Introduction
How was the first organism created, or how has life started on Earth?
Whenever asked, these always seem like questions that won't be answered for aeons to come. Many don't consider the question relevant at all so they readily attribute the creation of life to some
deity with supernatural powers. The question who created the deity is then even less relevant. However, using a holistic approach, the answer is obvious and lies
in Complete Relativity (CR). Life does not have an absolute beginning, everything
is relatively alive. Complex life is built of smaller components which are built of yet smaller components, etc. What will be considered the smallest building block or quantum of energy will
depend on the limitations of the observer and conditions of the environment, but in any case, it seems the complexity generally depends on the conditions of the
environment (pressure, temperature, available energy) and time. If the building blocks are available and conditions allow it, given enough time, more complex life will emerge. I argue that the
ingredient missing in reductionistic theories of the formation of life is time, or rather, acknowledgement of its non-abstract and relatively cyclic (self-similar) nature across various scales.
The time potential
If time is a dimension of space (or subspace) and, according to CR, this space has a physical interpretation from some reference frames, one can correlate any distinct life-form with
its private space/time. The time itself, with its inherent and specific curvature, then could be guiding elementary blocks into complex forms of life.
The process may be, from reductionistic frames, interpreted as spontaneous self-organization, but obviously, such interpretation must be taken as relative. I argue that the self in
any "spontaneous self-organization" is a distinct quantum of energy (a soul) with its associated private space/time. Consciousness, or its localization, correlates with
the [localization of the] quantum, and the force of guidance can be expressed on subconscious levels, with the information propagated vertically afterwards.
Note that space/time, according to CR exists on different scales. Scales of space/time associated with specific building blocks, if these are distinct life-forms themselves, will be proportional
to the scale of the building blocks. In example, each living cell of an organ will have its own soul but if the organ itself is alive it will be coupled to a distinct soul of a different scale.
This coupling between the self and organization, however, will be short-lived, unless the potential exists for it to evolve (develop) into something more (a new distinct organism). Some obvious
self-organizing building blocks from our perspective may be atoms, molecules, proteins, cells, organs but also whole organisms.
In any case, from a proper reference frame, the self-organization is as spontaneous as the fall of an apple dropped from a plane in Earth's gravitational well. The fall is the result of gradients in gravitational
potential. The same is true for any self-organization, only the complexity of wells varies. In general, changes are a result of the sum or superposition of differentials in field potentials of
various scales and nature.
The potential for the formation of a stable organism
Consider the flock of birds or a school of fish. Why are these self-organizations temporary or unstable, in other words, why is the potential for the evolution of such self-organization
of cells into a distinct stable organism low? The answer lies in the lack of [strength in] specific entanglements and associated positive feedbacks and lack of energy for
transformation (differentiation of building blocks) that would drive the organization toward a stable eigenstate. An issue correlated with these is the lack
of anchors or glues (extracellular matrices), the birds must continuously spend energy to remain afloat and to remain in place within the organization. Similar is with
fish. The presence of predators also affects the stability of these organizations.
Now consider biofilms (self-organization of microbes). The microbes in a biofilm are differentiated (have different roles), are anchored to a surface (which may even be liquid) and glued together
by the self-produced extracellular matrix, while the Polysaccharide matrices, enclosing the biofilms, provide protection from predators. This is now a very stable configuration. A biofilm may be
interpreted as a relative precursor of a conventional multicellular organism but it is obviously also a relative
multicellular organism itself. Lichens are very similar and may be interpreted as more advanced and more stable biofilms.
