[tonylang (OP)]

« Reply #15 on: 16/04/2015 14:33:55 »

[PmbPhy]

So, as this is a science forum, make a prediction based on your hypothesis and tell us how to test it.

Now that you mention it, I've never seen anybody do anything like that.

[Colin2B]

So, as this is a science forum, make a prediction based on your hypothesis and tell us how to test it.

Now that you mention it, I've never seen anybody do anything like that.

Me neither, there are a number of threads in New Theories where proof, or further detail (non word spaghetti detail that is) is avoided.

Even the test suggested by the OP won't provide proof of entanglement, just that killing some cells will kill you!

[alancalverd]

The proposed test depends on the ability to "terminate" cells without damaging them. I rather think this deserves a little amplification - what on earth does "terminate without damage" mean, what would you use to do it, and how would you know you had done it?

[tonylang (OP)]

I believe you misunderstood the description. The endeavor is to identify and locate the subjects’ hypothesized entanglement cells  via a systematic decremental process of targeted termination of candidate cells within the test subject (i.e. fruit flies),  and thereby to finally terminate a healthy subject by destroying only the subjects’ entanglement cells, while inflicting no damage to the hosts’ non-EC cells, ergo death without damage.

Today all death known to modern science is eventually forensically caused by cellular damage to structures singularly or collectively vital to the host form. Such damage can invariably be determined to sufficiently disrupt conditions required for proper host function thereby resulting in the termination of the emerged individual, death. The instantiation hypothesis describes death as the disentanglement between ones entanglement cells (EC) with metamatter. This results in the loss of the individual’s position-of-view (POV). Today we see only the physical symptoms of the damage to the host and we quite adequately associate these conditions with the termination of the individual. This is fine for all that we currently do. However this is not the complete description of life in this universe.

If indeed it is the sole function of the hosts’ EC to maintain life of the emerged individual and if it falls upon all other cells of the host only to maintain the environmental, internal and or external conditions for the individual’s continued function then a few interesting insights may be posed.

1-   Theoretically, terminating only an individual’s EC cells while leaving non-EC cells unaffected will result in the termination of the emerged individual while producing no damage to any system of the host, ergo death without damage.
2-   Further, effectively transplanting an individual’s EC to another viable host will result in a successful exchange of an individual’s host form.
3-   Identifying and isolating the EC will certainly aid in the identification of the hypothesized entanglement molecules.
4-   Studying the entanglement molecule could lead to untold developments and technologies.

Some creatures on earth are evolved to terminate even healthy cells once other vital cells undergo necrosis, this is usually done by the release of a chemical death signal that moves through the rest of the healthy portions of the host and cause them to terminate. For creatures that do not possess this self-destruct feature, once the emerged being dies healthy or undamaged cells of the host may continue to live on. These occurrences suggest that the emerged individual is only linked to its other, non-EC, cells of the host by a dependency or reliance upon them to maintain vital conditions for continued life. Conditions such as the need for energy, and temperature and pressure and vital chemicals that may be required by the systems of the host form for continued function. Therefore, the function of every host for life is singularly dedicated to maintaining the internal and perhaps also the external environment for continued entanglement by the hosts EC thus maintaining the individuals POV.  The POV being the composite QEF established and maintained by those same EC.

[alancalverd]

So what you are saying is that death is possible with no evidence of failure of any organ. provided that you can locate your hypothetical and so far invisible cells and disentangle them from your hypothetical metamatter. But your proposed experiment only involves killing cells we already know about, so it won't demonstrate anything of the sort - at least, not to the mind of a scientist.

Why choose something as complicated as a fruit fly? Start with a unicellular animal or a bacterium, which must surely possess whatever it is you are looking for, and think of a way of killing it without disrupting its function. Or is that too much of an oxymoron?

[tonylang (OP)]

“ But your proposed experiment only involves killing cells we already know about, so it won't demonstrate anything of the sort - at least, not to the mind of a scientist. “


As is common in biological research the selection of candidate cells for termination in each trial is a process that each team is free to administer as they see fit. Time to success will hinge upon the teams ability to achieve successful trials as described while decrementing the selection of candidate cells for termination in the most efficient manner going forward, so long as it is with the primary goal in mind as stated.


