Life - How Should It Be Viewed?

[Bob Armstrong]

Actually I have done a lot of thinking on LIFE, theologically and philosophically. I also have read on the scientific theory of evolution of life on earth (No, I can't give you sources).

So........no I don't just dismiss others' views out of hand........very poor assessment of me, and you've know me for years as a chess friend........

I happen to disagree, and I do try, it is true, to be succinct and not use jargon.

Bob

[Fred Henderson]

I've been giving this a lot of thought, let's see if I can get it right. I present a scholarly paper on the subject matter, which you, BobA, dismiss out of hand, after reading only the first paragraph, the abstract which always contains the conclusion,, not even sniffing at the pages of supporting information and provide absolutely no useful supporting argument of our own, other than a brief tautology, I guess this is how you like to cook up those "commonly agreed upon" facts of yours.

LOL

[Fred Henderson]

What is life?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8376694/

"the laws of ....the composition of matter are universal"

This seems true.

But the Earthly laws of the conditions for life are not necessarily universal.

<snip>

Bob A

Earthly Laws of the conditions of life not universal? Are you sure you are thinking of "earthly" laws? Or are you going to throw The book (of Genesis) or Deepak Chopra at me, then I can see your point.

They are damn close to being universal among scientists, I would say. That was my point.

[Dilip Panjwani]

What is life?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8376694/

"the laws of ....the composition of matter are universal"

This seems true.

But the Earthly laws of the conditions for life are not necessarily universal.

So I am not satisfied with the author's conclusion:

"if there were life elsewhere in the universe, it would be very similar to what we know on this planet."

It may well be that there are conditions for inert matter, on other planets, and in other galaxies, such that "life" arises, that are quite different from Earth's.

And so non-Earthly life may be very dissimilar to what we know on this planet.

Bob A

I agree with you, Bob. Statisticians have calculated that the statistical likelihood of life evolving the way it has, is less that 1 in a million, which means that there are more than a million other ways in which life could have evolved...

[Bob Armstrong]

What is life?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8376694/

"the laws of ....the composition of matter are universal"

This seems true.

But the Earthly laws of the conditions for life are not necessarily universal.

So I am not satisfied with the author's conclusion:

"if there were life elsewhere in the universe, it would be very similar to what we know on this planet."

It may well be that there are conditions for inert matter, on other planets, and in other galaxies, such that "life" arises, that are quite different from Earth's.

And so non-Earthly life may be very dissimilar to what we know on this planet.

Bob A

[Fred Henderson]

This is about as serious a scirntific approach to the subject as I could find.

What is life? - PMC (nih.gov)

[Neil Frarey]

From Hypothesis to Theory: The Evolution of the Nested Wave Theory of Quantum Entanglement

Our team is proud to present a groundbreaking discovery originally introduced here as a promising hypothesis that has evolved into a well-supported theory, revolutionizing our understanding of quantum entanglement. Our paper has been submitted to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), where we introduce the Nested Wave theory. This evidence-based, comprehensive framework provides a physically intuitive and mathematically consistent explanation for the behavior of entangled particles.
When we first began our investigation in February, we proposed the nested wave hypothesis based on the intriguing results of the Micius satellite experiment. While this experiment demonstrated correlations between entangled particles at different distances, it did not conclusively prove the existence of a subluminal mechanism for entanglement. Decoherence was already known to slow down photons, and the observed effects occurred at subluminal speeds, meaning that relativistic considerations did not play a significant role.
However, the groundbreaking experiments conducted by Azuma and Zia have provided the critical empirical evidence needed to elevate the nested wave hypothesis to a well-supported theory. Azuma's research on energy conservation in entangled systems offers compelling support for the
existence of a persistent mediating wave, while Zia et al. provide direct evidence of the quantum harmonic oscillator (QHO) nature of entangled particles, as predicted by Makarov.
The nested wave theory proposes a subluminal energy transfer mechanism that resolves the apparent paradox of instantaneous correlation at any distance, which Einstein famously rejected as "spooky action at a distance."
The implications of our research are profound and far-reaching. By unveiling the actual mechanics of entanglement, we are paving the way for groundbreaking advancements in quantum computing, cryptography, and communication. The nested wave theory offers a new perspective on the nature of quantum interactions, potentially unlocking novel approaches to harnessing the power of entanglement for practical applications.
Our work is the product of a collaborative effort by a dedicated team of researchers from diverse backgrounds. It highlights the importance of interdisciplinary cooperation in tackling complex scientific challenges. We are deeply grateful for each team member's contributions in pursuing this transformative research.