Coupling of the organization to a soul is one entanglement which may be required for progressive evolution or development of an organism, but it is not enough. Positive feedbacks are needed to
strengthen the entanglement and reach thresholds that will ensure settling of the coupling into new equilibrium. These feedbacks can come from the environment. In example, [the expression of] extreme
cold can pressure individuals to herd and pack into dense formations, which also decreases their mobility. This should strengthen the coupling (entanglement) with souls of multicellular
organisms, as in multicellular organisms cells are generally densely packed together and immobile. Now, according to CR, if it is possible for this organization to further exchange cell individuality for group individuality, such more evolved form must exist
somewhere. the local organization is then highly correlated (entangled) with this remote organization. Information between entangled entities is transferred with changes in entanglements and local
interpretation of this information will affect individuals (e.g., on some level of subconsciousness) stimulating them into further strengthening of the coupling (further exchange of individuality).
Note that this exchange of individuality may be correlated with exchange of individual extroverted consciousness for introverted consciousness and possibly decrease in the amount (localization) of
consciousness in individuals.
In the process of differentiation during biofilm formation, the microbes are not only altering their epigenomes but DNA as well. But since no organism evolves in absolute isolation (usually far
from it) the whole process of formation or relative self-organization must involve external entanglements (which, in some reference frames, may be interpreted as triggers of certain action or
expression). Assuming internal chaining of [re]actions exists, is it possible for a single initial external trigger to be enough for the formation of an organism? Theoretically, this should
be possible for the formation of the body. But this still requires a suitable environment and variable entanglements with that environment for the exchange of energy (information) during the
process.
Another problem is synchronization - development is a relative superposition of many processes running in parallel and these must by properly synchronized. Synchronization again involves
self-organization and any self-organization requires coupling to non-homogeneous fields of time potential and thus requires souls for excitation of field potential at different scales. Once
fully developed, any self-organization requires maintenance (conservation) of the excitations to keep functioning as a distinct living unit (e.g., organ, organism). This then requires either
periodic or more permanent coupling with souls. Self-organization during embryonic development is only correlated with gene expression, which has a role in the rates and pathways of
self-organization, properties and stability of self-organized entities but gene expression does not drive self-organization even here.
Evidence for this exists. It has been found, for example, that the cytoplasm from ruptured Xenopus frog eggs "spontaneously" reorganizes into cell-like compartments. This
self-organization does not involve DNA nor the usual factors associated with cell division, it is based
solely on non-genetic information. Only two elements here are required for basic pattern formation - energy, in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and structural elements (microtubules).
Precursor in soft symbiosis
The private space/time associated with souls is layered and the range of deeper layers can vastly exceed boundaries of the apparent coupled body. The private space/times of individuals
will then generally overlap private spaces of other individuals whether of the same species or not. The relative motion of bodies will affect, or will be correlated with changes in, entanglements between
individuals, at least in those entanglements in which strength of the entanglement depends on spatial distance.
The private space can be interpreted as mental space or a hallucination, and sharing or superposition of spaces (which itself can be interpreted as naked hallucination) may be
correlated with attractive and repulsive forces between individuals (note however that nature of force may be different between scales, or layers of space). Individuals can affect shared
space but shared space (naked hallucination) can affect individuals as well on a subconscious level.
I have hypothesized elsewhere that evolution of complex organisms during strong
evolution events can proceed at exponentially accelerating rates (horizontal gene transfer dominates). Since gene exchange is most likely between species in symbiosis, once the horizontal gene
transfer is enabled, the two or more species in symbiosis may effectively fuse (converge) into new species. At these times, thus, symbiosis can be interpreted as a precursor to complex
chimeric fusion.
It is not necessary to exchange genes to trigger hybridization (as the fact that we share a lot of genes with other species strongly suggests), but one needs to affect the epigenome.
For example, we already contain genes that can be used to create a tail or webbing between our toes. In fact, during embryonic development, precursors of these tissues are formed, but the reason we
do not conserve and fully develop them is because a specific signal at some point during embryogenesis triggers apoptosis (death) of cells forming the tissues. Even a mouse can, relatively
easy, develop a human organ, such as an ear (as has been demonstrated already). Some changes may require inter-species transfer of genes, but this transfer does not have to be on the scale of
genes, rather cells. Symbionts will often have cells of other symbionts in their bodies. All that's required to develop some feature of the other symbiont in situ is an epigenetic factor
which will induce transformation of somatic cells into stem cells, followed by epigenetic signals triggering the formation of the specific feature.
