Causal Distinctions: THE CRISIS EQUATION- A NEW THEORY OF LIFE AND PHYSICS

Author's Note: "Why The Crisis?"

I dedicate this work for the sole purpose of finding natural mathematical and physical truth.

Facts:

1) There is no current physics theory (as of this book's publication) which accounts for the basic differences between animate and inanimate behavior. All prior approaches to solve this problems, have failed.

2) Whereas the physics theories advanced thus far [1-4,10,12,13,14], are of the position that differences can be explained in terms of theories of "maximal entropy" or energy dissipation theories, this is not the key objection I have with these approaches. It is the assumption of their basic mathematics, that they are causally of the same fundamental "stuff" or behavior that one finds in inanimate systems. So I argue formally, this is equating non-equatable systems, under the same causality, and on that assumption, physics and science goes against our common sense observation (and results of centuries of null experiments) that non-living matter cannot self originate living matter, including any precursors...

But most importantly, I lay out a formal argument with a new theory herein, that this position of modern physics and science, has a bias which impedes understanding resolution of causal-system, S from causal system, N (Kosak, Feb 16, 2016)https://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-earth-engine-hypothesis-is-wrong_16.html. And this is the problem in physics of resolving one system from another when there is no logical or physical basis for this resolution. There is currently the practice of assuming a causal system is acting (such as in Earth Heat Engines) when in fact I show this assumption (even if the causal system is one molecule) is an impossibility since it would violate conservation of energy (Kosak 2016). I don't believe that more debate or philosophy will resolve it. This issue will only yield to mathematically demonstrating in a formal way, the basic mathematical problem in standard models of physics and to find a new approach.

The significant theoretical problem I encountered in development, was that in order for me to make such a new causal argument(s), I must invent a new causal platform based not on prior assumptions, but on new causal, rules, which are geometrical (for example: "causality without origination point").

Furthermore, unlike prior essays or papers dealing with this subject in the past, I propose a new formal solution based on a mathematical and thermodynamics based argument of causal-system "Signal" to causal-system "Noise" (which are terms I re-define in the book as vectorial based, wherein these are causal vectors) and we would view in this "causality equation" that causal-system, S and causal-system, N are products of causality in the overall system. Thus we have the causality equation S-N=0 or S-N>0 (when their is causality in system S against system N. Thus, S/N>1.

The inputs of the causality equation producing behaviors S and N, must be fundamentally different, (not functions of each other's causal basis, in order for S and N to be "unsubtractable" and for S/N>1.

3) This book (originally published October 2017) which I re-post here, is made against the current axiom of physics, that theoretically, the systems (S and N) can be viewed as relatable by shared fundamental physical causes[15-18]. The question of if S and N are "relatable" also has implications for their theoretical differentiation from each other as causal, hence forming the proposition that molecular based causality is non-differentiable and non causal of forces. For example, if we imagine S might be self organized pre-life structure, and N is a self organized inanimate structure, and both must be caused by shared cause, "entropy maximization" then behaviors S and N are of the same fundamental causal vectors and cannot be fundamentally different. Now we could assume that is correct, for the sake of evaluating the argument, but if we do so we have a crisis because mathematically, inanimate and animate are mathematically indistinguishable from each other. And existentially, we should not exist! We would not be able to physically prove a living thing like a cell, was fundamentally different than a non living thing like a crystal, nor show their product of their behaviors i.e. the chemical products of a cell vs the "chemical products", of an inanimate system are different. That is why I call this a CRISIS.

This new causal theory proves that animate and inanimate cannot share the same fundamental causes. "If a theoretical "S" is the signal from a system's behavior, then S cannot be a function of the background noise or N, otherwise these would cancel out. And I proposed herein, that IF S and N are no different from each other in their root physical causes, this relationship implies that S and N are related only be some constant of proportion. S would just be some version of N, and moreover, N = S *b where b is some constant of proportion. And I use this argument (that they are not physically relatable as functions of each other), as the basis of the theory that we can formally represent these two independent entities, or their causes, as a

S to N ratio.

Modern physics has concluded that animate and inanimate systems can be viewed as caused by the same fundamental physics. So if this is true, S and N would have the same fundamental causes, and the would be subtractable from each other.

It has always appeared obvious that life differs from non life, but physics has taken the position that we should ignore what is obvious and intuitive. The S to N causal equation applies both to central or root causes, as well as secondary or resultant causes. Meaning that if we vectorially represent (with causal force arrows) we should obtain the same results of the primary (type I) or secondary (type II) causal vectors.

The theoretical argument of physics living structures (or behaviors) and non living structures (or behaviors) are driven by maximal entropy or dissipation, is no longer a valid hypothesis. If it were true, then it would be theoretically impossible to discern the signal S (a cell's chemical effects on its surroundings) from the surroundings chemical effects (N). I believe the correct and valid conclusion to be made is that we are not in an existential crisis, we physically exist, and that is not even a question (but the S/N causality equation implies that the conventional bio-chemical model of causality must be abandoned for a formal, and non-Newtonian "System based" causality as I argue herein). We are in a crisis. of sorts, regarding theoretical physics. As I propose vectorial causality without an origination point" this solution if true, has real implications, but I believe forces us to view it from a much larger perspective, far outside of causal or even mathematical conventions.

"Fig 7a"

Important Note For Technical Review of This BOOK:

This theories strongest support is its theoretical foundation in thermodynamics. Its capacity to explain the null result, or "autologous causality," a previously unrecognized theory of causality, based on vectorial model and experimental Heat Directionality Principal. The theoretical work I have done to support this book is illustrated by a number of theoretical thought experiments but also empirical tests in biological cell models. The formal statement of "Continuous Time Principal" , Time Directional Heat Principal relating causality to heat flow, is clearly illustrated in the theoretical example. of a warm body, on page 3, Fig 3a', equations (p161), and also in pages 160-162, which present physically testable theoretical experiments and a formalized statement of "Intrinsic Work". These are supported by the expectation that there is no physical experiment to show my formal argument can find exception or be violated. The most powerful evidence is an expected null result e.g. "violation of conservation of energy."

Matthew Kosak

August 5, 2022

THE CRISIS EQUATION- A NEW THEORY OF LIFE AND PHYSICS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I have included these table of contents to aid the reader in navigating this book, and to list the key arguments and theorems.

􏰀 Preface
􏰀 Three Experimental Tests: “The Radio Station, The Signal

Generator, and Dinosaur tracks”
􏰀 A New Universe..s?
􏰀 Implications For This Book: Can we know reality?
􏰀 A Causality In Reverse? Indifferent Time
􏰀 What Is Life? Can Cells Have Free Will? Micro-forces: Their Source.
􏰀 Do Molecules Communicate? Magnification and “inconsistency”.
􏰀 Preface to The Crisis Equation: Why A Chemical Theory Will Never Account For Life
􏰀 Are There Other Forces In Nature? And The Free Will Problem: My Answer (short version)

1st Chapter- The Crisis Equation
- 􏰀 Intro: Does Choice exist, as a physical property of the universe?
- 􏰀 How Life Is Like a “drummer in the night.”
- 􏰀 Stranger than Quantum Theory: Why Can You Hear Me?

􏰀 Introducing: Initial Signal and Causal Signal. Definitions.
􏰀 Rules based on Fig 1.:
Rule 1. A “Choice” must be an action.

Rule 2. A “Choice” must do work on the system.

Rule 2b Additionally, we can state that there must be two systems in order for there to be a theoretical cause that is verifiable between them)
􏰀 Molecular theory of life’s forces and Micro

Force Theory

“Deliberateness” as an elemental quality of life
The external actions of particles on any natural system are considered to be background or noise (axiom 1)
Axiom 2) It is therefore impossible to obtain a causal Signal from a group of atoms
Axiom 3-Atoms and molecules,

by definition, are independent entities.

􏰀 Rule 2B and Axiom 2 Holds: Causality only possible between two or more systems. Observer Supplies A Force to System, And Then “Detects” it.

a. Axiom 4. Force or energy is entering a system will be directly proportional to the force or energy exiting a system.

􏰀 Proving The Crisis Equation: A Cell Hooked To A Vector Force Detector

Interpreting the results of Causality Equation expected based on axioms, 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Based on Rule 2b the cell must be an independent System.

􏰀 Proof of FsubN Based On S/N Because net Signal detected is the difference between Total Force (all causality entering the VCS) and that escaping, a Signal emanating from the VCS can only be the result of an autologous generated force, FN.
􏰀 Addition Rules For Vector Force Arrows
􏰀 Could background (external) energy cause S?
􏰀 Fig. 4. Energy, Mass, and Causal (force) balance
􏰀 Detection Limit Hypothesis (DLH): “If a cell (or living thing) is truly the product of the external universe, and all forces, then how should a cell appear to us?”

Why Can We See The Cell? Native Background Subtraction NBS Vs System based physical Signal
􏰀 Fig. 5. Experiment showing illustration of causality of the cell and predicted appearance without FsubN.
􏰀 Two Box Experiment and re-evaluation of “hydropores” in primordial life)
􏰀 Definitions “Initiation”
1. Causality must originate from
  
  somewhere
2. Our second ‘rule’ would imply that non Initiation means that there are no differences between various actions
3. Independent System

􏰀 Mud Track Experiments
􏰀 Rules for Causal Chains

a. “choice” must originate between two systems

􏰀 Quantifying the Unquantifiable: The Search For Life In The Universe
􏰀 Good Crisis Equation Test: Search for SETI
􏰀 Interpreting Fig 7. Drug Cell Model From my

laboratory work
􏰀 What Reality Would Look Like (If This Theory Is Wrong) We can’t subtract the Four Forces
􏰀 Interpreting the Result
􏰀 Origination Points, Force Grids, “New Property of Life..Time dependent Rate Of Initiation TDRI [Theorem 5B]
􏰀 Causal Geometry

a. System Mediated Causality SMC. Interrupting “smooth causality” A new understanding of time

b. Spacial Oppositional Force

c. Secondary causality mediated by particles 2... or from initiation, i.e. “2”

d. Fig. 7. Drug-Cell model again
􏰀 A New Causality: Traveling An Unexplored Road 71
1. How To Use Causal Chains and find regions of Initiation
2. Where Do Conscious Decisions Originate?
3. Reductionism negates Causal S/N
4. Definition: Choice can be physically defined as the condition in which /FsubN/ > F(normal) in an independent system.]
5. Outside-IN Vs Inside-OUT Causality
6. In reality Initiation can be itself defined as a physical phenomenon, the time rate of change of forces experienced by the ground state 80 [theorem 5B revisited]

􏰀 A force cannot generate a second force against itself {26B}.
􏰀 NOTES, References, Further Discussion

My Laboratory Evidence In Support Of This New Theory. A Fortuitous discovery in my research of natural DNA to treat cancer.

Fossils- Other evidence..Ancient Signal
What does life really look like?
Proving Life Makes Unique Signal:

i. Blue Vs Yellow

d. Showing molecular causality on Cell, and Cell causality on Molecules

Musings On Panspermia and A Spontaneous Formation Of Life from Molecules. Is There Any Chance of This?

My Alternative Theory To Origins Of Life Problem

System Mediated Origin Of Life (SMOOL)
Non-Singularity Origins? Getting away from point like thinking and modeling. New modeling of the universe

The Particle Identity Problem (PIP) Can We Prove Life Exists...On Earth?

The Search for a Proof Of Life On Earth.. (POLOE)
Is it possible (in theory) to show life came from molecules?

The Arrow Of Time: Why butter won’t go back to buttermilk

Introduction To: “Why Life Violates The Second Law Of Thermodynamics”

2nd Chapter: How Life Violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Implications of 'Virtual Closed Systems'

Introduction
Key Tenets

􏰀 Is a perpetual energy machine possible in an open system?
􏰀 We cannot create an ordered system of any kind, that will restore itself indefinitely
􏰀 Introduction to Condition I, Condition II, and Condition III.

A diagram of a Virtual Closed System (Fig 1) , Entropic

Horizons, and a special quality of Initial Energy, E0
Non-Gaia Hypothesis
This is the Non-Systemic Behavior Principal (NSBP) which supports FN but also #rule (25) below.
Causal S/N Theorem and Machine Limitation Crisis (MLC)

Addendum to Chapter 2

Fig. 3 “Energy ladder depicting Energy Available For Doing Work” EA

Proposition Of A New Law Of Thermodynamics

Definitions of VCS

􏰀 (22) A new expression: 5.14.15-This is essentially another way of expressing the second law, that there is no normalized force to oppose the natural flow of heat from one point to another.
􏰀 (25) "Rule: heat exchanging or passing through an arbitrary region cannot do useful work unless it encounters a normal force (opposing its motion.)"
􏰀 (25B) "[It's]..from the perspective of Condition I, in which we attempt to answer if theoretically, the solar energy is itself capable of doing useful work. The solar heat driving convection, is not an isolated force. But according to the theory I propose here, such a force would not be possible to do work against the other surrounding forces or its own contribution."
􏰀 (26) A force cannot do work against the other surrounding forces or its own contributions (its own action).
􏰀 This leads to the non-simultaneous actions rule.
􏰀 (26B) [It is not possible for a force to have two

simultaneous actions.
􏰀 Rule 12.22.16 System Force Synchronicity (SFS) Vs

Particle Force
􏰀 Force multiplicity, or Force Divergence
􏰀 (26C) (26D)
􏰀 FR=FL , necessary to do work, would be Critically present

to ANY equation that relates thermo to how life evades

thermo currently and in the past."
􏰀 Organic Living Structures/lattices As Natural "Machines"

(OLSNM)].

Conclusions from Summary of Chapter 2: A New Natural Law Of Thermodynamics?

􏰀 Review of new proposition: (22)..” there is no normalized force to oppose the natural flow of heat from one point to another”
􏰀 In Natural Work. We might call this “K”. The product of FsubN times a displacement.

Making History at Huntington Beach CA
- 􏰀 The Thermodynamic Causal Time Directionality Principal (TCDP)
- 􏰀 Macroscopic Experiment Concept of TCDP 141
- 􏰀 TIME MAPS
- 􏰀 Types of Causality-MAPS
- 􏰀 The New Universes Amongst Us
- 􏰀 Art depicting FN driving a nucleus: the “Real Picture” within life
- 􏰀 The Radio Station Revisited
- 􏰀 How Can We Understand Reality?
- 􏰀 First Expression of Initiated or 1st Work. W=(X1-
  
  X2)FN
- 􏰀 Thermodynamic Causal Time Directionality (Earlier
  
  Time) / (later Time) >1
- 􏰀 Where did FsubN originate?
  
  Notes and References

Overview

As a species, we like other beings of the universe, should have knowledge of our world, and the nature of self as experientialists. How did we get here? Is consciousness innate or a product of the external world, and we are its manifestations? Is it physical or illusory?

The current laws of science do not account for our behavior. But science also does not account for our perception of that behavior, or it turns out, of reality.

This is a new book of very basic science. Yet I believe it is unlike any science books that have come before it.
My investigations into these problems led me from chemistry, then to biology, and then back to physics. The testing ground began with issues of logic and a perception of reality, and progressed from these models into basic science. It brought me to ask questions about the fabric that is the basis of my understanding. Where my new theory takes us, is on such a journey, through basic questions, and arrives at a basic and pure understanding of reality. Of why we can sense the wind in our faces, the light of a sunset, our relative motion.

An intelligent species will wish to understand not only their world but how and if that world is properly perceived. I rail against the cumbersome atom model, which has clouded our view, and against excesses of reductionism. While at the same time reduce the problem of perception to its elementary parts, so that it can be understood. I ask what makes us have confidence that we, our awareness can be relied upon? That is why I have us stare at regions of space, assuming we are the detector. And run a calibration of sorts. Then I repeat the same test for a robot or at least a detector that has no bias. We explore physics at that interface between perception and reality, like no other book has done before. So all of it will be new. As any journey into unexplored regions is..

We are destined to explore the cosmos. Yet we cannot be free to explore until we are free of archaic notions of reality. And the limitations they impose. A force stronger than gravity, holding us in the past. The basic understanding of our unique substance, in the universe, must come before explorations beyond our world. Intelligent explorers elsewhere in the galaxy, have almost certainly come to realizations of causality and force, and perspective of a new reality, which is independent of atom-based universe.

A reality which now correctly encompasses non determinism. Non determinism? Yes. The radical notion that actions must not

always be preceded by causes. And some may notice, is a direct refutation of Newton’s laws. This is a new world where there are mono forces. Forces which originate from within space itself. I believe we need to investigate these forces, which are important to understanding not only our world, but causality across the galaxy.

This is an unconventional radical book, which uses unconventional methods to prove its points. However, it also uses proven scientific methodology and is the first theory to venture a testable theory regarding the origin of life.