“Why choose something as complicated as a fruit fly? “

Your approach would describe one technique for seeking the entanglement molecule (EM) not the entanglement cell (EC). Beginning by directly searching for a type of molecule and its function may be somewhat more difficult to seeking a class of cells which are expected to have such a large functional effect as termination on the subject with no destructive affect upon the subjects systems.

While all living hosts are hypothesized to implement entanglement molecules (EM) to instantiate life, entanglement cells (EC) are proposed to have evolved and function as described only in some complex hosts. They are cells like many other cells in living hosts in earths’ ecosystem, known or unknown, that are pending further or perhaps initial identification or description by science. We have a long history of studying unknown or poorly understood structures in biology, this is no different.

[alancalverd]

a class of cells which are expected to have such a large functional effect as termination on the subject with no destructive affect upon the subjects systems.

You are ignoring the key point of my reductio ad absurdam. In the case of a single celled organism, there is only one class of cell, and it's very much alive. Now add more cells to make a symbiont or a complex single organism, and you still don't need an entanglement cell to make it alive.

Evolution of complex systems from simple ones does not require a hitherto undiscovered cell which is essential to the life of organisms with n +1 different cells but not to those with n cell types. Thus your hypothesis only has credence if you accept that "n+1" species were created rather than evolved: and there is no evidence for that axiom. 

More fundamentally, multicelled species actually develop from a single cell. We know that you can do all sorts of damage to an undifferentiated blastocyst without killing it: you can delay its differentiation, or even divide it into multiple clones, so whatever "instantiates" life must have been present in the initial cell and is therefore not a property that distinguishes complex beings from unicellular animals. 

[tonylang (OP)]

At first the comprehension that ones’ first person individuality is abstracted, separate, and distinct from the evolution, development, and life of ones’ cells is a tough hurdle for the mind to overcome. Even as it is viewed from various perspectives, and in the absence of clarifying empirical evidence, it requires some time alone in contemplation and a steely objectivity to come to realize the truth of it. However humankind has had this problem before.


It is essential to recognize that maintaining life and maintaining an emerged individuality are both essential but separate functions of living hosts. The hosting of life via natural entanglement is an evolved property of inanimate matter whereas emerged individuality (Heterodyned by EC's) is an additional evolved skill of living multi-cellular organisms. The function of the entanglement cells (EC) in complex hosts is not to establish life in a multi-cellular organism. Each cell is already alive complements of the natural entanglement by its entanglement molecules (EM). Rather the role of the EC is to instantiate individuality, establish the position-of-view the target for experience of the emerged being. This unique composite natural entanglement with metamatter is separate and distinct from the natural entanglement established by each of the other (non-EC) living cells which comprise ones’ host body. Ergo; in nature you are not your body. This is why you can sever an entire leg or destroy a large portion of your brain , or drink beer and remain you. That is to say, maintain your individuality. This individuality is not about appearance or behavior or personality or intelligence or even consciousness, it is ones’ continued position–of-view via natural entanglement. You remain you because the emerged individual is separate and distinct from that of the trillions of non-EC cells that maintain its operation.

Each single cell which comprises your body is itself naturally entangled and is in nature a living individual, as is the emerged individual, you whose multi-cellular form and functions each non-EC cell help to maintain. This says nothing of your individuality. Further, this same implementation operates for leaves, trees, hair, internal organs etc. each are clearly multi-cellular and are alive but may only be collections of individualized living cells which are held together, and perhaps on some level, function together. Such an association of living individuals may or may not have evolved the capacity to heterodyne to establish a secondary emerged natural entanglement connection to metamatter.  That is to say, they have not become an emerged individual like a beaver or a dolphin, human or an ant. Making a distinction between the position-of-view of a cell or a simple association of cells and the heterodyned composite POV of an emerged individual is a tenuous endeavor fraught with uncertainty absent the principles described in the instantiation hypothesis. In earth-life it is the hypothesized entanglement cells that are the evolutionary components of living hosts responsible for this advanced feature of emerged individuality. These terms and distinctions are necessary because our eyes and instruments deceive us; the largest life form in earth’s ecosystem the sequoia tree may very well not possess an emerged individuality whereas some of the smallest may.