It may be less easy to make these changes inheritable (still, far from being impossible), but, obviously, nature has made hybridization of species very easy, even between non-closely related
species. However, during weak evolution, this kind of hybridization between complex species is effectively disabled (first obstacle being the settings of the immune system). This is not the case
during strong evolution.
In the current strong evolution event, humans may have a role in turning the switch(es) on, but I'm sure nature has done this before. During extreme changes in the environment, extreme
adaptation measures are required for survival. Darwinian, random, mutations are usually a gamble and useless during these events. Parthenogenesis can help once the population shrinks, but this is
a temporary solution. This risk nature is probably willing to take in case of low number of populations threatened with extinctions. However, once a certain threshold is reached (mass extinction
events), complex hybridization is turned on and horizontal gene transfer dominates. This technique certainly won't work in all cases and it may not be globally successful, but it certainly
increases the probability that complex life will survive (assuming this survival is beneficial for the host).
Should we then consider the increasing development and stimulation of hybridization by humans during a major mass extinction a coincidence? Or humans are one factor used to help turn the
switches on? I vote for the latter, even though humans are also the ones who have initiated the extinction. Why would humans be allowed to start the extinction
only to later be used as a tool to prevent it? Why the earlier mentioned tail development during human embryogenesis is aborted some time after it had been initiated? The answer to these
two questions may be the same.
One question remains though - are humans the acquired disease (that can harm the planet in the long-term) or locally coded disease for the host (e.g., part of its embryonic
development [equivalent])? It may be the disease (a hallucination subconsciously affecting human minds) that is stimulating hybridization in order to save
itself (or its manifestation in the form of polarized human race), rather than the host using humans as a tool in order to save complex surface life in general. In any case, this kind of
hybridization may be happening in nature, not only in human labs, but also independently of human action.
The missing quantum
DNA is mainly a collection of recipes for protein building and, although inheritable information also includes certain epigenetic information (when and what proteins to express), this does not fully
explain organizing
activity of cells and proteins, equivalent to organized behaviour of microbes in biofilms (which apparently is not genetically coded). The elegant solution is in the coupling of souls and
collectives, or, in relative localization of souls to a relatively localized collective, where the soul orchestrates organization (and provides discrete consciousness), although
communication should generally be bi-directional.
But is every organization or aggregation of mass coupled to a discrete soul or does it sometime remain non-conscious abstract relative superposition?
Brain can remain active when an organism is unconscious. In fact, neurons in cerebral cortex can be even more active when we lose consciousness and, obviously, even after death, the brain
doesn't immediately decay and delocalize - mass remains in the same heap with the same structure for a significant time.
Here, to conserve relativity, one must disentangle the soul from its associated space (e.g., by change in spin momentum). The soul thus delocalizes immediately upon death and consciousness is
lost (there is a phase shift between soul de-localization and de-localization and de-organization of matter), although space may remain entangled with real mass.
Stable coupling of souls and bodies has environmental requirements and the two must be compatible for coupling. Therefore, generally, one can assume that an asteroid or a piece of rock doesn't
possess [significant] discrete consciousness even though it is an obvious localization of mass (and smaller souls!). This is also why our computers are not becoming conscious despite the increase in complexity.
A dead planet is also not conscious, but if a planet's mass remains aggregated and stable for billions of years and there's self-regulation and non-destructive organized activity of life in it
then it is likely that a discrete soul (a large scale graviton - [at the] gravitational maximum) is there. Once this soul changes spin and delocalizes it can tunnel through real
mass (ordinary matter, or matter forming the body), however, de-localization is never absolute (infinite), infinitely fast or absolutely continuous, and generally should be understood as a
transition between different scales or more or less stable energy levels (eigenstates). Therefore, this tunnelling is relative tunnelling and can leave more or less relative scars in the body.