Final PNAS submission preprint version here
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ial_Relativity

Grats Sid to you and your "spooky" team!!!

[Dilip Panjwani]

From Hypothesis to Theory: The Evolution of the Nested Wave Theory of Quantum Entanglement

Our team is proud to present a groundbreaking discovery originally introduced here as a promising hypothesis that has evolved into a well-supported theory, revolutionizing our understanding of quantum entanglement. Our paper has been submitted to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), where we introduce the Nested Wave theory. This evidence-based, comprehensive framework provides a physically intuitive and mathematically consistent explanation for the behavior of entangled particles.
When we first began our investigation in February, we proposed the nested wave hypothesis based on the intriguing results of the Micius satellite experiment. While this experiment demonstrated correlations between entangled particles at different distances, it did not conclusively prove the existence of a subluminal mechanism for entanglement. Decoherence was already known to slow down photons, and the observed effects occurred at subluminal speeds, meaning that relativistic considerations did not play a significant role.
However, the groundbreaking experiments conducted by Azuma and Zia have provided the critical empirical evidence needed to elevate the nested wave hypothesis to a well-supported theory. Azuma's research on energy conservation in entangled systems offers compelling support for the
existence of a persistent mediating wave, while Zia et al. provide direct evidence of the quantum harmonic oscillator (QHO) nature of entangled particles, as predicted by Makarov.
The nested wave theory proposes a subluminal energy transfer mechanism that resolves the apparent paradox of instantaneous correlation at any distance, which Einstein famously rejected as "spooky action at a distance."
The implications of our research are profound and far-reaching. By unveiling the actual mechanics of entanglement, we are paving the way for groundbreaking advancements in quantum computing, cryptography, and communication. The nested wave theory offers a new perspective on the nature of quantum interactions, potentially unlocking novel approaches to harnessing the power of entanglement for practical applications.
Our work is the product of a collaborative effort by a dedicated team of researchers from diverse backgrounds. It highlights the importance of interdisciplinary cooperation in tackling complex scientific challenges. We are deeply grateful for each team member's contributions in pursuing this transformative research.

Final PNAS submission preprint version here
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ial_Relativity

Congratulations to you and your co-authors, Sid!

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid,
The hypothesis you and Alicia have generated is quite intriguing indeed!
The phenomenon of 'Entanglement' is very close to my heart, as it gives us hope of 'living on' after death. The determinants within our brains of the electromagnetic waves which have the property of consciousness, could very well be entangled as a unit elsewhere, and as you would know, when one of the entangled units becomes less cohesive (eventually dying), the cohesiveness of the other units becomes stronger! And for all you know, our entire bodies may have an entangled counterpart elsewhere...
Deepak Chopra and others, on the other hand, believe that our consciousness merges with the other conscious electromagnetism in the universe, amazingly enhancing what 'we' experience...
Most scientists and philosophers however subscribe to the view that death marks the end of our souls (our consciousness of 'me', our memories, our thoughts, our consciousness as a whole)
By the way, stay tuned for my upcoming book: "Anatomy of the soul"...

From Hypothesis to Theory: The Evolution of the Nested Wave Theory of Quantum Entanglement

Our team is proud to present a groundbreaking discovery originally introduced here as a promising hypothesis that has evolved into a well-supported theory, revolutionizing our understanding of quantum entanglement. Our paper has been submitted to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), where we introduce the Nested Wave theory. This evidence-based, comprehensive framework provides a physically intuitive and mathematically consistent explanation for the behavior of entangled particles.
When we first began our investigation in February, we proposed the nested wave hypothesis based on the intriguing results of the Micius satellite experiment. While this experiment demonstrated correlations between entangled particles at different distances, it did not conclusively prove the existence of a subluminal mechanism for entanglement. Decoherence was already known to slow down photons, and the observed effects occurred at subluminal speeds, meaning that relativistic considerations did not play a significant role.
However, the groundbreaking experiments conducted by Azuma and Zia have provided the critical empirical evidence needed to elevate the nested wave hypothesis to a well-supported theory. Azuma's research on energy conservation in entangled systems offers compelling support for the
existence of a persistent mediating wave, while Zia et al. provide direct evidence of the quantum harmonic oscillator (QHO) nature of entangled particles, as predicted by Makarov.
The nested wave theory proposes a subluminal energy transfer mechanism that resolves the apparent paradox of instantaneous correlation at any distance, which Einstein famously rejected as "spooky action at a distance."
The implications of our research are profound and far-reaching. By unveiling the actual mechanics of entanglement, we are paving the way for groundbreaking advancements in quantum computing, cryptography, and communication. The nested wave theory offers a new perspective on the nature of quantum interactions, potentially unlocking novel approaches to harnessing the power of entanglement for practical applications.
Our work is the product of a collaborative effort by a dedicated team of researchers from diverse backgrounds. It highlights the importance of interdisciplinary cooperation in tackling complex scientific challenges. We are deeply grateful for each team member's contributions in pursuing this transformative research.