 Nature implements life by the same fundamental mechanism no matter the hosts form. In nature this sort of scalable, extensible implementation is the very definition of simplicity. It is the entanglement molecule that is hypothesized to fundamentally establish and maintain all life via natural entanglement in every living cell. One QE connection at some unique QEF is one individual. How this QE connection is established or maintained, composite or not, is irrelevant to natures design. Earth-life offers one (carbon based) approach to hosting nature’s implementation of life. Other planets may very well evolve other approaches. We may someday manufacture yet another.   This implementation is what permits the universal mobility of individuality. Hosts for life and their constituent components whether single cellular or otherwise are local in space-time and have no natural universal mobility requiring physical travel (i.e. via comets or spacecraft).

[alancalverd]

You would do well to study slime moulds before pontificating on individuality.

The treatment of "nature" as an agent rather than a set of observations, can lead you into all sorts of erroneous thinking - but you won't be the first or last to make that mistake. Beware of bringing mystical philosophy to a science forum.

[tonylang (OP)]

To date the most promising structure yet discovered which displays some of the features and function consistent with those predicted by the instantiation hypothesis for the entanglement molecule (EM), while perhaps falling well shot of complete equivalence, is the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) complex. This photosynthetic antenna complex is the naturally occurring molecular structure responsible for the photosynthetic non-classical conduction observed in living plant cells via natural entanglement. In green algae it operates to overcome the otherwise inefficient latency of classical mechanisms which would result in a devastating loss of anti-entropic information needed from sunlight for the continued evolution of viable hosts on this planet.


Likewise, a similar natural entanglement antenna complex describes the predicted entanglement molecule which instantiate the living individual to available hosts wherever they may emerge in this universe. This Entanglement is between the living hosts (cells) and a form of matter (metamatter) in Hilbert-space made accessible only by the non-locality, non-relativistic reach of natural entanglement. It is indeed a true testament to the amazing ingenuity and flexibility of nature that such an implementation is not only possible, but naturally emerges, for life may not exist without it. This instantiation mechanism is the most plausible solution to the conundrum of individuality in this universe posed by the scenario of this thread.


If the entanglement molecule indeed predated the cell then, structurally if not functionally, it must be of a different design than the FMO complex. The FMO is a protein based structure assembled from complex amino acids and likely evolved within the cell here on earth or planets nearby. To predate the cell the EM must permit natural entanglement by utilizing a more fundamental elemental design. The entanglement molecule may be one with which we are already familiar.

[alancalverd]

while perhaps falling well shot of complete equivalence,

in other words, nothing like it at all.

and a form of matter (metamatter) in Hilbert-space made accessible only by the non-locality, non-relativistic reach of natural entanglement.

I live in the countryside. I can recognise bullshit when I smell it.

to the conundrum of individuality

I see no conundrum. All living things have different chemistry (due to the instability of DNA) and history
(Pauli's exclusion principle) and are therefore individual.

 

[tonylang (OP)]

Nature and science both collude to create a history of ideas which many, during the course of one lifetime, or another, find repugnant, unbelievable, or just inconvenient. On those too numerous occasions when such resistance was permitted to stifle free inquiry humanity has suffered in more ways than one. If an idea is proven not to describe nature, such poof is just as enlightening as its confirmation. Developing ideas and then determining which ideas describe nature and which ones do not, by testing not by emphatic declarations is what defines the scientific process. 

 The notion held by many that an individual is alive and present in this form, in this place, at this moment, exclusively because ones particular body and particular species emerged where it has when it has, is very likely to be false. In nature it is likely that you have, can, and will experience life in any available form in any viable environment in this universe or in existence and the instantiation hypothesis may describe the natural mechanism that makes this possible.   

[tonylang (OP)]

"If you analyze it closely you will, I think, find that it is just a little bit more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by ‘I’ is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected." [Schrödinger, Erwin (1992-01-31). What is Life? (Canto) Cambridge University Press]


The next fertile undiscovered frontier of science is the study of how the individual (you) naturally inhabit this universe. This topic speaks to the really interesting question of how any life, you, came to be where you are in the form that you are. Consciousness, self-awareness, sentience are evolved attributes had by very few forms of life in earth’s ecosystem, yet all are just as alive in nature. Such attributes cannot be relevant to either nature’s fundamental implementation of life, to being alive, or to experience. Experience may be enhanced by these attributes as they evolve in more complex hosts or species, but the phenomena which establish an instance of life likely brings no experience at all.