Depending on polarization this could create linear ruptures on the surface (which may heal over time) or tunnels (e.g., from the deep mantle to the pole) that may even be periodically
recreated (e.g., with temporary loss of consciousness). In general, however, large difference may exist between the scale of the soul and the scale of the body and such scars may not be
observable.
Mental communication
The existence of spaces (fields) provides means for communication over distance. Organisms are constantly broadcasting information and communicating with other organisms mentally
although this communication may generally be non-conscious. This enables prey to detect a predator when it is out of sight or a female to detect a male observing her from behind.
There is natural selection here too, in example, a female may not react to just every male, just like it usually doesn't.
Obviously, this communication can be more direct or more focused to target specific individuals. Eye to eye focus seems to be a common way to focus this information transfer (or, more precisely, the two
are highly correlated). This is why some people avoid eye contact during communication - they feel uncomfortable with the mental connection (this is most evident
between different subspecies of species). Introverts are likely to be broadcasting and collecting more information mentally than extroverts. Convergence from extroverted intelligence to
introverted intelligence will subdue capabilities for extroverted expression but will enhance capabilities of mental communication. With increased sensitivity introverts can feel overwhelmed in
crowded spaces particularly when others stare at them (although, with age, this sensitivity may decrease and an introvert may be able to balance extroversion and introversion, increasing their
communication skills).
It seems that this communication should be electro-magnetic but that's not necessarily the case. Even if it is so, this is electro-magnetic communication on different scale that may be many orders
of magnitude more subtle than standard electro-magnetic communication used by us (the carrier particle itself is different), although it may be generally correlated with brain activity and
electro-magnetic radiation that our technology can detect. In any case, frequency and resonance here are the key, not the rest mass of a carrier particle. When the signal is absorbed it is
amplified, propagates through the body through pathways of various scale and eventually affects gene expression, e.g., through excretion of particular hormones.
Note that, in CR, no particle is massless and that includes standard photons. This enables the existence of photons of different scale, different fields with different speeds and limits on speed of
information propagation (which generally increases inversely proportionally to the mass of carrier particles and can thus be faster than standard light).
Per CR postulates, what is mental and what is physical must be relative. No organism has the capability to observe or detect energy on all possible scales. There are inherent limits on
resolution of energy, which are revealed by Quantum Mechanics (QM), although in QM these limits are absolute (e.g., Planck's constant is considered an absolute constant) when they should be relative.
Generally, if one uses fixed constants, dimensions of space and time must differ between [different scales of] organisms, however, since the ratio between these dimensions cannot be an absolute constant
either, it will produce illusion - a distorted image of reality at particular scales.
What is considered physical and what is mental may be a matter of consensus but appropriate distinction seems to be a distinction between determinism and probability, or classical and quantum mechanics.
People seem to generally assume that we are either absolute machines or absolute wonders, but in reality it is all relative - we are machines from some perspectives, but we also exist
beyond, what is considered as, physical mechanics.
Entanglement of quantum and deterministic machines is then a requirement for consciousness which will make the collective alive.
Small update in Explaining half-life of isotopes.
Explaining half-life of isotopes
A collective of isotopes of an element decays (transforms) to other isotopes in such way that the concentration of parent isotopes is halved every N seconds where N is a constant.
Souls can provide an elegant explanation here too. Simply, at time of death (decay) of a particle, the decoupling of the soul, due to breaking entanglement, propagates information to other
souls sharing the space. This triggers a bit of age reversal. Thus, due to accumulating effect, remaining isotopes last longer and longer.
Of course, this exponential decay can be described mathematically by gambling and statistics (QM), but is the standard QM interpretation correct? Conventionally, the reason for decay is considered
to be instability, while the exponential decay of the collective is explained with probabilistic nature of decay (each atom has the same chance of decaying in a fixed time interval).