This is a new force theory.
It explains why we can, in fact detect anything at all in our world. Why we can feel the wind, experience ocean waves, and detect the light from a sunset. We are a force of observation and it is precisely that force , a normal force, which permits observation and experience.
The notion of a force, originating from a region of space, and forming a dimension..is a reality. There can be dimensions, which are made and defined of these forces alone.
In this book of science, I have based a new form of geometry, causal geometry, on this concept. The classic Euclidean geometry , the definition of "a line" and other concepts, added to by Newton, such as "uninterrupted time" are the basis of how we currently view cause and effect, space and time. It is an uninterrupted smooth universe. And Causal Geometry, a new concept I introduce in the Crisis Equation, now presents a violent disruption of that single universe view.

The iron clad, indisputable proof that I offer comes from the following illustration- A break in the symmetry of what is understood as normal causality and our detection of reality- Be it detection" in the natural biological sense or in the objective laboratory. This new theory applies not only to the stars, and galaxies above our heads, it applies to microscopic spaces, it applies everywhere, but is a break in symmetry of causality.

When I am explaining my theorem, I typically begin by drawing a closed shape, typically a circle (but it could be any closed shape), and then start drawing vector arrows towards it and away from it. These represent any and all forces which are entering the space, but also leaving that space. Now let’s look carefully at this region, if anything at all is happening in it, anything different than its surroundings, then this is a remarkable situation. The vectors entering cannot be the only forces applied to it. And even more

remarkably, there are in some cases vector lines inside this space which we can say, are not products of their surroundings. If such a space, inside is said to be a product of the arrows I’ve drawn on the outside, then we are of course, dealing with a natural system of free atoms which are subject to no force. I call such a region of detection, a Virtual ‘Closed’ Space, or VCS. I draw pictures of these spaces constantly, throughout the book, and this is because they are useful to illustrate a new property of causality. The space can contain anything at all, like a trunk that has limitless capacity. It can fit a molecule, or a moon.

When I diagram this example, I am showing what has been physically impossible. If something is happening first, in that space we’ve drawn, we must conclude it is not “Newtonian” in that there was no antecedent motion which preceded it. The property we identify of “firstness” in causality, a region where there was no predecessor action in a causal chain, is in fact a unique property of the universe, of causality and the basis of a new form of geometry, I am attempting to describe in this new book. It is strange indeed. And it is not always detectable, more often than not, it isn’t, and I describe why this is. This is why I have been careful to include many experiments. There is no scientist on the planet that would agree with this assessment, yet I can assure you that it is mathematically, and physically accurate. But when we consider the laws of thermodynamics, there is actually no rule that says that forces must be balanced. Only energy.

The only reason Newtonian physics has any basis in reality, why we can claim "this force impacted some mass M" is because we generate autonomously, a force against our surroundings. What is the physical proof of my theorem? The proof of the force? It is actually the perception of the physical world. It is because of the break in symmetry of causality, and of vectors originating from space, that we perceive anything at all. “Perception” is a relative difference between causalities, a resultant of the addition of microvectors in alignment against another system. We explore that sense of reality at a basic level. Where the vectors are less numerous and perception is more elemental. The elementary notion of “sensing” as something shared by the simplest life forms.

The impetus for my book has been my realization of fundamental differences in causality between living things and inanimate.

Virtual Closed Spaces are not only theoretical, but have absolute physical basis in causality, and relate to how that occurs in the everyday world. I realized this was a unique principal of matter. It

has been believed that living things absorb heat or lose heat like ordinary chunks of matter, like any group of atoms. And yet this cannot be true. Using these spacial diagrams, I realized that there is a very basic difference in how heat is absorbed or radiated from a space, and it is very simple to illustrate.

If we take a glass beaker of hot liquid, the natural tendency is for the object to lose heat radially. But I realized something very critical. In order for the object to lose heat from the inside, external molecules will need to cool first. What is interesting is that the hot mass of molecules will radiate heat radially, through the mass, even though the actual exchange of energy with the surrounding is confined in a glass with vertical walls. That is a simple, and elegant demonstration of how these spaces are useful to envision how nature behaves. But this is not all. The cooling of the hot water, occurs from the outside in. It cannot get rid of its internal heat by making it spontaneously disappear. The heat is neither made nor destroyed. It cannot eliminate the heat by forcing it inward, but instead must give this energy to outside, cooler molecules, which in turn gain the energy. Likewise, the central region cannot gain heat from the center point, it cannot increase its own energy, so can only gain heat from outside, first. And the shape of that zone where the exchange is occurring, will tend to be spherical. The reason for this natural tendency of causality to orient in spheres is the same as for force attractions of molecules to make spheres, snowflakes and other phenomenon. The causality is largely, a particle mediated phenomenon. The causality of a particle or snowflake or raindrop begins with a seed and continues outwardly. Its natural path is essentially, to exchange heat with a nearby particle, the nearest particle available, so these tendencies average, and it proceeds radially. The other way a VCS loses or gains energy is by direct

radiation of red light, (which all objects do, no matter what they are made of) the same as the warm light we experience from a fire at night. That radiation too, tends toward a radial shape, and opposes the square that it begins with. Why does this occur? What causes the heat radiation and cooling to proceed radially? But what I realized that is also critical is that the process of cooling or heating a body occurs first, at the outer regions, or at some distance from the center. And the event, which first began the temperature change, occurred away from this center. An arbitrary point in space that is the center of a VCS. In the process of heat, I glimpsed in this incite a direction for the flow of events. And such flow could be measured in virtual space. This is discussed further in “How Life Violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics”

The Thermodynamic Causal Time Directionality Principal (TCTDP)

After I wrote this book, it became more clear to me that this principal of Time, Inside OUT or Outside IN, based on thermodynamics of heat transfer, is all of the data required for supporting this new theory and this book. If one expands these principals from a spherical body, to that of a scene, like a beach, there is direct applicability. Imagine a “snowflake jar” that is upended, and you see the particles rain down on the tiny landscape within. The waves of particles moving from one location to another, either on small scales or on the very large scales, are like that upended jar, something ultimately caused the motion of those atoms. Motion of molecules is heat. All of the heat must be accounted for. And humans and other entities transfer this heat as they move it from one place to another. And where did this heat come from? Each packet of energy, whether molecular, or very large, is transferred by a chain of events. But these Causal Chains also have beginnings and ends. Vectors of force are responsible for transferring energy, (which will be discussed) but Directionality (I capitalize because I’m referring to a new physical principal) is deeply intertwined in the System or particle causality of the system.

Yet there is another critical point, in addition to the radial tendencies of heating or cooling. Why does any object cool or warm? It is a very simple yet profound question that I asked myself. This is the kind of question necessary to understand, but not the kind of question one will find anywhere else. Science does not concern itself with “why.” I made the simple elegant assumption that an object, does not have to ever change temperature. In fact it can continue at the same temperature

forever. An object will only change temperature if some action occurs externally to it. And so there is some antecedent event, prior to the heating or cooling of an object. That is, it occurred FIRST. You can never get something for free. But in reality it takes no “effort” for objects in nature, to receive or give their heat. So this type of time is completely arbitrary. We’re talking about a general view of why anything occurs at all, as everything must follow the transfer of energy, of heat. If we imagine that normal, natural events, i.e. the heat given to the ocean, the energy in a river, are all effortless, then we can imagine that the opposition to this tendency will require some action. It turns out, if this theory is correct, that we have a broad theorem to base causality of everything. There will be “non actors” events which happen without effort, and there will be events which require action ,and more importantly, a first point, or origination of the action which opposes those tendencies. This is a general theory of why time flows, based on the accounting of heat.

We can show this theoretically, by sampling temperature of various regions. (Imagine we are using a basic kitchen thermometer to do this, the kind that grandma used for thanksgiving turkey, and measuring various regions). If the hot body in the diagram (red sphere) is losing heat, there might be some temperature difference inside and outside. Though it is always assumed in every text book of thermodynamics that this temperature difference will do work, this is not actually true. And is actually only true when there is some oppositional force. That statement is a new theorem. It challenges an assumption of current physics, made without consideration for what I call, autologous causality.

So using our thermometer, we will measure a temperature change, in an undisturbed natural system, but this flow of heat, and temperature difference (between one region and another) was not caused to occur, but happens passively. This natural difference in temperature, in “T”, can be said to be the “background” or ambient difference in temperature, which is expected. However, there can be under special circumstances and exception. We may find another region in which the temperature difference changed much more rapidly, more rapidly than expected. So visually, we would see the red region (hot) go more red than what we would expect it to do, RELATIVE to the background temperature change. That is an expression of the theorem here in this book. And it turns out that such a change, in the flow of heat will require a

force. We can do this experiment without calculators of fancy models of any sort.

The basic theoretical experiment I have described here, can be used in virtually any setting to show the proof of my theorem. When we have the “exception” for example, a system of cells, the temperature will not only be different between the region of the cells, it will change over time at a rate that is different than the expected rate of change. Such a change can be a simple rate (Temperature change one region, minus expected)/ Temperature change, a second region minus expected) and if this temperature change is different than background, we have a number greater than unity “1.” There can be a rate of temperature change, per unit time. But furthermore, I propose we will see a rate of temperature change per unit time, per unit time, so it is a rate that is itself, varying. And that most definitely should not occur spontaneously by the molecular behavior of molecules alone. We have an imbalance, and such an imbalance should not exist. It turns out that the imbalance takes form not just in temperature but in force. And this is a crisis, as force must always balance. Organisms are systems which perturb the flow of heat from its natural tendency. In that sense, and when we assume further, ‘molecular motion is our only measure of time’ they perturb the flow of time.

I have documented in the references (at the end of the book) the extreme efforts of science to prove that there will be no imbalance in the equation, by various theories (statistical, maximal, flow, and selection) which is a way of saying that my book fundamentally disagrees with these references.

The Crisis Equation was its original conception, and I believe in some ways, a verification of a new concept of time which I have had for decades. I have taken issue regarding the complete obliviousness of science on this point, which began early on, as a deep internal questioning of the central tenet of physics. My understanding of the nature of causality, did not agree with the academic view, built upon long dead theorists. It is remarkable that modern curriculum are built upon ‘accepted facts’ and doctrine of books which have not changed in their theoretical view for centuries. There is a strong tendency to continue, unquestioning, in the old ways of physics. So at the time, I could see little good in arguing against such an entrenched establishment of science.

In its initial form, the Crisis Equation (CE) was my attempt to prove this principal which was abstractly in my mind. I am a first order detector and observer of this time reversal property, and the calculations of it necessary to observe it, have come naturally,

and despite the misguiding’s of an “education” and science establishment that (appears to) actively promote a false alternative to the (physics) I am aware of.

It is critical for us to examine this existential crisis posed by the causal S/N equation. Many theories previously have attempted to understand differences between life and non-life in terms of fundamental physics (thermodynamics). They have attempted to show that life and non-life obey the same fundamental physics. Yet, if this true, then experimentally we have a crisis. At a fundamental physics level, life should not be resolvable from non-life since Signal =Noise or S-N= 0 and S/N ratio =1 . Thus we have a new question, why do living things have "causal Signal" relative to their surroundings?

The causal S/N theory is addressing current life's causal drivers as well as being relevant to the past, it poses new problem in explaining its origins.

Progress will not be made by attempting to apply or re-tool old models (e.g. dissipation theory or maximal entropy), of the past to solve this new S/N problem herein. It is a theoretically insurrmountable issue. I have made a related argument in a published article (see Why Earth Engine Hypothesis is Wrong") of thermodynamic impossibility of assuming inanimates systems can cause effects because this would necessitate impossible creation of energy not present "and violate thermodynamics". Whether the establishment physics is aware or not aware of this problem, it still I believe (if ignored) becomes an eithical issue and would be misrepresentative of the physics actually occuring. And this is why I believe it will be critical to have an alternative PhD program for studying implications of this new theory, an alternative to the Newtonian based-causal model.

Fig 7a

In a PhD program we must resolve the central S/N causal paradigm:

If S are effects caused by some action “A “, and N are effects caused by background actions “B”, and these effects are based on same laws of fundamental physics, S-N=0 and these are inresolvable.

Experimentally, if we let A be effects caused by organism and B the causal effects of non organism, (as per our example with conversion of molecules to different colors) the causal signal to noise ratio of life should be 1, in other words no effects of fundamental physics on the system S should be different than on system N.

The causal S/N equation poses the crisis if living systems are functions of sane fundamental physics as surroundings, then they should be mathematically indistinguishable.

Why can we resolve the ratio of S/N? And why do we physically exist? The outputs of System A —> (causing) S cannot be the same as B

If this was false it would be physically impossible to distinguish a living cell by its effects on the chemical MTT as non living matrix would also convert MTT equally.

Mathematically however, we find:

Causes A cannot be a function of causes B…and must be independent.. -MK 8.14.22

In reality my theory of independent universes, of independent Systems, is not based upon existing formulas or Newtonian physics. There is a basis for my understanding that time is reversed, that the world is Inside OUT, and yet I have no reason to justify why that is. Scientists have already seen my graphs in diagrams “5B and 5C” and do not recognize the significance of the idea itself, largely because they do not grasp its implications. Experientialists will recognize it, if not intuitively. But I am explaining what those implications are in this book and on video. Inside OUT causality is an intact result of my observation and is, de novo, and original. We will talk about detectors. I have worked on it, for decades, in different manifestations. The VCS is in essence, a working abstract form of the Thermodynamic Directionality Theorem, but is left open.

I believe I am a theorist, who is forced to operate for industry, i.e. to invent technologies which are to be practical. For example my NAC patent, was the first to conceive of using a DNA ( a non-ideal molecule) to “modulate” a fancy word for “control” the delivery of a “drug”. “Drug” is used in the industry for molecules with applied behaviors in animals, for veterinary or human use. It is a term that is industrial, but I am purposefully avoiding those implications. It can entail any substance that is said to cure or treat a malady. I discuss my own research on drug molecules and cells in this book, and how I realized my research provides supporting evidence for my theory.

Thanks in part to Newton, we have notions that we CAUSE an effect on our surroundings in the same way a machine CAUSES an effect on its surroundings. In fact, this theory will treat such a simile as an absurdity. What is actual, and what is perceived are two different things, and the perception of Newtonian universe is incorrect. The Newtonian view treats each as equivalent. And yet, as I found in “How Life Violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics” this cannot be the case. The machine is in fact, caused by the human operator, in every respect. And so any machine action is traceable to a human operator cause. So chalk

one up for the physics defying nature of even the most basic life. This will be true, until we invent Originators. As the cause of the action of the machine, is simply translated through a Causal Chain that is the machine’s parts. This basic finding will not sit well with computer scientists who believe in “ghosts” that inhabit such machines and produce AI. Though it is not my aim to separate that fiction from reality in this book, it is interesting to consider. Does my computer do anything that I do not predict it to do? Yes, but one of the challenges of this book, is theorem “Condition II” which essentially states that an Originator cannot be built, not based on particle causality. Current machines are based on particle causality.

This is what I believe will become a new theory of motion. The inanimate occurrences in any region, will have events that always had some antecedent event. The wind, the waves, and the heat of the sand, are examples of states of atoms, which was caused by some transference of heat. In video that accompanies this book, I show demonstrations of this theory literally, as I stand on a beach. It is somewhat complex, but in reality the complexity is irrelevant. It is a fact that a causal chain of events, in this case micro collisions, results in the motion of air molecules or water. The first motion, came from the upper atmosphere, and before that, the motion of light energy. It is also a fact that there are many other phenomenon on the beach, including the living organisms, that impact and cause effects, but these causes originated nowhere else but in one point. The Causal Chain, is conserved motion and energy, like colliding balls, there is always a first ball striking another, and before that, another...which is why I call these events “2...” Their originator happened an infinite number of events from current time. I realized that a Causal Chain can be linear, however the order of events in the chain has directionality in space, either moving toward or away from a center in space. We can talk about causal chains without using units, of force or any other unit. Directionality supersedes these considerations of mass or energy.

What I envisioned was a new form of causality, based on principals we explore in more detail, in the Crisis Equation chapter of this book. My radical new view of causality means that we will think of some regions of space as ones “1’s,” and others as zeros “0’s”. Because these are source regions where a causal chain begins and so is the first event, or non-source regions, where nothing began. But the general principal of the Thermodynamic Time order of causality, can be illustrated by heat lost or gained from a region of space.

The reason for the “Crisis” if it not apparent yet, is related directly to the directionality of causality I have just illustrated using the heat model of a body.

Total forces observed- fundamental Four= FsubN.

So this is a vector force which will remain. The fact that there is a remainder might also seem to be a crisis challenging established physics. And this book shows how I derived this relation experimentally.

My early investigations into the notion of Choice, led me to what I believe is the first proof that Choice exists, physically. As will be apparent later in the book, we define Choice in a fundamental way. I raised the question: If it was a phenomenon in a System...How would it manifest? Choice is intrinsically part of the phenomenon of life. It is irrelevant if it is a force in action or a force which is being opposed. It exists regardless, just as a force of nature does.