The position-of-view (POV) as described by the instantiation hypothesis is implemented by a fundamental property of nature called natural entanglement. This process produces the POV which localizes you in your space-time, whether you have five, one, twenty or no senses. Regardless of what or where ones living form may be in this universe. Effectively ones POV is the target for all of the sensory information we call experience. Any beings lifeID is temporarily localized to its host body by the naturally occurring entanglement between its physical host such as ones cell(s) together with a non-relativistic form of matter called metamatter (in Hilbert-space). The POV of each individual life can be represented mathematically by its unique wave function. This wave function is a unique solution of state for the individual in space-time and is the term missing from many of our quantum mechanical solutions. The POV is nothing less than the mathematical representation of a living being.


In life the POV brings no experience but only that which may have an experience. In nature a POV is the mathematical representation of a lifeID established either by entanglement of a single cell to metamatter, or alternatively by the heterodyning of multiple entanglement cells (EC) to metamatter. If you are in fact alive then your composite lifeID and its position-of-view together constitutes your being regardless of your physical state, form, condition or location in space-time. If the entanglement hypothesis accurately depicts the reality in this universe and the entanglement molecule exists, then it represents the most fundamental physical component of life as we know it. Like the Top-Quark, or the Higgs, the Ether or DNA, the entanglement molecule may someday be isolated and identified either in the cell or in the environment. or not. Either way we may learn something along the way.

[poleflux]

Life is so rare because of the circumstances necessary to spark life in the first place.  Not at all common as some would have you believe.  Here is the recipe for life:

a giant water ice planet with a salt core maintaining liquid water below the frozen atmosphere.

a planetary impact with a rocky iron planet rich in volatile elements and just the right size.

a back splash upon impact creating our moon

the impacting planet would have to have a strong magnetic field passing directly through the global ocean plane where salt water would spark electricity maintaining it to this day

the solar systems star would have an affinity to iron two magnetic fields creating the dynamo

[alancalverd]

Consciousness, self-awareness, sentience are evolved attributes had by very few forms of life in earth’s ecosystem,

Would you care to define those attributes and justify yor assertion? 

[jeffreyH]

If you say 'walkies' to my dog he knows exactly what I mean. We often underestimate the intelligence of animals. However, would you describe a virus as being alive. That is a difficult one. It is more like a nano machine than a living organism. The problem of describing life and especially consciousness is that we are part of the system we attempt to describe and so subjectivity is hard to avoid. It is much better to concentrate on observational evidence. Otherwise arguments quickly become circular. By all means pursue your theory, just don't expect empirical evidence.

[tonylang (OP)]

However rare or ubiquitous host species for life may actually be in this universe, they nonetheless likely emerge via countless varied means and circumstances throughout this universe or throughout existence. Most can never be imagined by us. The implementation of host species in any particular environment in this universe is only one component of a much larger, grander implementation, that of individuality. We have become too accustomed to, and somewhat tunnel visioned in, our understanding of life as being only the classical functional chemistry of the physical hosts that emerge here and there on this planet or in this universe. Individuality however is the original, the indigenous component of life. Like snowflakes, living hosts transiently come and go as they assume forms too varied and randomly influenced to predict or to repeat. With humankind being the very visual species that we are, we are once again confounded by the visible and captivating facade of life that reflects visible light, namely the physical, electromagnetically congealed component of the living individual, the species. The ongoing cognitive immaturity of humankind is engendered by this limited or flawed understanding of life. 

The only life on Earth is the living cell. The lesser point being submitted for your collective consideration is that such attributes as consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, intelligence etc.,  concepts already defined by others, are emergent skills or capabilities arbitrarily ascribed by observers  to particular emerged composite hosts (with EC) and therefore cannot be fundamental to natures’ basic implementation of life. Currently and for billions of years on earth  %99.99… of living hosts for life were and continue to be either single cell individuals or non-emerged (no EC) collections thereof. To truly understand what life is and the mobility of its fundamental component; individuality, and the natural principles that govern and influence its instantiation, we need consider only the single living cell. Viewed as an individual, a property traditionally ascribed only to human beings, the single living cell forces us to come to conclusions we never would with our usual limited perspective.