While the former is not problematic and makes sense, I find the second claim problematic or at least unsatisfactory. If QM does not physically differentiate between atoms of the same isotope in
the same conditions, why do their lifetimes vary so much? Instability is correlated with nuclear configuration (i.e., number of protons and neutrons) and this configuration is the same in all atoms
of a particular isotope, and yet, some decay quickly, while some decay aeons later. While instability may be a satisfactory explanation, probabilistic decay is not an explanation at all, it
is a description of the result, saying nothing about the nature behind it. One explanation could be, the above hypothesized, reset or reversal of internal clocks (which I would even interpret as
biological in some reference frames). Since the atoms of the same isotope are highly entangled (especially when localized in a collective), the decay of one of them will be relatively simultaneous
with changes in, or relative breaking of, entanglement. Similar to information transfer through gravitational waves (with changes in entanglement of gravitationally bound masses), the information
is transferred here between entangled atoms. When locally interpreted it results in delayed decay. If one considers atoms as biological entities, this interpretation makes even more sense, as this
prevents total extinction of the population.
Now if dying atoms significantly affect other atoms, why wouldn't dying animals stimulate changes in other animals, with the [strength of the] effect
depending on [the strength of] the entanglement? Of course they would and they do.
Even death of a
human parent will affect a child (close relative) in a very specific way (very difficult to explain without going beyond standard mechanics). It cannot be excluded that even our ageing too is
affected to some degree after one of our parents dies (it might matter which one though, but it might not matter whether we are consciously aware of that death or not). After all, the ageing of a mother is
definitely affected with the birth of her child and probably has some effect on the father as well.
Entanglement in time
In CR, discrimination between space and time is relative. With no absolute causality, past and future in time are effectively entangled similarly to entanglement between phenomena in space. But
entanglement itself is not absolute, it is quantized and can be weak or strong. The relativity in time implies that different moments in time are separated in space from some reference
frames. Therefore, effective future of particular phenomena is already playing out somewhere at some scale. This effective future can affect the past and vice versa. Precursor to organismal
development in the form of biofilms would probably not happen without future organismal development occurring somewhere, even if that development may not happen locally
in near future. Relative causality thus resolves the chicken-egg problem. The problem wouldn't arise if one wouldn't be accustomed to locality of entanglement (correlation) between
phenomena where correlation is polarized, strengthened and increased in scale so the causality appears absolute. In CR, distances too are relative and never absolutely zero so even what we consider
to be a physical connection is relatively physical. The opposite is true also, what we would consider entanglement over distance or a mental connection must be relatively physical at some
scale.
We seem to have an innate tendency to localize phenomena, even ourselves, but our boundaries are relative. Where does Earth end? On its solid surface, top of the troposphere or exosphere
which extends out to the Moon? Or is it the range of its gravitational, electro-magnetic fields?
Correlation and distance is important for a universe but differently between what one experiences as space and what one experiences as time. At close distance in space two very different
species (far distant in time - evolution) can influence each other significantly but two closely related species (sharing space in time) can significantly affect each other at vast
distance in space.
One theory I recently became aware of, that seems to align well with this, is the theory
of morphic resonance by R. Sheldrake. By that theory, memories of experiences are non-local, enabling, for example, for an individual of species to more quickly learn something that has been
already learned by other individuals elsewhere. This can be easily explained in the context of complete relativity. If everything is relative then, in this example, there can be no absolute
certainty in who is doing the learning, and where and when the learning took place. In other words, nothing is absolutely localized - here, the who is spread across multiple
individuals, the where is spread across multiple locations in space and the when is spread across multiple locations in time. The more correlated the individuals and
locations, the higher is the synchronicity and the more similar will be the interpretation of the effect. This is quantum mechanics on large scale, however, many do not recognize it as such due to
a belief in absolute scale invariance of physical laws.