I believe Choice is much more than a scientific issue, though I have taken to prove its existence. The question impacts humanity in actual ways in the clinical field of psychology, where Choice, like other human feelings are considered “mentalistic” and non- quantifiable. I’ve taken the radical position that 1) Choice is a form of behavior, and more specifically I believe it is only present in a new physical state, which I refer to as a System. A system is not the summation of individual acting microscopic constituents, and this definition is a completely new and contradicting to that of chemistry and physics. In which every behavior is reducible to contributions of atoms and molecules. 2) “Choice” manifests itself on micro and sub-micro levels, as a System, and in this spatial environment, is capable of simultaneous amplification, i.e. in multicellular life. I am inspired by the implications of my microscopic data, experience I have gained in the research of human cancer cells. We shall also see how, in a cell’s molecular cause and effect interactions, are found a contradiction to Newtonian causality- the idea of action-reaction does not apply to living systems, and the synergy between cells is more active participation than passive chemical reaction. One will have to pardon the lengthy, arduous process of this book in demonstrating the fundamental principals, but I wanted them to be solid and irrefutable.

I have had an incredible if not magical, several years and the clarity of my view of physics has only increased, at 46 years old. The cherished belief that abstract thinking comes in our 20’s or earlier is nothing but an old myth, promulgated because no one has ever challenged it.

But returning to VCS. It is because of such a theorem, and careful accounting of vectorial forces, that I was able to question the long held belief in “ambient engines”. For more than a hundred years, they have been viewed as definable “entities” which cause actions (e.g. tides, winds, and currents) not only on this planet but elsewhere.

What is a thing? Do objects in our everyday world have identity in the real world, a substance, other than what we perceive? And so we are trying to differentiate what can be scientifically established. And we do not mean does a chair have solid properties and a liquid properties, the question is does a chair have some quality that differentiates it from the background matter in which it rests? Can one show this difference is intrinsic and not subjective opinion? Early on, questions of where words originate in our minds, (and if they have real physicality) were important for my though process in developing this work. Particularly as I encountered the “Whorfian hypothesis” among others. We are told that nouns are things. Therefore a “computer” must be a thing. But as Shakespeare warned of the subjectivity of the imagination, especially at night, “How easy is it to mistake a bush for a bear!” It is our object to differentiate reality, an autologous independent reality from that “night”, the darkness (or if you prefer, the background) that we cleave reality from, largely unknowingly by what I believe is our active perception of that innate reality we exist in. The determination of objects, things, and observables, from surroundings, is a fundamental aspect of being alive. And as I promised, such a claim will be tested and shown to be accurately based in physics. We will find ourselves at a threshold between philosophy and science. What is an object? What is a thing? Depends upon the observers input of work, the observer’s effect on the environment.

The common beliefs in what we “believe” is reality, will be turned upside down in this book. And here we differentiate between objects, places and things. And this definition will be important to describing how living things define spaces by their existence. Later on the reader will find, that we define “things” as VCS’s, regions of space with some dimensionality to them, that have Signal >, or < 1. In other words, we can show that such regions of space have some action or cause emanating from them. And you may notice that we have just eliminated a great number of things from inclusion in our definition. A thing is a causally differentiable region of space from another space. It must have in that space, a property that is somehow different. It turns out that normal objects, anything not alive, is not actually a “thing” in terms of our new physical definition. But for reasons we will explore later, are

only perceived as things, because of human perception. Computers of today have no such Signal. They are objects, connected in causality with other objects, they are in contact with- the table, the air, the floor etc. and most importantly, a power cord. Which in turn is connected to a power source. That power source is then connected, causally, by another system. What makes a group of atoms in a computer different than a metal table? Though English makes a clear distinction, by naming a “thing” a computer for us. Entropy knows no difference here. And it turns out, neither do vectors of force. You will find no Vector originating from a VCS which encloses a computer.

There are conventions in our society for which these distinctions are practical. Computers are useful tools, as are all kinds of other machines. But in this book, I clearly must specify where those conventions do not hold, or worse, interfere with the ability to grasp these theorems.

We live in a world of replicated memes, (atom models, gene models, and computer models) and so see our own influence everywhere, coming back to us. It is a form of noise, however, which must be overcome. Just as it is necessary to find dark regions to gaze on the stars.

Where did this idea originate?

I will start with an early problem. I believe all fundamental ideas begin with a basic problem, one that cannot be solved with conventional methods.

But before we get into the problem, I will say something else. I used to believe in an objective, unchanging reality to which we are exposed. And in that belief, there is a notion of a reality that is “self revealing.” I no longer believe this is the case. I don't believe natural law or equations, exist by themselves, waiting to be found. I base these assertions not on philosophy but on Force. The Creative force is what has formed my words on this page, and these began in my unique views and my perception, formed many years before. We are all detectors and perceivers, but perception can also take the form of our mind and its reaction to the effects of reality it observes. We have been viewed incorrectly, and rather primitively, as products of laws, and that notion is no longer valid. A new science is upon us. And a Choice. “Origination” is a concept which will change that perception. In over 150 years, we’ve witnessed (according to Universities) “seminal” breakthroughs in biology, the atom, relativity, proof of DNA’s structure, and before this the discovery of other planets, laws of motion. Nothing about Origination. My evidence is in the simple

observation of others' views of reality and science. And I have only encountered notions of reality that were exactly opposite my own. That is a reality I have faced.

As I’ve said, it has been a remarkable several years, leading to this book. This theory is produced by me, a projection of an inner view, and likely traceable even to me in some predisposed way, genomically. I was born to find it, within my own theories.

One may see a contradiction. I can assure you there is none. The I

Vector is real. As are so many of the microscopic elementary vectors that run living cells. And to which we owe our collective power to change not only our surroundings but ourselves.

I considered not running experiments too early in the book. But frankly, I'd rather jump into the water, why wait? I will give a disclaimer. It is important to realize that this is only a figurative demonstration of the theory, but it is impossible to give a full account of it in just a paragraph.

This book will redefine the notion of Signal. It is central to this book. Most are familiar with the concept of signal, and to most, signal means essentially whatever a scientist or engineer says it is. Normally, signal in physics, can be anything we want to detect, from any source. Signal can take any mechanical form or be pure energy. It is the light I see coming from the houses on the hillside on a dark night. Signal is from the stars peeking through the cloud scape. It could be rap on the front door. Signal is to physics, by itself, completely arbitrary. It is a ubiquitous term to science.

However, Signal is not arbitrary, as we make a distinction between the Signal coming from two different worlds, distinct by their causality.

Three Experiments: “The Radio Station, Campfire Games, and Dinosaur tracks”

The Radio Station

Let’s imagine I am traveling along a remote road in the desert at night, and want to attempt to find a radio signal, preferably with music. It is an interesting problem to illustrate a more abstract idea. We are not interested in the principal of the radio per se, as this is instructive of a basic idea of my theory. Our problem is first a physical one. Radio waves are invisible to us. I can stand outside my car and can I detect these? No. As human beings lack receptors for these wavelengths of light, we must use an instrument to detect them. Do radio waves exist naturally? Yes

they do. There is background radio signal everywhere, and it comes from space, not to mention other electromagnetic radiation, and so attempting to pick up a station in a remote area is a problem. I can check my radio and begin sliding the dial. How do I know what is the Station and what isn’t the Station? Is it the location that has “music?” Possibly, but If my version of music is “noise”, the snaps and crackle of sound, then I have likely been successful in finding it. Of course, not everyone’s version of music will be loud static, more would select the Symphony. We are accustomed to believing that we may select what we want, be it Beethoven or loud noise. So we might think that the problem of finding a station is no different than any other. Though I am limited with my car radio, a trained observer may use their radio” to find signal from a distant radio source, a star, or from a nearby storm. What is not arbitrary is that in order to pick up anything, we will need to “tune in” to the Signal. To pick up a storm, a radio galaxy, or our radio station, we will need to make the signal stand out from all the other noise that is coming to us. But if this was our aim of the book it would be severely short sighted. There is something else that is critical. What is the difference between the radio energy coming from a natural source, like a storm cloud, and the radio station? Whereas our first answer is likely, the type of signal, frequency etc, these are not intrinsic differences unique to our problem. What is very different is that the radio station Signal is not generated by us. And what many will likely find difficult to accept, is that the natural signal, the one from the storm, is generated by us.

How can this be? How can it be claimed that we are generating the natural signal? The radio signal clearly comes from a radio galaxy, or a severe storm. I can assure you that this is the case. And it is precisely why my theory is so radical. Consider for a moment that there is in one case: where we have a completely arbitrary problem at hand. This problem might be, what should I listen to tonight? That is an unbounded problem that has any answer we choose. Metaphorically, I could state that is precisely where the study of the hardest problem existing, the origin of life is currently. It is to choose any radio station, and simultaneously, any music arbitrarily. They look at nature, the background of random behavior, and say “that’s where it is.” That’s where life in theory, must have spontaneously generated. I was not satisfied by the arbitrary unbounded nature of this problem. This book gives a mathematical proof, based on physics, for why that is impossible. I don’t doubt that most in the science establishment would disagree, and believe that there should be specific locations on earth where life likely, spontaneously generated. The aim of this

book, at least one of them, is to show that it does not matter where you look, none of these evaluations shows real evidence, there is no Signal, there is no music, in the noise they are listening to. We are not going to waste our time with such pursuits. We must distance ourselves from investigations that are determined by the observer’s choice.

This example simultaneously may cause confusion about what kind of reality we exist in. But in fact, we are closer to having more clarity on a new reality, and a new universe.

I was not satisfied with the relativity of the first case. (that the argument for the origin of life be made on completely random arbitrary starting conditions). What of the second case? The second case is that this is not an arbitrary problem. That is the direction of this book, but to imply that it was “non arbitrary” implies something very different.

We may then ask, what is fundamentally different between the Station and a natural radio source? Though we could argue about one’s motive in listening to various music, giving arguments for each, never having a definitive outcome- when we reduce the problem to basic life, these are simplified. What also occurs is distance our perception from the noise of such biased views. Now we can understand differences between sources relative to an ideal, impartial observer, a living cell. (Which we will do later). Or some other elemental life form. Who’s responses are not clouded nor unclear. What if the search that night, was not for a Station, but for food? The parallel, though at a high level, is useful.
Though the analogy between basic life and searching for a radio station may not be yet clear. What can hopefully be appreciated is that no activity is arbitrary, neither in our case nor in even the most basic life forms. We do not exist in a cognitive bubble, able to define the physical world arbitrarily, as we wish. The universe is not the dictate of chance. And such primitive beliefs are not to our species’ advantage. Which is to say the “first case” is an illusion. There is a reason, and impetus, however slight, for our desire to find music on a station. And such motives share commonality
with the universe. We can investigate this new objective reality in ways that have not been done so before.

(It is interesting that a person receives virtually every piece of information, every particle photon sound wave, to the brain, and these are processed by the detector in the mind by deliberate actions, and yet ‘rationally’ concludes that the world must be dictated of probability. It is as if they are unwilling to learn anything from their own senses. )

One’s idea of “music” may seem relative. But the relativeness demonstrates where we are, currently in perception of our world. We are familiar with choosing what it is we will listen to. Or what we will investigate. Anyone can go into a desert and search for whatever they wish. But in writing this book, I was intrigued by what is not relative and what can be known. What force, however minute, has driven me to search for a station that night? It is a fascinating question, and this book is in the direction of an answer to such a question. The absurd notions of Inheritance, Darwinism, and molecular determinism will be cast aside.

What is not arbitrary between a natural Radio source and the Station? The signal coming into the radio might be weak that night. Perhaps the noise is so great that I cannot find the station on the receiver. Or the radio itself is in poor condition, and does not pick up the Signal. However, what if we imagine a different scenario, that the Station’s signal is steadily increased until it overwhelms the noise? Now we can hear it clearly.

Now let’s imagine that we repeat this experiment with the Natural radio source. It turns out that regardless of the amplification of the Natural signal, we cannot detect the signal better!!

Why?

MOAB Campfire Music

I’ve demonstrated similar experiments in causality in the Moab desert only recently. But instead of light I have used sound. At the time I performed this test, I struggled with the abstractness of what I was about to demonstrate, as I had not really brought the theory out before in a group. As with any experiment, it’s important to know what was its purpose, and this was an early hands-on experiment in S/N. So while we had a campfire late at night, I stood out a ways from the group and started beating sticks together making a noise. When they asked “what are you doing?” I told them that it was a kind of game, and to simply play along. As I continued to beat sticks, and slowly backing away into the dark, I am sure that they thought I was a mad man. I then asked them if they could still hear me and tell my position in the dark. They could easily. But then I changed the rules slightly. I told them to wait for a few moments while I moved further away so that I was not visible by the campfire light, and then after ten seconds, to point in the direction where they heard the music coming from. As I continued beating the sticks, I faded more into the shadows. I began to tap the sticks with less force, now the sounds of the night crept in and I waited for them to point to where I was standing. It should be noted that I could still see them, very easily next to the fire. They pointed in different directions! I asked if they could still hear the sticks clanking together. They said no. This was remarkable as I could still hear them. Yet their location estimate of my position, was nothing more than a guess. My experiment was a complete success, and filled me with jubilation.

What this meant was something extraordinary, as it demonstrated to me, what it meant to be the Signal generator itself. I was asking a very important theoretical question. What would happen if I, that Signal generator, was in fact just another part of the universe, as we SHOULD expect. So in this way the experiment demonstrated that case perfectly to myself, though it was obviously not evident to anyone else.

When surrounding causality, the surrounding effects of wind and other noise, now are the Signal, it is not possible to locate the source of that Signal. Why? I realized that the subtraction of the background is no longer possible.

But there was something else as well. Where is the virtual closed system in this experiment? It is interesting that I am serving as that space of origin of the Signal. I’m the VCS.

On a bright starry night, the results seem very clear, they scream what this theory is about. But the best I’ve been able to do so far is to convey bits and pieces, smaller working parts of the collective whole. I believe it illustrates my earlier point that there is much more to this theory than is initially apparent, and it is much more abstract than I realize, despite the fact that I am using very simplistic intuitive examples. But this is an entirely new theory.

Other experiments validating my theory however, were beautifully illustrated to me during a hike with friends near the Colorado river. In a mountain of rock, here were several dinosaur tracks, perfectly preserved in the sandstone. The visual evidence was palpable, and began to confirm points about my theory immediately.

Fig 16a Fossilized dinosaur tracks in rock. Moab, UT.

Fig 16b Natural "tracks" of water action against sand. Moab, UT.

In Fig 16a and 16b, we have an interesting case of contrasting natural inanimate activities with activities of animate systems. The fossil track can be considered as causal product "S" and the matrix around it is causal product "N." The S/N causal theory states that if S and N are caused or resultant of different physics, then S-N >1. -MK 8.7.22

How was I able to differentiate such tracks from many other deformations of the rocks? I was not satisfied with more conventional beliefs about understanding. It is because of problems such as these, that I have sought a deeper, physical explanation for why this is possible, as I sensed that there is a physical alignment occurring. I realized something was occurring between observer (myself) and the system I observed. Why would I be able to see such tracks? Had I no means of interpreting the visual information before me, the smooth rock in my mind, I would not have seen such differences. The control in that case, is rather obvious, “I do not see the tracks, only rock.” Again the principal of the subtraction of background is illustrated here. Is there anything physically unique about the tracks? The dinosaur tracks are neither the ultimate product of the motion of atoms, nor are they products of gradual time. When this theory is applied correctly, both of these factors are subtracted from the equation. However, my detection of the prints that day was entirely

independent of how old they were. That in itself was a fascinating realization of the power of my theory.

When the theory is applied correctly, it further gains a realization that is beyond the principal of how we might explain detecting the tracks specifically. This book is about more fundamental notions of the universe, not building robots with dinosaur detecting algorithms. I realized the image of the tracks, illustrated a physical principal of the universe, that was external to my experience. This theory is in fact, about why we should experience the force of the wind, the heat of the rocks, or the cold river. Sadly although that is not our objective, I suspect many will likely not be able to see past the example for the technicalities.

Life has been well studied. Even its physics and chemistry at the molecular level. And yet the more that it is studied, the more it is believed to be of the same physics as inanimate matter. And the more it is closely studied, molecularly, there appears to be no property to life, that is not also found in non-life. This could be thought of as a “signal problem.” One of the keys to understand this is true, is another concept, called Observation Bias. The reason it is very different, the reason Signal is not the same for animate and inanimate is because (to realize this difference) we must actually see beyond our observational bias.

A New Universe

This new theory is largely about an entirely new physical concept, which I term “Initiation”, and force of will that is elementary. It is a force already present in the Universe. With time running out and growing expectations to begin a new life, I knew that it was time to publish my work and bring it to the mainstream. What it is about, what I think can be missed, since there are so many theories based purely on equations, is that it is not so much pure mathematics as about a new, fundamental symmetry, a new way to look at our world. It is about showing an equation, but the foundation is rather simple. It is geometry. When you understand initiation force is real, then it can be glimpsed.