Final PNAS submission preprint version here
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ial_Relativity

[Dilip Panjwani]

Societies based on "Cooperation" are superior to those based on "Competition".

The goal is to evolve.......and that does NOT mean eliminate the contributing, entrepreneur individual.

Bob A

Cooperation is highly applauded in Libertarianism. And it understands that cooperation involves 'give and take'. Marxism, on the other hand fails to understand that, and believes in only take-take-take from the hard and smart working...
Competition also has its merits, and as a chess player you should have known that...
Evolution requires both cooperation and competition.

[Bob Armstrong]

Societies based on "Cooperation" are superior to those based on "Competition".

The goal is to evolve.......and that does NOT mean eliminate the contributing, entrepreneur individual.

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

Folks like Bob "Click Bait" A., will never admit the true power of the Individual. Never.

To have an idea, grow that idea, protect that idea, OWN that idea ... is far beyond the understanding of folks like Bob "Click Bait" A.

Folks like Bob "Click Bait" A., can only aspire to slither along with a putrid pathetic dependency collective. A woke, collective at that, ha!

To folks like Bob "Click Bait" A. ... the Individual is a THREAT.

What a sad commentary ....

so ALL ideas are good? ALL ideas should be encouraged?

LOL here are some "ideas" for you....

- you will own nothing and be happy
- digital currency for the whole world, controlled by government
- mRNA vaccines for the whole world (yeah Neil, thought you'd really love that one)
- nuclear fission power plants built on MAJOR earthquake fault lines (Fuckushima Japan)
- keep the world on fossil fuels as long as possible
- defund the arts, it has no value to society
- defund mental health treatments, let the mentally ill roam our streets and even our schools, and let them have guns

LOL yes the individuals who have these ideas and many many other ideas ARE threats.

[Neil Frarey]

In DM, rewards will be determined by what you need, not by what you deserve...hence people will be busy proving to the powers that be, the politicians and their appointees, what their needs are, and not be busy producing stuff to generate rewards... Libertarianism rewards only the hard & smart working, get it?

Folks like Bob "Click Bait" A., will never admit the true power of the Individual. Never.

To have an idea, grow that idea, protect that idea, OWN that idea ... is far beyond the understanding of folks like Bob "Click Bait" A.

Folks like Bob "Click Bait" A., can only aspire to slither along with a putrid pathetic dependency collective. A woke, collective at that, ha!

To folks like Bob "Click Bait" A. ... the Individual is a THREAT.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip:

OK - let's agree.......there are some in society who "lick the a..es of their government appointed superiors and politicians, and can play around with the myriad of contradictory laws, can enjoy life without ever being productive..."

But they are a negligible number in society.

Why do you keep "implying" that this is a "majority" in society, and then take it back when confronted?

Your point, if I can say, is that these people will become the majority under a Democratic Marxist government........a bald smear, wrong, and with no proof....just a bad speculative opinion.

DM will generate a good society based more on "Cooperation" than "Competition".........though it also will be far from perfect.......but better than any Libertarian society.

Bob A

In DM, rewards will be determined by what you need, not by what you deserve...hence people will be busy proving to the powers that be, the politicians and their appointees, what their needs are, and not be busy producing stuff to generate rewards... Libertarianism rewards only the hard & smart working, get it?

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip:

OK - let's agree.......there are some in society who "lick the a..es of their government appointed superiors and politicians, and can play around with the myriad of contradictory laws, can enjoy life without ever being productive..."

But they are a negligible number in society.

Why do you keep "implying" that this is a "majority" in society, and then take it back when confronted?

Your point, if I can say, is that these people will become the majority under a Democratic Marxist government........a bald smear, wrong, and with no proof....just a bad speculative opinion.

DM will generate a good society based more on "Cooperation" than "Competition".........though it also will be far from perfect.......but better than any Libertarian society.

Bob A