Small update in Soul memory.
Soul memory
At time of death, the soul delocalizes (expands) and during this expansion it may capture a relatively multi-dimensional snapshot of the collective (e.g., brain) and this
information may then be used in coupling to forming bodies - the probability of coupling would be proportional to probability that the formed body will match the previous collective at some point
of development.
However, the soul can change energy levels and that includes vertical energy levels (change of scale). It can oscillate inter-species. Thus, its memory must be layered, with each layer corresponding
to particular species, although layers may overlap. During body growth and development the soul is jumping through discrete energy levels setting new goals for the collective of body components.
The snapshot may include stored short-term and long-term memory. Therefore, possibility exists for an organism to remember life of the previous incarnation although that
probability should decrease with age (as body generates new memories).
Note that, despite extensive research, memory storage in the brain has not been found (only activity correlated with creation and usage/interpretation of memories). Numerous reported experiences
of people with transplanted organs suggest organs have memories
too despite the lack of neurons and synapses. Animals in studies have retained memory even with large and various parts of the brain removed. There are people
with severely reduced (probably compressed) brains functioning normally. Flatworms
do not lose memories even after being decapitated and their brains regrown. All this strongly suggests that our memories and experiences are not stored in the brain at all (or in any other
organ) - they must be stored in the souls of organs. The memory of an organism can be interpreted as a superposition - shared memory of the [souls of] organs, although, dominantly the
brain (which, lacking long-term memory storage in the context of the individual, may be solely an information processing unit).
Memories do occur in the brain (manifested as increase in specific neural activity), but only when they are used (e.g., when
one needs a memorized image to solve a particular problem at hand). Any memory is probably fluid-like, a superposition of highly correlated past experiences, collapsing to one
interpretation when used in the brain. This is particularly useful in inter-generational (or, vertical) information transfer, explaining specific (instinctual) behaviour in situations which can be
highly correlated with experiences in previous incarnations. Note that instinct can be behaviour inherited from different species, and such behaviour is more likely to manifest at younger
age (when perception and behaviour between different species is most similar). Horizontal (intra-generational) information transfer is likely to exist as well, and this may influence the
collapsing state (eigenstate) in memory retrieval, particularly during development - when manifestation of a particular memory is not limited to neurons and synapses. Coupling of souls and bodies probably
should be interpreted as coupling of space (physical dimension) and time, or sub-space (mental, or sub-physical, dimension). Space contains recipes for objects (e.g., proteins), while time contains
recipes for actions. DNA can be interpreted as a temporal superposition of recipes for objects (all genes of a genome exist at the same time, spread across space - even if highly spatially
localized as well, in cells). Coupling between objects and actions is then an inter-scalar coupling of superposition. Any coupling (localization) of space and time can be interpreted as a living
being. Differences exist in complexity (which itself is scale relative). Note that highly complex or big genome does not imply a highly complex set of actions, which can be extroverted or
introverted.
Conclusion
Everything is variable. The rate of evolution ain't
constant and can be significantly accelerated. The immune
system with its localized (limited) pattern detection enables saltation of complex organisms through horizontal gene transfer and epigenetic transformation.
With the current knowledge of evolution and with all above it should be clear how complex organisms evolve from simple ones but also how simple ones come to existence in a
particular quantum of space/time.
In CR, nothing is absolutely elementary so the regression continues indefinitely. Brownian motion of particles alone certainly cannot drive or stimulate evolution of life. Wherever
conscious organization exists, there is a soul behind it. And wherever this organization can remain stable there will be life.
Generally, if conditions in the environment can ensure survival of molecules there will be molecules, if survival of single celled organisms too is possible these will eventually evolve, etc.
Life is not absolutely created by an absolute god. An absolute god, if it could exist, would make an absolute machine - on its own image. Those of us who do exist are relatively alive
and even relative gods.
Article revised/updated.