This work is about new forms of causality, which have not been known before. It is about universes, defined by their causality but also energy, and radically dismantling the notion of a single universe. Ironically, it is believed that system is embodied in machines. There is a pervasive and harmful myth in our society that “machines” can think and we are told these are more and

more like life. Though if a “thinking” machine advocate is asked to provide a case in which the behavior emanating is from atoms and molecules, is from the matter, they will fail this challenge. And we will find in this book, much to the surprise of AI advocates, that not only is the “behavior” of a machine nonspecific to the atoms, it is nonspecific to any system*! Ultimately, we will not find the cause of the machine’s action, to be within it, originating there. Regardless of how complex machines may become, there is a unique property of even the simplest life forms that is not duplicable by machines. This book is about that unique property. I believe a force that remains since before the earth began.

Finally this is a battle of ideologies at a basic level. As any radical notion becomes.. Many are mistaken that truth in science is somehow automatically defended or cultivated. Nothing could be further from reality, and it is naive to believe. This challenges a system and that system defends itself with almost autonomous immunity. There is much to learn in this world much more than one can imagine from what we are told. I don't wish to see my idea languish until after I'm gone. So I've printed a limited number of my first edition books.

This is for now a story, an interpretation of a discovery which I show take form of equations, in the very real paradoxical demonstration, of where current science fails us. One can certainly interpret what this means. But I'll say something more. The forces are not, at least in their first origination, are not of this earth. We know of no physics or chemistry to explain them. The possibility here is to glimpse (if not by our experience), the elements of force in Creation itself. What and how do we detect (observe and have knowledge) at any given moment now in time so far removed from its origin? That should eventually create ideological Chaos in physics. It is a moment when we escaped vectoraly our prior tendencies. Predictability is out as is the (previously narrow) future of what we can do. It is in a sense proving the existing physics of limitations wrong. Again the echoes of a system that will be a relic.

What is reality? Is it arbitrary? And is our science obscuring it? And by ‘science’ I am referring to our tools of observation of our world, which everyone is born. Everyone at every age, must evaluate reality, and this evaluation does not always involve science. Science is merely a reduction of what is referred to as “common sense”, of cause and effect, to something usually more

quantitative. In other words, measurable. This is a broader definition that fits our subject, but also useful, because we are talking to a broader audience than only scientists, but also experientialists.

I’m going to be talking about the notion of “free will” as it is a concept that is of growing interest. Mainly I should say, the lack of free will is a topic of growing interest, at least for science.

But here we can make a key distinction. We can divide discussion into what I believe is the reality, and then the perception of that reality, with respect to agency. So both of these concepts are of interest I believe in terms of our perception of the world and even our place in it. If this book covered nothing else, possibly this one subject alone would be sufficient and would certainly require more than the 200 pages of the book.

What are the implications for the book?

There is a currently held view that though we may believe in agency, and that we believe we are in command of our actions, this belief is illusory. In fact it is asserted by science that the belief in “free will” something that everyone experiences based essentially on the fact that we are independent living individuals, is merely an adaptation of the mind to reality. It is in that sense, not real at all. It is believed by science that we have the feeling of free will because there are advantages to having this perception. And further, it is believed that such perceptions are formed by the genes. In the same way one can argue that a fear of heights or snakes is inheritable, and no doubt it is, so too can the argument be made that just the opposite tendencies might be inherited, i.e. fearlessness of snakes or heights, as would any other emotion, , or even a basic perception of our world can be inherited. Meaning that if a fear of snakes is a coping mechanism for surviving in this world, so is perhaps, an entire frame of mind, a conceptual basis for how we view reality. One’s fear of heights might be as arbitrary and as “pre-programmed” into our minds as any other belief. So the current thought is that of programming, and “wiring” of the brain to interpret reality such that it feels as though we have free will and agency. There is a great deal of confidence that this is reality. It has generated a plethora of books and scientific articles to support it. Not to mention films and scientific conferences dedicated to interpreting the “reality” of the lack of our agency or free will and its outcome. In fact, if one reads much of the technical literature on it, (search phrases such as “is free will real?” on the internet) they will get the impression that this is an air tight argument. So we have come back full circle to the initial

point, one is reality and one is the perception of it. Part of it is in the empirical reality and part in interpretation. On the empirical side, is the argument for a deterministic world based on particles which dictate that reality in every way possible, including or not limited to the quantum level. And on the perception side, is the argument that we are hard wired to believe in agency, even though in reality, agency does not and cannot exist.

Can we know reality? It was a difficult problem that I considered for some time. I believe this position of science on free will has raised the stakes of the implications of the problem of free will’s existence, or non existence. Reality and our perception of reality, is an interesting place of simultaneous incompatibility, or compatibility, and I was intrigued by their relation and or union. Though the actual deficiencies of the current science have not been evident, the questions of free will, the reality and perception of it, test science in ways not previously possible. And by “position of science” we could easily state that this is a position congruent with science’s development, building over thousands of years.

I was never convinced of the argument for the “any reality is an illusion” based on the idea of so called genetic “pre- programming.” I first tackled this issue philosophically, and I disproved it, by logic alone. However, I was not satisfied with only a philosophical disproof. I wanted to show it physically in a way that was irrefutable. It has been no easy task to do so. If someone presents a theory that is psychological, one that claims that your perception is gamed, and is arbitrary, then you’ve got a very tough battle to prove otherwise. But the argument for “our reality is gamed” is not just psychological, but appears to have physical basis, and many notable voices in popular science culture have agreed with this position. As Stephen Hawking, put it, “even the most devout believer in fate looks both ways when he crosses the road.”

Many who pontificate and make it their work to deal in the subject of reality, do not appear to realize that there is a basic difference between “perception” and active perception of reality...a cause and effect perception of reality. For perception, our awareness, our consciousness, this in fact something we do not understand the source of in the mind. However, what has been done is to equate this issue of how we perceive the world, with interpretation of it, and active cause and effect perception of reality. They have fallen into a trap of sorts. And so much of the early experiments I ran, to test both premises, the reality and perception of that

reality, have become part of this book. We will talk about both of these areas.

To test if either hypothesis is correct, one has to assume that it is true, and then look at the outcome. What I realized is that the believers in pre-programming and determinism have neglected to test their hypothesis in a specific way.

In writing this book, I asked the following questions of current science. If our perception of the world is pre-programmed, and is not based in reality, then this means that our actions cannot dictate outcomes. And I realized that there is another way to prove that our actions do not dictate outcomes, and that is to claim that we do not dictate physical laws, nor their behavior, and further, as if to land a Coup de grâce, we are mere products of entropy.

This led me to another critical realization. What this actually means, if true, is that our actions cannot be the primary sources, the impetus of such outcomes. An example is as follows. Let’s say you are choosing between two colors, red and green. They can be colors for any object you wish, cars, pens, drapes, etc., and so I left out the specifics of the object to keep the problem simple. Even though you thought that you chose (red over green) you made that decision based on a preprogrammed tendency to choose red curtains. Where did that tendency come from? It was inherited. Again there appears to be overwhelming evidence that such “choices” are not real. If you had a twin, that twin would also choose red, over green, 9 times out of 10. Your twin, would also choose similar career paths, make similar or identical choices of politics..etc. Not to mention that there are all the genetic studies which indicate predispositions for many traits. It is a simple straightforward argument. But one can see that in order to test this hypothesis we have to understand how to reduce the problem into a frame that can be objective. What I realized is that this is a fallacious logic. The argument that we are pre- programmed to believe we have free will, assumes that free will doesn’t exist. You can’t defeat this argument by proving that a belief in “choice is not inherited.” By doing so, you have accepted the false premises. We can accept that we have inherited genes which are essential for not only bodily function, but also the function of our minds, and yet realize that these genes do not dictate the behavior. We can also accept, that even our physical beings, and capacities, are dictated by our molecular make up. To demonstrate this premise, I removed “perception” from the experiment all together. First by using, non perceiving organisms, cells. But then, by using abstract models. Not only have I investigated Choice” in the most objective way possible, but I

have tested this model at the extremes, testing even “choice” for inanimate systems. And what is discovered in this book, the consequence of this endeavor, is that behavior is force. There is a presumption that inheritance, a process we have no control over, means that the notion of free will cannot exist. There is however, no such thing as “particle determinism” and we will explore this further in the book. One will hopefully see the parallel between this argument about free will, and the argument for particle determinism.

I realized that there is a great deal of confusion about free will and agency, which results from problems of fallacious logic. Again, the fact that we are products of our genes, is metaphorical, not actual. So I further realized that a more basic, fundamental model would be needed to test the hypothesis. What I possibly did not realize was that this basic experiment was also testing particle determinism as well as the basic particle model that is the foundation of science. It turns out that there is a relationship between the question of “free will”, agency what we just discussed, and basic physics. Though it is fundamentally related to our perception of the world, I had to limit the model to the extent that the human mind would not be part of that equation. And I wanted to prove this for myself first and foremost.

When I set out to run the experiment, I found a mismatch in the expected results. The mismatch in the result is the “Crisis” in reality. Though we are speaking of the perception of that reality. So I have dedicated this book to interpreting the results of the mismatch in the expected outcome vs the actual outcome of the experiment. In essence, there is excess and unexplainable causality in the equation. The logical conclusion was that this result requires a new theory, one not based in the current particle model, nor is it based in a single Universe model.

This is a basic book of science and awareness of a new dimension in reality. Much of that is only possible, I believe, by doing experiments which actually test those tenets. So I have aimed to make a book that is solidly based, not on what other’s opinions are or on mere “references” but on empirical experiment. What you will find is in fact testable evidence that is mathematical.

We test the hypothesis that free will is “programmed” by evaluating a physical, not a psychological outcome. In such cases, perception of illusion is irrelevant. Thus, if free will is programmed and not real, then the actions of an intelligent being, on a system (fig A would be the most simple) would be non- discernable from fundamental causality of the physical world, i.e. the basic laws. And the results explainable by chemical or

physical laws or behaviors. The most ethereal result of this book is the finding that the problem of interpreting the Crisis Equation Result, lies not in better chemical or (current) physical theory about particles, but is independent of them. That will become apparent.

I was not satisfied with investigating any premises that depended on the interpretation by the observer. Their perception of the experiment.

In this kind of experiment, biology for the first time, is testable if not reducible to physics. Returning for a moment to our original premise. We can be products of our genes, of inheritance, but in reality we share a quality with all life on the planet, and any living thing in the universe. Our ability to dictate and cause change in the world around us.

I should mention, before we go on, that there is an issue of what is the Inheritance model, which brings us to a critical juncture.

The new theory I've developed contains a new notion of time, which is elemental, and first law to Causal Geometry. This basic notion of time, or the flow of time, which I introduce is critical to causal geometry. It is a concept that is in the reverse of conventional causality that I have observed taught in science. It also seems to be the reverse of causality that is “intuitive” to most people if not all that I’ve encountered. This aspect of the theory alone, I hope one will imagine, is different than Signal and Noise and the Crisis Equation but is related. And is yet critical by itself. In this respect Crisis Equation and Signal Noise aspects are second law to my theory.

Reverse Causality?

We are given a textbook model of ecology, where we are to envision that the living things in it, are driven by the sun’s energy. In the most elemental of causality, the sun provides energy to the living things, driving the phenomenon that is life. What is argued is that this is very obvious, since if the energy input from the sun was removed, then would life continue? Obviously it would cease. If life cannot find an energy source (which could be chemical not light) it will cease. So life has long been considered to be a phenomenon much like chemistry. Obviously, they claim, experiments verify this observation if not common sense. So we are told that one cannot have life without basic building blocks, the essential requirements of life, temperature, vital molecules, and an energy source. What is remarkable about this New Theory is that it reveals an obvious flaw in this model. The flaw is not realized because the science cannot see such a system in

reverse. In other words, the basis of current science logic is to ask the problem if the energy is subtracted from the ecology model (above). Incredibly, what has not been asked is if the phenomenon that is life, could be explainable if you added light energy to such an equation? Meaning, to start without it first, then add it back in. Whereas it is obvious that life ceases with energy removed, it is just as obvious that the behavior of life cannot be explained if you add energy from the sun to the system of molecules.

Yet the textbook ecological view and conventional Inheritance model, contain within them biases about causality. And principally time. Not only about intervals but the cognitive or physical- psychological aspects of what may or may not occur in such intervals. About how one thing causes another in a time interval. And there is a flow of effects, from one causal point to another. My theory is very different from this conventional causal view of reality. As I’ve said I’m introducing a new concept of time. Whereas it is permissible to discuss jumps in time, from one event to another, my theory I believe is more congruent with actual causality. So this unique notion about time, underlying this theory is a very basic divergence of this theory from any other. These distinctions about time should not be too unexpected, as chemistry and physics, to a great extent, already require them.

Even in the most advanced theories, living things are believed to advance forward by a process known as inheritance of traits. Yet we can see that “inheritance” has within it either no time bounds, or a time interval that is arbitrary. When was it established that organisms change every generation? Or when genetic mixing occurs? Who made such proclamations? And what evidence (despite their acceptance) is there to assume that the divisions have physical or scientific merit? In so called revised models, “Neo-Darwinism” these include epigenetic traits. I bring up this point only to elucidate the causal distinction. One can see the argument or is now familiar with it, for why genes change and organisms, based on this principal. The change in organisms is based on what they do, how they live, reproduce, and this behavior is said to effect the genes. Note the direction of causality, genes are carried in what are called “vehicles” or bodies. What is the primary causality? Environment. We will return to this concept again. It is a psychological and spacial representation of causality, which I believe would strike a non- earth being as very odd.

However, this is a primitive notion of time that I have always had reservations with at a fundamental level, though I did not become aware until recently. As I have said earlier, my methods

supporting my theory are radical, and this comes from my internal derived, if not genomically derived viewpoint which I have developed over my life and arrived at independently of external influences. I have long thought about time, and its substance. This realization led me to ultimately propose “Indifferent Time” which I have written about on my blog site as an alternative to other proposed law of nature (and biological complexity) which are in the mainstream. A new notion of time I present here uncovers a vast reality which has been hidden in primitive notions of causality and of time’s flow. How did my realization of time come about? That is like asking how someone developed their unique understanding of music or art. The causal distinction we make in this book, is not specific to biology but is found in physics. And could be said to be an alternative to the Newtonian mechanical view of causality, (though it was actually formed by many others, Boltzmann and others). The inheritance model” is cumbersome, arbitrary and is an odd view in my mind of time but most importantly, change. In biology we should not expect the rules of our physical world to proceed differently, yet it appears that this is now the case for biology. The so called Darwinian model new or old, neither subscribes nor fits with even basic causality, in physics or in chemistry. This I realized is seen when one applies Indifferent Time and realizes that one state A will proceed to a next state B without any intermediate state. If we imagine a microscopic cell, at any moment, neither the cells nor the molecules involved are “aware” of any other causality, expect a prior state. So this is an easy enough concept to convey, which I’ve done in my essay. And which is entirely congruent with Newtonian laws, while simultaneously driving my realizations towards a new law, one of Systems and Origination. I introduced last year my radical idea of "indifferent time" and this is critical in the new law of causal geometry.

Definition of Indifferent Time: “One state A will proceed to a next state B without any intermediate state.”

But Indifferent Time” is I realized, an irrefutable physical property of nature, though it is axiomatic, and deductive. Much like saying “a body at rest will remain at rest.” It is also a concept with which we will experiment, and show its tremendous implications in this book.

A very simple example of Indifferent Time is as follows. Let’s imagine that Janice and I are traveling back home from the store and finally arrive home. We can imagine a series of steps, that describe the causality of how this occurred. For example, we exited the store, got in our car, drove to a light, then to another

light, etc. then parked. Each step you notice, took about 10 seconds. We know there are steps in getting from any place to another place. But what if we imagine that the steps in such actions are reduced in time? What if these steps are reduced from 10 second intervals, to 1 microsecond? Now we have many more steps! I gave such experiments considerable thought years ago but didn’t yet realize their implications.

I have imagined this theory, not because of agreement with any current science, but because it is formed from my internal perspective which I have no control. And in retrospect, I’ve come to realize that I knew from early on, that my view of reality was unique from the external views of science I was exposed.

I realized when we divide time further, we reach some limit but we also realize a limit on distance. If we imagine a freeze frame of a body, then a cell within the body, and perhaps even smaller, the molecules will be frozen in motion. We can then see a state, make a circle and call it A, and imagine then rolling time forward a very small increment, a time t, until it reaches the next state B. What that limit is, and if it is physically real, is irrelevant to this example, for simplicity we can say it is small enough.” This is how reality unfolds. The answer to that, is not Inheritance”. “inheritance” has no meaning. We can imagine the molecules in the cell frozen in time, then allowed to move. The molecules in A can go a billion different ways. Yet they flow only in the direction they do. How

can we explain it? And we can pull back our resolution sufficiently to allow a sufficient number of steps. But we must ask “how does A physically get to B? But the other unexpected realization is that it is also not molecular theory.

