing the value or scalar magnitude of the individuals’ (QEF) fidelity of teleportation (FT) and thereby ones reinstantiation prospects with similar species. Species evolution simply selects for this similarity by genetic variation as it does for many other properties. It gives the species an evolutionary benefit via access to non-local cellular state information stored in more similarly imprinted metamatter. The drive to proliferate ones’ own similarly imprinted matamatter is advanced by spreading ones current genetics (DNA), however, genetics are local to ones current position in space-time.  Whereas the coherent state information stored in metamatter during the course of each lifetime, made accessible to living hosts throughout nature via ones uniquely defined natural teleportation channel, is one major driver of evolution throughout the cosmos even when the viability of local circumstances catastrophically cease to exist. Today most understand the drive to procreate only as the individual’s dedication to host offspring or to species. Seen from humankind’s evolved cognitive vantage point we narrate this effect as love and caring described by a lexicon of emotional terms, from these perceptions emerge community, religion, politics and culture.   

[tonylang (OP)]

   
In what order does the instantiation of life by natural entanglement select, and assign, any individual QEF to ones next host form, among the great diversity of genetic lineages on Earth, and perhaps elsewhere in this universe? As we live, we fixate on our current host species and its genetically related ancestry, and its future prospects, not realizing that one’s current defined species may be only one of many viable forms that have hosted your POV in past instantiations. In the short term, this diversity of lineages that has played host to you, to your position-of-view, may very well include a few different species and near-species. However, in the longer term history of earth-life, for any individual, ones host history may include a great many, often very different host forms. Further, Parents and ancestors are current and bygone individuals (QEF’s) that were also hosted by Earths tree of life.

The degrees-of-freedom (DOF), of the QE spectrum, and their implementation in the LINE process, may reveal underlying complexities which defines categories of QEF types which determines which host forms are able to instantiate certain QEF types. Ergo, not all QEF can immediately be hosted by all forms. A single cell may not be capable of hosting your QEF. Metaphorically speaking, as your FM radio cannot tune a TV signal. Not because your QEF is in any way dedicated specifically to the human form, but due to the underlying defining structure of the QE spectrum, and the underlying metaverse (Hilbert-space), and the topographies of their interface with this universe.  Such a determination will require invasive research to discover the truth of it. Because this is a nuanced, and not at all as simple a thing as it may at first seem.  Further, the LINE hypothesis suggests that QEF are described by the DOF’s of the QE spectrum, which are governed by nuances of the underlying metaverse. Consequentially, only a certain range of the entanglement spectrum may be exposed to any particular universe. Ergo, the QE spectrum may be essentially pre-filtered by overriding conditions, and circumstances, to expose this universe to only a certain band of QEF. That is, of potential individuals, which is then further filtered, or tuned, by more local circumstances described by ones fidelity of teleportation (FT), which instantiate these available QEF to compatible viable hosts. All of this contributes to the natural description of how you came to be what you are, where you are, and what comes next.


Like you, each ancestor, via their instantiated hosts, have participated in the local dissemination-of genetic information through various processes of procreation. More significantly, however, also by storing its cellular state to entangled metamatter over the course of each lifetime.  Ones ancestors are bygone lives of individual QEF’s that, like you, were temporarily instantiated to hosts that contributed genetically to  yours, in any given instance of life. However, more influentially, also by contributing to the universal repository of evolutionary information. This tuning influences ones FT value, and future prospects for reinstantiation. Each of those individual QEF’s are also on their own trajectory through the universal network of life. Via this mutual, cellular-QEF tuning of universal evolutionary information, individuals of ancestral QEF’s, could cross paths with your trajectory again. Realizing and comparing the DNA mediated tree of host forms on Earth, with the natural teleportation network that governs the assignment of individuality to those forms, will no doubt be a new and unfamiliar cognitive hurdle for humankind. If you feel evolution has been rough going, then buckle-up.