The first person position-of-view we refer to as individuality (Life) in this universe has emerged from a very basic natural phenomenon, namely natural quantum entanglement, a property of a naturally occurring molecule. Clearly like all other phenomenon or processes or reactions involving groups of atoms and molecules these can also be categorized as being chemical in nature. Natural entanglement is the basis for individuality. When one is misguided into thinking that life is only the physical component of this natural entangled relationship a great amount of confusion and misconception will be the inevitable outcome. The first casualty is the dismissal of the mobility of individuality in this universe. As is usually the case we can live just fine with all of our misconceptions as life makes few demands on the intellectual awareness of its tenants. However as we all know advancement requires enlightenment and the time for our further enlightenment in this regard grows near.

[tonylang (OP)]

Since ancient times humankind has felt endeared by certain properties, skills, or talents observed in the living forms all around us. Properties which are misconstrued to be fundamental identifiers of life and of all living beings, properties such as mobility, voice, speech, sight, memory, and biology as we know it.


The reason Thomas Edison could so enthrall spectators with his newly designed speaking device, which he dubbed the phonograph, is due to humankinds hitherto engrained, evolved or learned, and largely subconscious understanding that a voice for example, is the sound of a living beings soul. Although consciously many people knew better, nevertheless it wasn’t until they were able to actually witness the spectacle of a clearly inanimate device producing a voice did the rewiring of people’s minds and the accompanying enlightenment take place. So it was with self locomotion or mobility of inanimate objects which also took some getting used to by our not so distant ancestors, as did light detection describable as sight, so to with the introduction of retrievable memory and such surprising spectacles exhibited by inanimate non biological devices.


Then there is life. Today we have a much more detailed description of biology and its chemistry than did our forbearers. Nonetheless, we perhaps more than ever, continue to see nature’s implementation of life as we did those other skills, as a feature indigenous to and expressible only by the biological forms we currently see around us. With the exception of life, it is only the encroachment of our synthetic, non-biological technologies upon these formerly cherished skills and talents that has helped us to see nature’s true design. In so doing we now realize that these functions are not exclusively properties of living beings or of biology but rather examples of utilization and manipulation of more basic properties of nature such as temperature and pressure, light, chemical, electromotive, and ponderomotive forces, friction, entanglement etc..


However, where life is concerned, and taking no example from the past, we continue to cling to the misconception that life is not a skill or talent comparable to speech or memory, a property which similarly evolved here on earth in biological form. Instead we define life by the observed biology and chemistry of the forms we see around us. This is akin to defining speech, communication, memory or vision by the description of your eyes, or larynx or neurons and their chemistry, or by the design of Edison’s phonograph, or by the intricate electrical designs of the cell phone. Life too is an evolved capability with a natural implementation abstracted from any particular biology or chemistry we may see around us. In nature life has a fundamental implementation based on natural entanglement via a molecule that may have existed in nature long before life emerged, a molecule like so many others utilized by the cell to exceptional effect, the entanglement molecule. A molecule that may also be utilized in synthetic, perhaps non-biological, forms to create an independent genesis of life.


No matter how detailed or convincing the illusion of life may become in its implementation, for example in an android or computer or even in a biological entity, despite what your eyes may urge you to believe, each continues to be a non-living entity absent natures fundamental mechanism of life. An essential mechanism provided via natural entanglement between the properly implemented entanglement molecules within living cells located in this space-time with metamatter in Hilbert-space which together produce each unique living individual’s position-of-view (POV) and lifeID. This is the essential mechanism that permits any viable form to host an individual like yourself or your pet otter anywhere in our space-time. It is how you are where you are right now. It is the natural anti-entropic mechanism that permits any viable planet or species to host your life. By this hypothesized definition even the most convincingly implemented appearance and behavior of an entity not naturally entangled in this way will continue to be an inanimate entity. In contrast, a hand held brick such as a calculator instantiated by natural entanglement to establish a POV, despite all appearances, this unconvincing brick would in fact be a living being.


The day will shortly arrive when we are confronted as we previously have been, with a new implementation of entities that meet all of the aesthetic and behavioral misconceptions we now harbor about life, or alternatively ones that show no traditional evidence of life what so ever, absent an understanding of the true determinant of life natural entanglement, we will be ill prepared to tell the difference.
 

[alancalverd]

Life is an abstract quality said to be possessed by all those things that we consider to be alive. Not much of a definition since the criteria of "alive" are a bit fluid, but generally we are looking for a bounded entity the transpires and has some tendency to optimise its transpiration by responding or adapting to small changes in its environment.

There is no actual entity called "life", nor its it transferable between entities. It has no existence outside of the minds of the people who talk about it. End of mystery.