As Indifferent Time is related but yet independent of different independent systems, Indifferent Time could be said to be analogous to my first “law” of Causality (similar to a first law of “motion”, but in Causal space and chains of events which we discuss later). Because this axiom is elemental in causal geometry. One immediate result I explore is how Indifferent Time means that natural systems do not "find" equilibrium. They already are. This is a basic understanding with vast consequence. Schrodinger proposed that systems find equilibrium, and I realized this cannot be entirely accurate. Combining this realization, we find that what is in disequilibrium is the observer. Our notions of disequilibrium in nature are observer induced. This takes us back to our earlier experiment with Signal. This very basic axiom is yet another hypothesis to support the understanding that Signal will be original, and exceed background when independence of systems exists.

What is Life?

In writing this book, I realized that there will be much confusion about free will if the looming issue of consciousness is not resolved very early. Can we discuss “free will” without consciousness? The answer is, yes we can. And that is extraordinary. We sidestep problems here. As discussions of free will, have never been independent of mind, consciousness or of one’s subjective opinion of the subject. We can therefore explore free will as something ubiquitous and fundamental, even to primitive life forms.

Firstly- we can evaluate outcome. If a subject caused an outcome, and such a cause is not attributable to any other factor, then it was “their” cause. It is irrelevant if they were aware or not of that action! So this definition, by itself eliminates much of the former debate based on intention. It is also irrelevant what the intention was, that is, if the subject intended to cause the effect or not. Which means that no opinion by the subject is required.

Secondly-The same arguments that are used to support the notion that free will does not exist, arguments based on genetic data, and basic fundamental science, will be the basis of my arguments of proof that it does exist. For example, genetic sequencing of the genome proves that we have some 30,000 active genes. That is a fact. But that does not prove that free will doesn’t exist.

I have spent about two decades in the fields of biotechnology and pharmaceutical research. I have spent a great deal of time studying the behavior of cells after a specific molecule was introduced to them and observed these effects. Many of these molecules were anti-cancer drugs and I have seen their specific effects on cancer cells, first hand, under a microscope. Most of the drugs that I studied caused what is called “crenation” of the cells, due to the fact that the drugs enter the cells and bind with the nuclear DNA in the cell. You can see it binding, due to fluorescence from the drug in the nucleus. Other drugs, for example, paclitaxel, only caused cells to basically freeze in place, their functions stopping but they appeared otherwise healthy.

In other ways, we can study the health of cells not only as a result of their growth and division, but also quantitatively, by their production of enzymes. When cells are healthy and thriving they produce high levels of enzymes, when they are not healthy, the enzyme levels drop considerably. The relative production of these

enzymes is a means to evaluate the “viability” of a cell, in other words their vitality.

Cells are an ideal study subject for the purposes of our research. They do not have consciousness, so they are ideal for the reasons we’ve discussed previously. Yet cells do a great number of tasks on their own. And have been doing so for a billion years. They do not require direction from the outside to carry out operations critical to life, and I though we don’t really know how old cells are (their DNA is as ancient as the oldest organisms known).

Does this mean that cells exhibit “free will”? We would expect that they do not, largely because of the same argument as before. Cells even more so than intelligent beings, are beholden to the genes that they inherited from a previous cell, the “parent”. In fact cultured cells are identical genetically to all the others, and are essentially clones. Cells behavior would therefore be expected to be the direct product of their genes, the unit of inheritance.

My question for the Crisis Equation was ambitious. Not only did I question if free will was present in biology. I asked, “Does free will exist in the universe?”

Given the fact that cells are genetic clones, it would therefore seem that cells might be a very bad model to test any concept of “free will.” Despite this, I believe that cells are an ideal model. And one of the primary reasons for this is because 1) It is a biological model of free will in living organism, and 2) It is an unbiased model, much simpler than for example free will” in intelligent beings.

However, from my research on cells, I was aware that cell’s capacity to respond to their environment was very complex. For example, back in the year 2000, I was working on an idea I had for complexing DNA with drugs to target them more effectively to cancer cells. The idea was to actually do something very different than what was normally done, I actually wanted to take advantage of the non-uptake of the drugs into the cells due to the presence of the DNA. What you will learn from work on human cells at such a basic level, for example, the drug uptake level, is that they are in fact, immensely complex in their behavior. I would find that my DNA drug particles would be absorbed better when the cells were just beginning to grow and spread, than when they had already stopped growing. What was clear was that communication between cells, i.e. the way in which they sense contact with other cells, effected their growth rate. It slowed.

The point is that cells must be able to adapt to their external environment, an environment that is highly unpredictable. And

part of that external environment is foreign molecules or particles, like my DNA drug complex that I was attempting to treat them with.

In my mind, the myriad adaptive quality that I witnessed of cells showed a fundamental independence from the external environment. Cells are behaving, not only in response to molecules, but in response to contact with surfaces.

Let us return to the initial question, our hypothesis. Can cells

exhibit free will? We have answered, “no”, and feel confident in this as cells appear to be microscopic machines run by molecular actions of DNA, proteins and other molecules floating around inside them. We are to understand that the actions of a cell are that of chemical processes inside it.

As we have just seen, the cell, has no “choice” in how it responds to a molecule, such as a cancer drug that is introduced to it. And it will respond very consistently to a specific molecule.

If we give the cell a molecule, say a drug molecule it will respond molecularly to it, without having a choice about doing so. And based on this premise, we would expect it would do so with all kinds of molecules, air molecules, water molecules..etc. So this produces a model, very much like a molecular deterministic model, in which the cell would be expected to respond to each molecule in exactly the same way, each time we do the experiment. And, we would imagine that regardless of the source of the molecule, a scientist, or nature, the model is the same. The cell is a collection of molecular machines, all running very predictably to molecular inputs from the outside. Thus confirming that it has no choice. This would seem to be the case. However, the key word is “respond”. A cell’s response can be very complex. But it is actually more than just complexity. I’ll return to this idea momentarily.

A basic, fundamental question: Is there behavior in the cell, that is not the result of molecular behavior?

Cells are fundamental units of life. They make up organisms. And in organisms, they are indivisible units of organisms behavior. In many ways, what I was asking was can free will be divided into small units, microscopic units. Thus, perhaps if free will exists in some fundamental way, at the cellular level, (or not), then it would contribute at a much larger scale.

Furthermore, what would “free will” look like in a cell, if it did exist? We should expect that it would appear molecularly or at the cellular level. As this is how cells interact and respond. For example, if you added molecule “DOX” to the cell, if the cell had

“free will”, it would not always stop making the expected enzyme. Sometimes it would produce some other behavior, one that was completely unexpected.

Early on I realized some basic problems with this approach, with molecular determinism. Though I realized that determinism is convenient for the applied laboratory, it is not necessarily accurate model of life.

These types of experiments are in themselves, a very biased approach to confirming determinism. And I am speaking of the very experiments that I have performed on cells as well. And the error of this kind of experimental logic, is that the cell must respond to the inputs we specify in order to show “free will.”

What about the cell’s responses to factors that we do not control? To factors that it is responding to continually?

I reject the hypothesis that a cell is a molecular based system, a system of molecules, which is responding molecularly to external inputs. Our cell experiments may support the viewpoint that cells can be controlled. But they do not reflect the majority of what a cell is doing.

What I realized was that cells are in fact creating their own “responses” in myriad ways, molecularly and otherwise, and doing so continuously. They must do so, in order to exist. And of course this is true of cells in nature, in ponds or in seas. But also even in the petri dish. Consider this. While I am setting up to do an experiment with a DNA-drug complex, the cell is moving through its life cycle, it is adjusting to the CO2 concentration in the incubator, the albumin in the “media” the solution it is bathed in. It is pumping out toxins and preparing to divide. It must do all of these tasks simultaneously every fraction of a second.

If one can also imagine, a cell at a molecular level, which must at every moment maintain organization and order of the molecules within it, against the sapping tendencies and disorderly tendencies of molecules surroundings, the notion of the “free
will” problem completely fades in importance. What sort of problem does a cell really encounter and solve? The actions of the environment cannot both undermine the cell’s molecular order and at the same time, contribute to its effectiveness in holding it this disorder) back. In the chapter “Does Life Violate the Second Law” I propose yet another issue for a (system of molecules

called a cell.

I knew at the time I was writing this theory, that this was not a philosophical issue, but one based in chemical and physical

understanding of causality of what a cell is. A cell is immersed in its environment. It must react to its environment.

One of the key ideas is predictability. Does the molecular environment determine a cell’s behavior? I imagined a situation in the extreme case in which it is 100% predictable. Predictability means that “what you put in, you get out.” And implicit in it is causality. And force. As I imagined this causality in more of an absolute sense, I realized the problem. And the solution was, in effect rooted philosophically, in a problem I had solved previously. I imagined an environment in which the external inputs 100% determined all of the outputs. And such environments do exist. In fact they are everywhere.

We can’t fully understand what a cell is until we appreciate force. So the chemical reactivity is only a part of the picture of a cell, even at a molecular level. One can appreciate this distinction by working with self-assembly of molecules, which I had done for years with some of my ideas. And a cell is subject to forces, these are Brownian motion. What keeps the molecules from jiggling away into space?

Micro forces-What are their source?

Some cells are adherent others are not. What that means is that some types of cells isolated from our bodies, like to stick to the vessels that they are grown in (usually plastic). What is interesting is that most normal cells that become cancerous, that is, they become “transformed” will become adherent. Not all, but many do. But one of the other features of cancerous cells is that they lose count of the times they have divided, and will divide essentially forever. They are immortalized.

Cells produce and use all kinds of micro forces. These include pumping of molecules out of the cell, attachment to surfaces, growth, mobility, osmotic pressure, and cell division. Though there is currently a lot of study about the genes that are used to control, for example, cell adhesion forces, nothing is actually known about how these forces can be made by a cell. In reality the genes “control” nothing, meaning what is actually controlled is done by the experimenter. It is an illusion that it is understood why molecules “do” anything but collide and reach thermal equilibrium.

After understanding about his behavior of cells, we can ask how this relates again, to the question of predictability. And of causality. Where do micro forces originate? And similarly to the way we might think of chemical causality, we can look at force causality. And account for what’s going in and what’s coming

out? When we push a cell with a pipette it slides away or is dislodged in an illustration of basic physics.

Is the micro force we observe in the cell, the product of the environment, in a Newtonian sense that energy and force are conserved? For example, chemicals adhere to surfaces all the time, calcium deposits, carbonate deposits, etc are some examples of strong, crystalline deposits on surfaces. But so do proteins. Proteins can covalently bond to many kinds of surfaces. But in these cases, the molecules themselves bond and do not need to be alive. Bonding occurs when the molecule releases energy to its surroundings, in the form of heat. Was the cell micro force CAUSED by an external event? Or are there some cases in which the cell acts completely unpredictably? It is sounding like the cell may in fact have free will after all.

There has been a great deal of effort to understand how inanimate matter, and systems of molecules can in theory, self organize. But no theory can explain it. No theory can explain why a system of molecules will not reach maximum entropy. For one thing, “self organize” is a term that is not well defined, and what has been observed is not so much organization as chemistry. This is an intensely studied field. But most of the study into the “theory of life”, its molecular origins, is actually directed at understanding how pre-life may have formed.

We have sequenced the human genome and isolated some 30,000 genes. Though more genes is irrelevant to our question. It matters not if the cell has 100 working genes or 50,000. If the function of the genes is known or not. We can address all of these issues in a “black box” which is as we’ve described before a Virtual Closed System. The science currently is very ignorant of the existence of this basic problem. Which as we have said is fundamental to physics and of chemistry of life. And it is overly obsessed with the past. Due to the time held biases that biology is done in old buildings and long distance field trips to the “oldest regions of the planet.” Yet none of the research currently addresses how systems of molecules, in living systems, can be self controlled. And many of these questions were solidified when I began to think of Brownian motion that appeared to border living and non-living. Not only do molecules resist being held in place, they resist being chemically active, and take the fast chemical reaction possible. When you put molecules into a box and add external energy, this drives chemistry. It also drives disorder and motion. Heat. It does not lower entropy (Schrodinger 1944). Experimentally we know that this is always true, though there have been heroic efforts to

make inanimate systems come to life, dating from over 100 years ago.

The origin of life” is often claimed to be the most significant unyielding problem of biology. An unsolvable holy grail of a problem that occurred sometime in the distant past. I have taken the radical position that the problem “how did life begin?” is not exclusively a problem of the past, but a problem of today. I am at odds with the whole of theoretical biology, that believes one must run years and years of experiments to confirm a basic theory of biology.

We do not understand how molecules can sustain organization. And much of this is confusion about what is called the “Second Law” a highly misunderstood concept. But there are a number of other more basic problems, as shall be covered later in the book, and as shall be better understood when we approach this problem using force vector analysis.

We have a basic intuitive sense of what it means to be alive and what is not alive. Doctors can tell us what being alive is” say by an agreed upon standard of what life is. But what about a living cell? It is not so simple. Cells do not have a heartbeat. They do not “breath” with lungs. There is no acceptable definition of what life is and what it isn’t. And that is a central issue. Life is all around us and yet we have no acceptable definition of what life is in any physical sense. And when scientists currently talk about the chemical basis of life, the various important reactions that are occurring in it, they are depicting chemistry and the same behavior that would be identical to non-living systems. This ignores the issue that the behavior is so different. The claim that life is made of DNA, cells and other descriptors means nothing in terms of the physics or chemical definition. Of course, cells are just made of molecules, but neither small molecules, nor large ones, like DNA can be shown to be alive. What is the property that makes molecules, which are entirely independent, behave as though they are together, working in harmony? So this is a central question I’ve faced in this book but also one that I’ve thought about for decades.

That is a general question that encompasses several sections of this book. Each section is important to a definition of what life is or isn’t. It also turns out that life is inexorably linked to physics in a way no one would expect it to be. It is connected to geometry of space and time.

Again we dispense with the useless mythology that “life began...” at some point and focus instead on a new question. How does life..continue? As every molecule at every second wants to react with its nearest neighbor. Every molecule wants to move away from the other, and achieve maximum distance from the other, at equilibrium. So why does this not occur in a living thing?

Do Molecules Communicate?

Ask how current life comes to exist, and it is assumed by science that life simply comes from other life. That would be the textbook answer, even at an advanced graduate level, if the question is raised at all. For current evolutionary biology, this is not even an issue. It is an over simplistic assumption. Biology presents numerous examples, which are exceptions to even this narrow view, and they are obvious, that this is not sufficient an explanation for the phenomenon of life. For example, reproduction, the central causal unit of evolution, is not definable, nor is it truly present in living things. Advanced species elsewhere in the universe, have recognized that such primitive labels are of little use to understanding what life is.

For an answer to this question, we instead turn toward physics and chemistry. The principal of Magnification is useful here to investigate the phenomenon. We can imagine magnifying an organism, first at the organ level, then to the cell, then still further to organelles, and beyond.. In this view we are confronted with a problem that is objective and physics based. It is not an issue of strictly mechanics, though it does have that aspect. But what is more fundamentally at issue is again, the balance of energy and the loss or gain of heat from a region of space, again the VCS. And whereas Magnification can be used to predict behavior of many natural phenomenon, ocean waves, bending of light beams, and chemistry, when it is applied to the phenomenon of life it raises unexpected questions. When we magnify regions we should expect consistency in every region, meaning that one region should influence and behave according to another. This is not found in living systems when Magnification is applied and examined between circular VCS regions, there is non-agreement between them. A cell” appears to be very different than molecules under...the influence of X...non-equilibrium, external forces, etc. Magnification in conjunction with a VCS is very useful as illustrated below.

The diagram below depicts a group of different molecules we’ve found in a blue box. The box is microscopic and the “molecules” are enlarged disproportionately for the purposes of the diagram. If we imagine that the dotted line is the molecular boundary outside of a cell body, what makes the molecules inside that dotted line behave as though they are one system? We could imagine that outside the cell, we have fragments of DNA, cellular proteins etc. What makes the molecules inside so different in behavior? And we know they are different because they behave as though they comprise an intact macroscopic shape, not individual elements. For one thing, the molecules should simply diffuse out of the dotted line. For another, they should react with their nearest partner and go to a stable arrangement, their lowest energy state at equilibrium. Yet, neither of these occur.

As Schrodinger stated the nascent observation eloquently

in his 1944 “What is Life?” "When a system that is not alive is isolated or placed in a uniform environment, all motion usually comes to a standstill very soon as a result of various kinds of friction; differences of electric or chemical potential are equalized, substances which tend to form a chemical compound do so, temperature becomes uniform by heat conduction. After that the whole system fades away into a dead, inert lump of matter. A permanent state is reached, in which no observable events occur. The physicist calls this the state of thermodynamical equilibrium, or of ‘maximum entropy]”

How do molecules inside the dotted line “know” they are in a cell and are to operate against entropy? These kinds of questions challenge our basic knowledge of what life is.

There is considerable research into the ancient molecular origins of life. This area of study is not only relevant to life’s origins on earth, but on other planets or moons in our own solar system. There are many theories that have attempted to explain how molecules in the ancient sea, for example, a rich broth of amino acids and nucleic acids, might have spontaneously organized to form more complex molecules. It is assumed in some leading theories, that energy might have been supplied by deep underwater geysers, to drive the chemistry. We can imagine that the primitive collection of molecules above, in our “box” represents a snap shot of just such a collection of molecules, perhaps before they formed into a more complex cell. There would be no defined boundaries between molecules “inside” or “outside”. What would be required for it to continue to operate? And what chemical forces, if any, would drive such a formation? Science has assumed that there is already evidence (earth’s engines et. al.) to support the “trial and error” model of self organization, when in fact, there is no evidence to support such chemical behavior.

We will return to this model again.

For now I believe it is important to discuss basic chemical forces. For some this might be review. But for others, it will be completely new, but in actuality when we are talking about forces, molecules are very much like billiard balls colliding against one another.

When a mixture of molecules is heated, the molecules will begin to move in a haphazard, random fashion. Molecules can absorb energy from collisions with other molecules. They can also give energy. But another way that molecules interact is by combining to form more stable molecules. If a system of molecules have a potential to interact, say a H2O and a CO2, they will begin to combine until they reach a stable state. That is, their products, no longer react but reach an equilibrium. This is not a theory only of chemistry, it is law of matter and energy. It applies generally to particles. Whether there are chemical transformations or not, it applies to non chemically interacting objects. Rocks on a hillside will stop moving once the normal forces of opposition equal the applied force of the weight of the rocks. The energy contained in a system of molecules is their potential to react and to cause chemical change. The energy in any system of molecules, is analogous to the energy contained in rocks sliding down a hill. I can look up at a field of boulders and imagine they are molecules which have now come to rest because their interactions have stuck them in place and overcome their tendency to move. We can imagine molecules looking like blurry images we see in scanning images, they will interact in any direction so that is a “surface”

A body at rest will remain at rest until it experiences a greater force. This is Newton’s first law of motion. But is critical to understand when we begin to talk about causality and force. It is not just a principal underlying physics but forms the current reality of causality. And what hasn’t been obvious is that this type of rule, among others, sets up a directionality of causality, of where a “first action” would come from. It sets up symmetry.

The exciting aspect of this book is to explain a new theory that goes beyond what is believed possible. Although there are many theories of molecular based life, these theories attempt to account for the origin of life by accidental events, event of chance, which they argue, somehow led to a more stable, living structure. These theories are even by their own author’s accounts, very difficult if not impossible to show evidence of support, even at a theoretical level. And the reason for this is largely because they are attempting to make molecular theory, and particle theory, achieve what it will not physically do. For one thing, molecules do not generate” forces. They transfer and mediate force while in communication with their surroundings.

Preface For The Crisis Equation

What I realize is that my original article “The Crisis Equation” spent a good deal of time evaluating current basic beliefs in biology and causality, as well as the new theory I proposed. The aspects of my New Theory are what I want to discuss. So I will keep to the theory aspects and not give review parts here as they are unnecessary and “we’ve moved on from those”.

There is no reason to keep the discussions about gene based theories. And by “gene based theories” we are sharply differentiating genetics, the study of gene expression, from evolutionary biology. It should suffice to say that gene- based

theories (based on either gene or “molecular selection” are not operational theories of life, they neglect the origin of micro forces entirely which include such forces as cell adhesion, transport, and others, as well as issues of causality, and cannot be taken seriously as physical science about life. If one is really interested they can find these sources and read more about them, but I would not recommend wasting time on them. Do they reduce to a single experiment shown by chemistry? No. Do they claim to be chemically based? Absolutely. A gene is a molecule, and bodies are made of molecules. There you have it. No other words should be necessary. I will not continue to give them any credibility by discussing them, as this book is based on real science and evidence not “opinion”. That is not a standard that is acceptable for me in this work. Their proponents continue to make the claim that a gene” which is a molecule, can CAUSE an effect on an organism, which is in fact, a collection of molecules. Simply put, this is a claim that a molecule will effect a system of molecules in an organism, and must be a chemical theory. If we imagine exploring into an organism at the molecular level, we quickly realize that molecules do not “know” what to do. The gene based model is neither chemically supported (as you can read about in my articles on so called “chemical selection”, nor is it an acceptable metaphor based on known physics or chemistry. At the very least, it is highly misleading to science.

We will also eliminate the sections on what is largely deterministic arguments I’ve made elsewhere. I see no gain in arguing about what other books or sources claim about free will or choice. Again, these citations fail to meet basic rules of evidence and proof of their own claims, and their authors generally avoid situations in which they will be “tied down” to any format that would require them to provide data or even definition of key terms e.g. “chemical selection” or “statistical selection”. So those too, are eliminated.

I also took out the original Crisis Equation example itself, and you will find an updated example of the equation that is much easier to comprehend. In hindsight, I was accurate in envisioning that we would either obtain a “0” or a “1” from the result of a vectoral causal analysis of the systems. Which can be thought of as a “negative” or “positive” result of the experiment. But I think these are cumbersome to understand, largely because I was spending a great deal of effort “disproving” the science that I was immersed in previously, and the Crisis Equation and VCS has emerged from and left behind. Instead, I have new cell experiments to more easily explain what it is the Crisis Equation shows us. And it is beautiful if not elegant. I will therefore use similar experimental

technique that uses real instrumentation models of light and absorbance to prove that the equation of causality is real.

What is left are the best aspects of the original Crisis Equation I published as a draft version on my blog site.

I want to return to the problem we initially began with. One of the basic conclusions of this book is that life will never be defined by a molecular theory. This is, no doubt, a surprising claim. As there is an almost supreme confidence in genetic research that life is in fact, defined by molecular theory. And it is believed that although we don’t have everything worked out, genes, are believed to control everything in the body, including our thoughts our predispositions, even our personalities. The consequence of that belief is that, we are simply a bag of chemicals which can be influenced by the laws of physics. It has produced the view that everything is chemical, and further, that the particle model” which is simply that things can be described by molecules or atoms, is correct in accounting for the behavior of living systems. Though we may not understand how that occurs, the advocates of this kind of research are firmly confident that their chemical model for living things is sound. They could not be more mistaken in that belief.

As I’ve said at the beginning, the gigantic “elephant” they do not want to address (in today’s sciences) is the fact that they are using “dead atoms” and “dead molecules” to explain a living thing. There is no such thing as a living chemical model. In other words, an animate chemical model of chemistry. And that is only part of the problem, but the inability of atoms and molecules to assist in becoming “living” has created a psycho-conceptual problem, and what happened? This is where ‘chemical selection’ has stepped in, yet another gap filler, masquerading as “living chemistry” which has no evidence to support it. There is only one known science of chemistry. Since I’ve rejected that hypothesis, I suppose then, that this means that this book will launch a new field of chemistry, based on the unbelievable theories it proposes. They are unbelievable now, as many radical new theories are.

So this is where we find ourselves in history. The particle based gene theories reign supreme, at least for now. But one of the faulty by-products of the failed particle model is that they have tried to fit living with non-living, in their attempt to theorize how these are related physically. This has produced innumerable misguided ideas, some chemical, and some based in science of basic physics.

Look at how absurd the “correct narrative” has become in showing us what is important in science! It is all about they claim,

finding the new particle, or the new dimension in space, or “unity of physical laws”, or quantum wormholes, or chemical selection. And if you do not talk their language they shun your work. It is a mistake to believe that although an accurate sense of reality should be the aim of an intelligent species, that these aims once recognized, will spread by themselves. Such changes are only made by individuals and by conscious will.

I have worked on my theory for my entire existence. But back then I worked on such early manifestations that they did not yet resonate, they were far too embryonic. But each step that I took was towards this and other theories I will write.

I knew this theory was incorrect, intuitively. I knew that a particle based theory would never suffice, and has theoretical problems. The problem was I did not know how to prove it, until recently. It was not until very recently, that I realized that my thousands of experiments I had conducted in the laboratory with cells, were confirmation of my theory. But I had to view and interpret the results in a completely different way. To reverse much of the “teaching” of causality I had experienced. So this theory is only beginning to take form and it proposes something so radical that you will have to read the book and consider the ideas many times before it is realized. It does start with the problems of current science, the gene and particle approach to basically all of chemical and physics and so we have to talk about these notions first. Then we move on to Virtual Closed Systems “VCS” and a chapter I dedicate to dispelling Earth Engines, before moving to what are the newest theories of the book.

The Crisis Equation

The laws of known chemistry and mechanics, if not thermodynamics, abruptly stop at the boundary of atoms which compose an organism. The collection of atoms that form the organism do not “know” how to reduce the entropy of their surroundings. Nor do they understand that they are to oppose the laws of diffusion or to do work on surrounding

molecules. In basic physics we are taught how Newton’s law of F=Ma, can be used to predict motion of various objects. If one body has a velocity and mass, V and M, and collides with another body, the second body will move in a specific direction and with a specific known speed. Organisms have mass and move with very defined speed and direction. And yet even the basic laws of motion do not predict the motion, of an organism of mass M.

Science has built upon the atom model. It has bet heavily and doubled down again and again on this theory. Theories first championed mostly by Schrodinger, led them to believe that a statistics model of determinism, if not thermodynamics (balance of energy) would accurately explain motion of organisms. The failure of the science which followed was to not appreciate that the more significant problem exists in the reverse. It is not a complex problem, but one that is extremely simple. We can ask, “how does a group of life’s most important atoms” or molecules in an organism, prevent their own diffusion and reduce entropy? Thus I realized it is not so important to explain how life began, but how it continues, why the phenomenon doesn’t cease, or proceed, exactly in the reverse.

The most basic model that exists, is that of a kind of solar power model, in which energy from sunlight or food (derived from sunlight), drives an organism, much like a robot might be powered by a battery or solar power. To assume this is even possible, is to severely misunderstand this book entirely. Contrary to the ordinary genetics textbooks you will find on the shelf at University, the organism=robot model, is a highly misinformed, and inaccurate physical and chemical model of the problem I have dedicated this book to understanding. No doubt such misinformation will continue, but this book has only just been published.

Aside from ordinary, physical motion of an organism there are other behaviors such as decision making. And to me, decision making is a motion (think vectoral direction) that is more reducible than others and yet more impactful if not quantifiable. It is also fundamental to who we are, relative to the universe around us. Decision making (in the yes or no kind of way, is a gateway, to intelligent behavior. So like mechanics, I ask if decision making can somehow have a physical connection outside of ourselves and can it truly be caused by external laws. How or what, makes an organism move in one direction or another? How or what, makes an organism choose one mate over another (over many others)!

If we are tasked with explaining how a footprint ended up on a beach, a chain of causality might lead us to conclude that the imprint had been made by a sea bird. And then if we asked what caused the sea bird to be there, we could say it was caused to come to the beach to hunt for

food, or it came to find a mate, or it came because of migrational instinct. And then if we examine it further, asking, what caused that instinct to come to the beach or to find a mate? What made its desire for a particular food? The answer we are told by science, is that it is a gene, which predisposed the bird for fish rather than grain. Or a gene was responsible for a mate attractant. But when we place a gene somewhere in the beginning of that causal chain, is such a cause real? Was it a gene that turned on in the bird and influenced its brain at that moment? Is that what a gene really does, it acts like a tiny control system, a component of the brain?

Such a story to explain a footprint in the sand is based on reasoning, and is heavily biased with subjective explanations, it is light on experimental facts that can be tested. We will not be able to show that a gene for “attractant” was any less important than a gene for feathers or of muscle protein after all, weren’t these critical for the health of the bird, which could not have made the track if it was near death. We still have not explained where the genes came from. These were passed from other birds, which were then passed on from what? Another species, and in fact, other organisms, as the genome of the bird is actually genes which are related to many other organisms. So this chain of causality is stretched back literally to the origin of life. And the gene explanation has no limit in time. If we ask “what in nature could have made this imprint in the sand? Can the cause of the footprint really be so ambiguous? And subject to endless discussion? Is the cause of the imprint really non-determinable? We are trying to explain how the footprint was made, and such an imprint required energy. The answer to the very question, I realized, was energy. And this was an exciting finding. The answer to these questions is closely connected to the directionality in which heat flows.

The causal chain is a critical aspect of my theory, and it is intricately linked to that of Virtual Closed Systems. When we ask the simple question “where did the energy come from, that caused the imprint?” Science will tell us that it was the sun that supplied this energy, ultimately in the form of food, which was consumed by the organism and used to do work on the beach that day. Again, this kind of causality is not testable chemically, or physically. It contradicts a theory which is very basic in science. Particle theory, the basis of chemistry, and the atoms that compose a living thing like that sea bird.

We are discussing causal chains, because in fact, in this book, a causal chain should be linked by actual causality, physical or chemical. As in “this object struck another rock and made it move.” Sea waves can be explained in this way, as can the wind. The basis of chemistry is in molecules, tiny colliding spheres. Why should the explanation of an imprint be different? We will discuss how such chains are built.

Aside from the fact that science imposes human sourced reasoning and bias as to the bird’s purpose and design, it presents arguments that should raise concern. Can we imagine a gene turning on and causing the bird to fly to the beach? A gene or collection of genes may have predisposed the sea bird to be what it is, and we may suppose that it could be nothing else. But the imprint is a physical thing, unlike the prior explanation that we have supplied, with a gene positioned somewhere very early in a causal chain of events.

We are not searching for a superficial, “conditional” explanation. But what I found is that if in fact we are to believe that some “selection” force or genes are ultimately the cause, then we are neglecting where the cause itself, of the track or anything else, actually originated. And the exciting aspect is that where” a cause originates is also important to a causal chain. Somewhere in that chain, the cause of the imprint originated. Can the cause of the imprint originate in the sea bird? According to science, the cause is not attributable to the bird, as the bird is seen as a kind of robot.

This is a crisis in science. It is not limited to biology, but is I believe, more fundamental. To causality and the model of causality. But I’ve chosen initially, to look at cause and effect of organisms. But this crisis, once realized, leads us in many unexpected new directions. We have to understand why and how the current particle model fails, which I’ve dedicated not only a good deal of this book to prove, but also outlined the specific tests that are (examples) of where it succeeds.

The discovery of a new gene is unlikely to ever elucidate how organisms can cause effects on the system around them. The conclusion by science that “choice” or agency is not real in organisms has created a crisis in reason. Though it is softened somewhat in popularized accounts, these conclusions stem directly from the body of research that is showing increasingly, direct causality between genes and behaviors of organisms. And further by other research into the basic fundamental drivers that make life (see refs on stability). In such models, “choice” is illusory. But ultimately, so are system like behavior, as it appears that all organism behavior has an explanation based in particle models such as genes. However, I show with a crisis equation, that this position is contradicted mathematically in several test models. The particle model has appeared logical because it has not been tested in this way, using geometry of causal systems or (“causal geometry). I expect that this result supports the notion of a new form of causality. The question of “Is choice physically real?” is a new question, that moves away from the long held belief that this is non-empirical and subjectively based field. This new problem has implications for the alternative, and I believe correct interpretation of causality in these

systems and toward understanding the physical distinctions that allow us to differentiate what makes life, life.

How does one prove scientifically, that “choice” exists in a system? More specifically, how does one prove a choice was made?

Fig. 1. A uniform system of particles in motion. Does the direction of a particle moving against the normal direction of the others, indicate a choice? Though I initially asked this in the elementary sense (can this action exist or not?) we could imagine that the motion of the arrow is a consequence of a choice somewhere in a larger system (encompassing the box). Regardless, the question simply moves now to the system of atoms that were antecedent to the motion. Then we rephrase, “how did these atoms over there, produce this motion over here?” For simplicity the box can refer to either, a place choice originated in the universe or a direct consequence.

Presumably the theoretical notion of a choice existing as a mere set of options has no physical basis in reality. It can be, theoretical, but is not a physical thing, itself. However, I believe the act of making a choice implies something very different than a theoretical concept, or the result of random actions.

One might think the problem of proving the physical reality of ‘choice’ is possibly an obscure philosophical problem. It is far from that!

I wrote the following note on October 4, 2016 as I reflected on “the physical reality of ‘Choice.” And why I chose “choice” as the focus of this initial paper. I believe the problem is a good reference point in which to discuss the system that we inhabit, i.e. the universe from a perspective that is psychologically meaningful to us and at the same time can be objective in a physical sense. The question of what is Choice will crystalize and become more clear later, so bear with us.

We are familiar with the concept of energy being balanced, if energy is lost in one place it is gained in another, so there is this sense of continuity between what we do, and the changes we make and how those changes radiate outwardly into the environment. But we can also consider, like that energy, a balance of causality, and of Choice. I explored “choice” abstractly here, from the perspective that it is sometimes discussed biologically, in a “this drug effected a subject’s choice to do...X” to what a choice might be abstractly. There is also a great deal of argument that “choice” is non-existent, but I wanted to steer clear of the context in which we are aware of internal choices, such as our own decisions, and instead define it externally, and independently from our judgment, that is, look at a system and ask “can I see ‘Choice’” in that system? What is remarkable is that with such a question, we can now observe ANY system, be it a human one, a cell, or a natural environment and compare each to see if any physical differences might be apparent to us. What I didn’t expect perhaps, was that this definition if possible to defend, would be a basic means of defining a very undefinable concept.

The concept of what ‘choice’ is, is I believe a very important question for science. This question has increasing implications in biology, but no one would expect that this issue has direct implications to basic physics. And the question of how life arose is one of the most basic questions confronting physics and chemistry.

Here is another example I believe that will help to put the problem of what is life?, into context. Keep in mind the diagram we just made, with the arrow pointing sideways, while the others go askew to it.

A team of researchers from the UK recently announced in the press that life didn’t arise from a “Primordial soup” the leading theory. They believe that porous rocks may have catalyzed life at the bottom of the sea, the pores acting like “tiny cells” to

concentrate vital life ingredients. Would such “catalyzed life” move differently than the other molecules?

In this book, we are going to completely alter the context of what the origin of life question conventionally asks. The remarkable realization is that it is not necessary, at least for this book, to understand precisely what those conditions where. As I believe that it is actually a question for present day, right here and right now. It is just that the vectors, those arrows of deliberation, have become more numerous over time. The reality is that we have in our bodies, now, the ability to catalyze life from inanimate forms. Which is to change the direction, a force vector, from its normal course. And I believe it is a reality that we carry in our bodies remnants not only of ancient atoms, but of the ancient past.

If there is a property of life that is possibly the most consistent and elementary, it is that living things actively cause alterations to their normal environment. It is the nature of life to do so. In basic life this might be primarily in the surrounding molecules. It seems that even at the most basic level of free living organisms, though it is unconscious and automatic, for a living thing to exist, it is decisive in its actions. And these might be at the cellular level. I have been fascinated by this level of view, in which we are now considering how life perturbs the normal course of action of matter around it. These actions of life, have consequence in their environment. But it seems that in order to be alive, they must do so, there must be consequence. No one is aware of cell or DNA replication in their bodies, and yet these are continuous processes, and very deliberate when contrasted with the normal” and expected motions of the molecules. They also have consequence. Such replications keep us alive and are the source of power. We could just as easily draw the box with the arrows within the body, and then ask why all these vector forces moving cross path to the normal Brownian motion that is expected of DNA protein and other molecules? This would be a painting of “deliberateness” literally at the most elemental molecular level possible. And such elemental deliberateness then is additive, as vectorial forces are..becoming more complex intentions and actions.

When we look at consequence we are now getting at definition of decisions that are not conscious nor do they need to be. They are as deliberate as deliberate gets, and elemental in terms of what may comprise a basic decision. Likewise such a definition would also comprise non-deliberateness, the motion of inanimate atoms. In any action conducted by life, for there to be any deliberate action at all, there must be many options available that were possible. We can think of the motions of the arrows, all having many different possible directions. But in the box we see a direction that was unique from the rest.

A choice by a basic cell to “live” might then be a behavior that was rare among options. “Options” perhaps that existed at some ancient time. However one can likely see that there is a relativeness of our definition. Such decisiveness would only be limited to cases where there are many options and we can show that one was taken, maybe reproducibly and predictively. But such a definition would only be subjective, it appears to be life to us, the observer, but is just a very unusual motion of the directions of atoms. Which is likely why there is much confusion about what is life. Any behavior of matter, including self assembly of particles, the grouping of molecules together, crystal formation by atoms, nanoparticles that I have made in my laboratory, could be said to be elemental decisiveness. But we are missing an important factor, another critical point of reference. Impetus. The random, decisiveness of ordinary matter, i.e. its “self ordering” into organized particles or salt crystals, or any other, lacks this quality.

Returning to our initial case. If we imagine the primordial atoms, in a geyser or at the bottom of the sea, how would their behavior in one region of the geyser, produce a non-random organization nearby. In other words our box with arrows (Fig 1) could be such a nearby system (and we could call it a VCS if we like) and so we’re considering if it is possible. Perhaps yes, that change in direction is self ordering of the atom away from the others. But herein lies the trick. And it is one of symmetry and the problem of how causality is viewed. However, when we attempt to make this connection, (not experimentally but rationally) we no longer have a theoretical box, there is no boundary, (it is not distinct by causality) and the motion must be a predictable consequence of not only primordial atoms in one region but all the universe to some degree. We have another problem. Can a region, space itself cause something to occur? And that was the concept of the Remote Radio Station problem, but also the concept of Campfire Music and the MOAB fossil. These illustrate the discernment of something from background, or lack thereof, of a positive Signal, a “1” from nothing “0”. The Signal cannot be the product of the universe, it cannot be the resultant of external physics and be detectable to us as Signal. Intelligent species elsewhere in the universe most assuredly, already understand this basic symmetry of causality.

Propose as they like, but it is not possible for causality to ever be produced in this way. It is not possible for the researchers to detect any signal from a single causal system. They will only detect noise. They will only hear static, no music that is the sign of intelligent decision making.

Stranger than Quantum Physics

The predominant view of science is that given enough time, the rocks themselves, will act against their surroundings to make molecular

products that are more favorable to life. Let’s return to the MOAB desert and the campfire antics and imagine that while I am drumming in the night with the sticks, I am slowly becoming an actual part of my environment (not just fading into the darkness) but physically becoming one with the universe around me, such that the sound I am making is ultimately the product of the universe’s causality. Would my campfire friends still hear my music if I was the product of the physics of my environment? What I realized is that this is impossible. It is a strange phenomenon, much stranger than quantum physics (and harder to explain) but I realized is mathematically true. Some aspect must NOT be the product of the external physics around me, for me to cause a Signal and ultimately, to be heard.

We return to the cell example. A primordial life form is like that drummer in the night, in the darkness of the deep. A darkness which might be thought of as more than an abyss lacking light, but also one of lacking freely available energy. It makes decisions on its environment, and causes change. But so too are living extant organisms, which have the same barriers, and as we will discuss in “How Does Life Violate The Second Law” there is a particular shortage of this critical kind of energy. Keep in mind our discussion of the microforces that all living things generate as part of their existence. Let’s review a similar question we asked before. Is the microforce we observe in the cell, the product of the environment, in a Newtonian sense that energy and force are conserved? Would such a hypothesis be plausible, in theory? Let’s imagine that we can go to the deep sea vent and repeat the experiment. It appears that Science is claiming that the vent region will “act” against the molecules in question to convert them to other products, by “supplying” energy, which the researchers call a “geothermal gradient.” This kind of hypothesis can be tested by “the method of ropes.” (Which I introduce later on in the book.) When we take lengths of rope and cordon off the vent and measure signal from this region, then take another region, somewhere in the solution, and take signal from this region, all other factors being equal, the ratio of those two signals will be very close to unity. You may ask, what kind of signal are we seeking to obtain? The answer is that it is irrelevant what physical signal we measure, (there are all kinds, (force, light, or chemical change) as we are measuring differences in force, which ultimately is energy differences of any kind. Any instrument will do, to confirm these results, even a gravitometer (which is essentially a Cavendish instrument with simple lever arms and a few mirrors).

In other words, if we once again consider the deliberateness of molecules, we will not expect to see “action” taken by what are essentially porous rocks at the bottom of the sea, against their

surroundings. We will not expect to measure a force vector moving differently than its surroundings. The relative decisiveness we have defined, can be measured” anywhere, as it is completely arbitrary without an I Vector. The researchers are mistaken in claiming that there is energy supplied or “produced” by the rocks relative to the surroundings, even though they are in fact at a much higher temperature than the surrounding water. Again “produced” implies action or some force being applied. In reality, the researchers like many other papers, are assuming that a potential between two regions of space, two volumes, will translate into a force capable of doing work. It is not even necessary to do the actual data collection, because we realize there is a basic problem. Where do we draw our volumes or regions to compare? I would like to walk with these researchers and have them show us, preferably on video tape, so that we can all participate in their data acquisition. What I predict, is that they will not be able to explain which parts of the rock we should use and which we should not use for the data. That is because (as I have discussed elsewhere), there are no divisions in the natural environment (in the sea, the rocks or in the atmosphere), and the molecules near the vent, “in the soup” are just as relevant to discussion of causality, as the molecules in the rock, in the vent tubes, or in the open sea. Thus, we should expect the data would show us that there was no difference in causality, in causal Signal, between the porous rocks and the cold briny water. As will become evident to the reader, a causal Signal is that which we can detect coming normally from instruments or machines which inject such signals, light or other energy into their surroundings so that we may then detect this signal and use it for analysis. Except, in this case we are looking for a unique Signal, an Initial Signal. A Signal not coming from our instruments but remaining after these effects and cause are subtracted in the experiment.

I arrived at this conclusion to a large degree, by what I call “vectorial analysis”, drawing tiny arrows which indicated where forces are being sourced from. If I’m incorrect in my theory, then we should be able to show a “signal” emanating from the rock. What is the Signal? The causal Signal is that remaining after causal Noise of all other interactions is subtracted, which I have detailed in the example of the cell in the Crisis Equation, but it can be done with any case, an underwater reef, the side of a hill, a micro-well full of living cells, any matrix can be evaluated for Signal. To my surprise this new theory is applicable universally to time and space. We can even utilize it to see if “Earth’s Engines”, apply to the oceans or atmospheres. It turns out that any volume can be a region in which we examine its relative causality, to an adjacent space, which I discuss in Virtual Closed Systems. This is discussed more technically in my online essay “Why The Earth Engine Hypothesis is Wrong.”

Now I want to point out that these researchers make a very critical assumption. They assume that life is originating from chemistry, i.e. via chemical phenomenon that we may not understand, but chemistry nonetheless. When we step back and consider that claim it is important. What they are assuming is that at some past point, no life existed in a chemical system but at some later time point, life originated. So I realized that what they actually assume is that animate can arise from inanimate. I believe this assumption is unfounded, even in theory. However, there has been no physical proof that such an assumption is invalid, until this paper. In the same way we can discuss the concept of free will, and choice in day to day discussions, we can now discuss the abstract idea of force and also action. In many ways the philosophers who are skeptical of the notion are correct, as the current physical framework, our geometry does not support the notion of Choice. It is unavoidable to discuss Choice in parallel to its physical underpinnings. And I have taken the position that nothing is sacred, and to say “Why not question our understanding of basic causal geometry and physical causality?” It is truly a radical and yet simple notion because since Choice is real and exists, my position from the beginning, despite the thousands of arguments to the contrary...so given that fact, then we must ask “where did it come from?”

____________________

Returning to our initial diagram (Fig.1), how does one prove that a ‘choice’ was made in a system?

1) At a very basic physical level we can state that making a ‘choice’ is an action. If no choice was made, the system was not affected. But if a choice was made, the system was effected. (And by ‘effected’ we mean the sense of ‘to be caused to change’ in some way, as a force will do on a system.) It does not matter for this argument, what the things are in that system, nor does it matter what the force is that is effecting their change. So we’ve taken the previously ambiguous notion of ‘choice’ which has had many different definitions depending on one’s viewpoint, and defined it as an action.

2) Making a choice must do work on the system. In other words if the action only causes the system to follow its natural course, it cannot be an external action. (Additionally, we can state that there must be two systems in order for there to be a theoretical cause that is verifiable between them). This is the nature of how the argument or experiment is designed. A rock sliding down a hill does not cause itself to roll. It is the play of forces on it, i.e. the downward force of gravity on the rock,

suddenly overcoming the resistive force against it. But, if we find that the rock did not move by a passive loss of friction, (or the spontaneous movement of water, wind, or other rocks) then we might say another system acted upon it (the hoof of a mountain goat?)

Organisms act on natural systems all the time. This is in fact, a constant perpetual activity. Organisms divert the flow of streams from their natural flow, change the shapes of islands, effecting sand deposition and wave action, or they can even effect the global atmosphere (by photosynthesis), converting CO2 to oxygen.

If organisms are making choices, this logically means then that they are acting on that decision, whatever it may be. It cannot be a choice they make and at the same time a dictate of some random phenomenon.

But how are we to prove that action is a choice? It has to be a non- random action on the system, just as we defined it. So by definition, it also cannot be a hypothetical action, it must be physical. And we must be able to detect it amongst other actions in the system. To do this it must be provable scientifically. For example, would we really have confidence that a rat “made a choice” to go to the proverbial cheese, if it happened only 1 in 10 times? But we would have little confidence if the rat made a choice to go for the reward, knowing that it was stimulated from the outside to do so. In other words for “choice” to be evaluated, the systems must be independent of interference, and the rat is (and must be) acting independently.

Experimental example: Molecular theory of Cell and Micro Force Theory

Whereas it is common to state that a free living cell takes in food through a membrane and uses this energy to drive its motion, it is another to explain that with a molecular model. In such a model, one cannot simply say that “food” is “used” to drive a “cilia”. Or for example, that “cells use specific structures to burn glucose and make ATP.” Not when we have to understand what causes or even allows, molecules to make such structures. Such terminology is heavy with teleology. It is infused with purpose that is often assumed in biology, but does not exist in chemistry or physics. A weight does not balance on a table because it “wants” to sit where it is. We must explain such behavior in terms of force vectors.

And it is not because the molecular model is lacking some

explanatory power. There are limits on what one can do with particles. And indeed, I believe that in the problem “what is life?”, and how to describe in chemically, we have reached such a limit that one can go with particles.

The external actions of particles on any natural system are

considered to be background or noise (rule 1). This includes vibration of the atoms in the form of heat or particles of energy, or light. And we are associating Signal with causality, again by rule #2, that a net force is imposed on the surroundings by the particles, such that it causes change and does work.

(Axiom 2) It is therefore impossible to obtain a Signal from a group of atoms that is reproducible.

And by external actions of particles, we mean their simple behavior, their vibrations or energy transfers. To understand this concept we will have to explore force vectors, which we will do in a moment.

Though molecular based explanations abound in texts on the cell, at university and literature, the current science ignores micro forces of cells. In fact science is completely unaware of just how important that quality is of cells and of more complex life, because life gets larger vector forces from smaller ones at cellular levels. It assumes chemistry can account for it. But no chemistry ever has before. Science (at least science of life) has instead relied increasingly on what can be called chemical “accidentalism”. It has been inspired by notions such as “statistical equilibrium”. And they have based such theory on elaborate calculations and equations but at its core are terms like “selection”. Some of which I challenge in my blog (www.crisisequation.blogspot.com) directly. One such paper concludes that transport "wasn't needed for early molecule (life) development.”

There are many forces we can identify in living things. For example cell adhesion is an active process that occurs while cells are alive. Think of it as tiny grappling hooks on a surface. Non adhesion is a sign of cell death. Others are active pumping of molecules in the membranes, mobility, or alignment internally of DNA. Active transport (by internal vesicles) or osmotic pressure? So where did such forces originally come from? How do a random system of molecules generate a net force? Or motion?

According to physics and the conservation of energy, the outputs observed must be proportional to the inputs. This is also in accordance to our Crisis Equation of causality. And this is precisely what modern investigations into the question make assumptions, (based on forces available, the Four Forces) it is why they have attempted to explain life in terms of elaborate statistical methods.

The micro forces are generated in cells, and it is not enough to say “this is the structure responsible, or “This is the chemical pathway

that supplies energy.” Those are only superficial observations of a deeper causality. And structures, or cycles or even pathways, wherever they may be in the cell, are in fact systems of micro forces (another example of them) generated from random collections of molecules. What is missing is an accounting of the balance of force. Yet, this is particularly difficult as It is impossible for a system of molecules to create a force. And we will have to elaborate more on how we causally differentiate creating force as compared to passively transmitting it. As molecules routinely do by collisions. This is related to an axiom which I discuss in detail in another paper I wrote entitled “I Propose A Challenge To Maximal Flow Theories with..Indifferent Time’” And is a close genetic relative to another chapter in this book, on the “failure of earth engines” which is the null hypothesis. I have just stated the reason for this in this paragraph. But I’ll repeat it because it is I believe, important.

“It is therefore impossible to obtain a Signal from a group of atoms that is reproducible.” axiom#2

Axiom 3-Atoms and molecules, by definition, are

independent entities.

Many might be surprised to find that the crashing surf or a raging stream does not “create signal”. Does it not make noise? So we will have to explain precisely what is meant here.

Solids, liquids, and the air we breathe are composed of individual motions and behaviors of molecules and atoms. A wave crashing to the shore, or a gust of wind are the collective microcollisions of air molecules as they carry energy. It is the molecules which give water its properties, its density, and viscosity. It is perhaps this quality that makes the ocean so placid. The energy of a wave can be thought to be literally that of a small amount of energy carried to earth from a star. Though we may observe spontaneous events, these are attributed to energy that was already present in the molecules or atoms, and lost, or the other way around. This is a basic axiom underlying chemical science. But it is also a law that we rely on experimentally in molecular theory

of matter. It also in theory, applies to objects of any size, from cells to stars.

The Newtonian Cause-Effect mechanics will not yield an understanding of life.

The radical notion of this book has led me to confront the indoctrinated, Newtonian mechanical view of chemistry, which now underlies the theory that free moving molecules can under some circumstances, cause their own chemistry by some sort of “transport” or other “mechanism”. Virtually all of the references invoke the belief in cause and effect processes self-generating life. There is a basic misunderstanding of causality, in experiments which simulate molecular transport, by gradients, as neither is an autologous process found in nature. Here is an example of the problem:

“We simulate molecular transport in elongated hydrothermal pore systems influenced by a thermal gradient. We find extreme accumulation of molecules in a wide variety of plugged pores. The mechanism is able to provide highly concentrated single nucleotides, suitable for operations of an RNA world at the origin of life. ... ... An RNA-making reactor for the origin of life. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]

The observer will “find” such concentrations because they are in fact, influencing the outcome of their own experiment. Nature is not “finding” such concentrations, nor any forces being applied by such “concentrations.” There is now in science, a complete misunderstanding of vectorial physics in scientific observation. It was the failure of such Newtonian causal models that led me to investigate an alternative theory. As I have discussed elsewhere, in Planet Engines, but also “Indifferent Time”, there is the delusion that observation of work and potential energy is real, and this is because of the bias of the observer, psychologically applying resistance and imagining an opposing force which does not exist. I realized in my research of this book, that there was nothing in nature to take advantage of such imaginary stocks of energy that might exist in such gradients. It was difficult as it led me to realize much of the “education” I had received in conventional thermodynamics and physics was of no use and I would need to go beyond to find a solution. Such a realization took the form of one of the axioms which I will explore later.

An accurate view of physics must be done to comprehend how remarkable a living system truly is in the universe.

However, here is an axiom that is very useful.

Axiom 4. Force or energy is entering a system

will be directly proportional to the force or energy exiting a system.

If we have some Signal from a region of space, then that Signal is the sum of the energy and force entering that region of space. Total Signal detected from a system= Energy + Force entering the system. The only way you have an imbalance is if you have not accounted for some energy entering the system.

The Basic Crisis Equation Experiment- A study of Energy, Mass, and Force Balance

I have depicted atoms moving about in the following diagram, (FIG 2.). We can see their motion is independent, that is, each atom moves with respect to simple collisions of its neighbors. The same random molecular movement is expected to occur inside the “Cell” region and outside in “environment.” There is no concerted movement in a system of molecules. As we have defined energy balance, this also applies to ANY chemical or physical behavior of the atoms. For simplicity I draw these as vector arrows of force. Note that we are depicting the motion of the molecules (inside the cell) according to how the molecules are expected to behave (Axiom 1) without any exterior force applied.

Fig 2. The dotted line shows a circular region (a VCS) being evaluated by our detector. The dotted region depicts a cell organism. In this case we draw a VCS over the region of the cell, which we depict for our experiment, as a collection of the molecules and their potential motion (arrows).

Fig. 3. The “cell” region being evaluated by the vectorial force detector. We have a vectorial detector observing both the environment E surrounding the region of the Cell, and the cell itself.

The detector absorbs light from the region specifically, and the light then impacts the motion of atoms in the detector (we showed this earlier as a box in Fig 1) which influences their vectorial directions. The detector takes readings of each region, some volume of space, either “Cell” or “Environment”. We find that the “Cell” region is Signal and the “Environment” is the background B or noise N.

The Signal in the detector is obtained by subtracting the background from the Total Signal.

Thus, Signal detected= Total Signal (S)- Background (B)

We further subtract off “noise” N as well.

SignalCell= Total Signal (S)- Noise (N)

After we run the test and do these operations, we should find the following.

For the “Environment” region, taking baseline Signal from baseline Noise

S-N=0

Or average test regions in the Environment an Senvironment and another test region Benvironment

S-B=0

Both give average cancellation (no difference).

For the “Cell” region (in dotted circle) compared to molecular matrix

S-B= 1 = Signal between regions in the cell (Scell) this will vary but we assign a non-zero Ø value we normalize to “1”. [Note that

it may be negative, but in reality the sign is irrelevant as S and B are test regions]

For our Background force, we wish to know what forces are possible from atoms that are within the cell itself. In other words do these atoms cause a force simply because they are different atoms or molecules? Or are located within a matrix in close proximity to each other and form chemistry? In other words, does chemistry cause a force. To explore this, we can also read (not shown) the molecules after the cell is treated with a toxin (which does not disrupt the cell molecules.)

And also...when we compare force generated within the cell vs Environment...

S-N= 1 Signal from the baseline noise (Scell) we also find a non-zero Ø value so also normalize this value to “1”. (the zero stays a zero in such operations).

To my amazement, I realized that this theory predicts it is a

non-zero value, a positive signal that will be obtained in this case, i.e. when we subtract off random background forces or “noise” S-B=1 or S-N=1 !!

Before understanding how remarkable and unexpected this result is, we have to interpret the experiment properly. Keep in mind that the value is itself based on a unit of force, a resultant vector. And for this to occur, it must perturb in some way, the system around it. That perturbation is precisely what we pick up in our detector. The micro- effects of the vectors in the region we test are conserved and translated into what we observe in our detector. And understand how these results were obtained. I’ve broken the results down into “Results Predicted” and “Results Actual.”

What we predict based on Molecular Theory and according to Axiom 1.

I am depicting the actual experimental result that is expected. But, based on molecular theory we should expect that both regions, “Cell” and “Environment” will give zero signal. The reason we expect this

result is based on Axiom 1, the fact that atoms and molecules in both regions are behaving as independent entities, and if true, their vector forces will be sporadic and move in all directions. Such a result would therefor cancel out any net force. Although one might wonder if total energy entering each region could affect our result, surprisingly it is irrelevant how much energy is entering the system or if more energy, i.e. heat or light is entering one region or another. The heat or light entering the region effects the molecules or atoms randomly, their motions are therefore randomized. One can easily see that the effects of additional light or heat energy in one region or another, become normalized when we take more measurements and subtract off additional regions of “Environment.”

This is, as I said, the expectation of real experiment under the assumption that a) the particles in the Cell and the particles in the surrounding environment move independently, and b) move according to the same molecular rules.

However, the prediction (based on molecular theory) does not occur.

Actual Result. The result actually obtained from Experiment*. *These are results I have obtained through personal

observation of these systems. I am referring to the near countless experiments I have run on cell assays in the laboratory, involving the very same Signal and Background subtraction we employ here.

Our detector shows a Signal, for the “cell” region, which I have shown for convenience, as the single arrow in the box.

S-B=1?

S-N=1?

Why 1? If there is no signal this is normally zero. Since this is a positive Signal, i.e. a real value >0 it is designated for convenience as a 1. (We have only specified its magnitude relative to zero, so for our purposes, can assume normalization to 1.) The fact that it is expected to be positive at all, and non zero is what is truly remarkable! In the causal equation, we also can obtain a 1 by adding up the total causes we observe, (Total Causes) subtract off the ones we can write off (Background causes) and then compare the result.

Why? How can there be a signal emanating from the Cell but not the Environment surrounding the cell?

The vector arrow in the Detector had to be caused to move aberrantly. We know that it did not happen by chance because we have run the experiment a sufficient number of times and we have confidence in the

number of motions in the detector itself. So the orientation of the arrow in the detector was caused by what was in the region it viewed.

If we again look at the vector force arrows, we realize that there must be a net vector arrow produced inside the cell region. We can make this assumption based on conservation and axiom 2, and we can quantify what this might be because these vector arrows are additive.

Vector force arrows:

􏰀 Recall the vector arrows in the diagram. Each arrow represents the potential motion of a molecule or atom in some direction. When these are added in x y space, but also z, they produce a net arrow of some length.
􏰀 For the environment, the net additive motion of the molecules gives no net force arrow. This is because they cancel each other due to random directions. Or, the force was subtractable due to our axiom, since it was background.

An easy visual diagram to show how the vectorial arrows are subtracted in the Detector to obtain the results without using numbers! See Figures below.

To attempt to understand what is happening, I have tested some parameters. Does energy entering the system potentially cause the Signal? We also depict vector force arrows from energy entering, i.e. molecular collisions or chemical, and also light which are possibly entering each region (Fig. 3). Does this help us?

We ask the following questions.

1) Is S caused by energy (we haven’t accounted for) entering the region of molecules “C”?

Before we answer the first we ask this.

2) Is S caused by the breaking of physical or energy laws? Not possible according to our axiom we provide above.

So our answer to the first question- The total energy or force entering must directly result in the entire Signal coming out of the system. We know that because this is a natural system, i.e. a controlled isolated environment, then the heat or other energy entering the system is completely randomized. The control for this is the Environment. If external energy was causing signal, then the Environment would give us a positive. Test: If no heat was entering, no heat would be emitted and so on. Force must also balance due to that supplied from outside

the system. Because net Signal detected is the difference between

Total Force (all causality entering the VCS) and that escaping, a Signal emanating from the VCS can only be the result of an autologous generated force, FN.

Fig. 4. Energy, Mass, and Causal (force) balance.

Beyond real experience. Why can we see living things like cells?

If a cell is truly the product of the external universe, and all forces, then how should a cell appear to us?

The Cell is easily differentiated from the background by a process in the mind’s eye, called background subtraction, as in the first Cell image (Fig. 5.) . However, the difference in appearance that we observe between what appears as a cell and the background it lives in, is a physical thing, not produced by the mind, but by the cell in how it is interacting with its surroundings (and behaving relative

to its surroundings). We see this by subtraction, but let’s see what happens if it is NOT SUBTRACTABLE.

However, if for example hypothetically, the membrane wall were to be a product of the background, it would look exactly like the background. Second Cell image. As shown, the membrane pattern resembles now the background pattern and is indistinguishable.

The question is WHY is there a subtractable signal here? Again, if the cell membrane, the pattern were the product of the background environment, it would be impossible to differentiate from the background.

Fig. 5. The experiment is an illustration of causality of the cell and of the theory. It is , as we define choice as a physical difference caused by behavior. The power of choice is what enables us to see a cell from the background noise around it, the

debris that typically surrounds a microscopic image of a cell. In reality the various structure we observe in the cell appear also, because they are initiative in causality, and radiate it via force, relative to the background signal.

Definitions

We’ve defined several features of causality relating to choice, a physical effect, and independence of the systems. But another is that causality must originate somewhere, by definition of what causality is. A effects B, but A caused B or B caused A. One initiated the other. Initiation is not something proven statistically, it is a premise of the experiment. A grouping of boulders on a mountainside is not a system with respect to the random erosion processes. There is no initiation of systemic motion, as movement can initiate anywhere. Our second

‘rule’ would imply that non initiation means that there are no differences between various actions. We can test this by cordoning off sections (with rope) and actually measuring if there are, but we will find no centralized or ‘planned’ initiation in hillsides, rivers, or snow fields. (Yes we can back locate the weakened ridge that we claim may have “caused” the slide, but such logic automatically presumes continuity between the systems. As though the ridge were specifically connected somehow, causally to surrounding natural events. The “weakened” ridge did not cause the slide, because if the material had been more solid, no slide would have occurred. Random disconnected events and actions, heating and cooling of the air, precipitation, lessened the normal forces opposing gravity. Those events, themselves, were the resultants of other phenomena in an endless stream of causality. Again perhaps a diagram might help, but we cannot take a section of rope, and cordon off a region in the landscape and say “this is a region unique in causality from the rest”. No such divisions exist!

Rocks sliding into a lake only “cause” ripples in the lake in a model in our minds, not because one is causatively any different than the other. The lake can be said to cause an opposing effect on the rocks, in terms of force. But the point is to distinguish the nature of what is “action” or acting.) Again, an action must cause some effect that is discernable from the direction of flow of the system. If organisms moved their own mass or objects they effect, around them, in ways that were not discernable from other natural actions of the system- wind, water, etc., we would not see them. They would not exist. (For all intents and purposes, they would be undetectable.) And we explore just such a scenario in a later chapter. What if an organism could do this?

We alluded before to the fact that the initiator in organisms is unknown. It is a separate problem and not critical to this paper, which is merely to establish that such a difference in these systems is physically unique, and demasked by a phenomenon called ‘choice.’ To claim that ‘choice’ does not physically exist, is to contradict the independence of these systems in terms of their causality-their effect of A on B. But more importantly as we’ve defined it here, this is an initiation of a cause of A on B. If initiation wasn’t present, we could not establish the effect, nor would there be two independent systems. In nature we see no initiation of cause that is discernable from any other two systems. In other words, each system is identical. Heat might transfer from one mass to another, or rocks settle in place, water seeps, but these are not discernable as initiating because they are not independent systems. And initiation would not occur if a force was not present, to act upon the system. Organisms act against their environment, if they did not, if they moved precisely as the natural forces guided them, they would be undetectable and undiscernible from the natural system they inhabit.

We are defining an “independent system” not as one that is physically

isolated, but as one based on its capacity to initiate an effect on the system around it. For example, a heat reservoir, placed in a natural environment, will begin to dissipate heat into the surroundings. We note that it does have the capacity to do work. A cold reservoir could also cause change, and it is therefore a temperature difference (or difference reservoir) that is critical. A heat reservoir will not be produced in such an environment from a colder reservoir, nor in any natural environment will it simply “appear” spontaneously. The only way this might occur is a change to the system from the outside, (and examples would be lava flow, lightning strikes, or solar heating, but these are dissipative with respect to the general system). It would be unusual to claim that a lava flow caused the nearby shore to boil, as the heat responsible did not originate there, and it is understood that the volcano caused the lava, and deeper forces in the earth, i.e. layers of liquid rock, caused the volcano. But key here, is that this causality roughly defines direction of the vector of heat flow in this case. Difference reservoirs, capable of doing work, always tend to dissipate their heat into their surroundings. But where might we find a heat reservoir spontaneously occurring in nature? None of these systems, lava flow, volcano, or storms, are self-generated their differences in energy with respect to their surroundings, but were infused by another source of energy. So an independent system is one that generates a hot-cold reservoir difference by utilizing phenomenon (not spontaneous chemical reaction or passive heat transfer between reservoirs) which we are attempting to understand here.

Experiment: Tracks In Mud

The physical relevance of system vs particle inferences can be more clearly illustrated by a thought experiment.

There is no need to deliberately "run an experiment" in the sense that organisms must be controlled in some way and their activities monitored to demonstrate our point. In fact it is probably better if they are not manipulated and the test is done in nature. That way there can be no suggestion of bias. So what I might do is a simple experiment. And take a moment to look at the natural environment. The natural environment can in fact, be our laboratory to investigate causality, and this might be any patch of ground, a park, a field, a beach, or even a patch of dusted ground.

Our question? If wind, water, and other elements are our background participants, is it possible to detect a non-random change in that system? First we need a detector. A simple detector can be made using a deformable material with the consistency of wet clay or heavy plaster, and spread it out on the ground at night in a forest. Then after a night I would go back to retrieve them and look for non random disturbances of the surface. The smooth clay has become the detector system. We cannot use a surface that distorts or is unstable, nor can it be too impenetrable such that nothing will effect it.

If patterns are detected we can evaluate this data, and assess if it is non-random relative to markings that might be random effects of other exterior forces acting on the mud, i.e. non-independent system effects as we described above. These might be wind, drying, rain, sliding, solar heating and any other external acting forces which are themselves,

non-independent forces.
How are patterns detected? How do we assess if it is an independent system (i.e. from the non-independent forces surrounding it)? We have already defined non-effects as actions that tend to move in the same way as the system does. They don’t oppose forces around them, but yield passively. Because from a useful work perspective, a motion that is in line with the general flow of energy, a disturbance that does no useful work against these natural ebbs, will be undistinguishable, from background. It will be noise. Thus, many different markings, due to random activities of wind and other objects upon it, would be eliminated based on this simple criteria. However, effects that do not meet the criteria of being part of the system, and are unexplainable (or non assignable to other causes), would be effects of an external system upon it, by definition.

The possible explanation we may have, “These are bird tracks” in no way resolves the problem. Let us imagine further, a causal vector applied to the sand, that applied force and made the tracks. This was obviously an “organism.” But what is an organism? This is not quantifiable in terms of any physics or chemistry. And we have merely come full circle back to another problem. [We explore this problem further in NOTES 12.13.16].

Our conclusions from a simple mud track experiment, which can be performed by anyone, anywhere, in virtually any setting, woods, desert, beach, are as follows. Firstly, we must understand that the classical definition of ‘choice’ is irrelevant here. We have replaced this with the new concept, origination. Therefore, we only need to determine, did the cause originate with the organism? If it did, then how could it have not chosen to make the tracks? It was not directly caused by any other action or event that preceded it. (Though it may in fact be influenced by many factors, and deal with them accordingly, the action in question the microvector, originating as an I Vector in the organism, was not such a product of any antecedent force.) Secondly, what we have to confront is the belief that there are certain activities of organisms which are somehow different, i.e. more deliberate or less deliberate, than others. In fact organism’s behavior, at a fundamental level is always deliberate relative to the ground state of behavior of matter. From the start, the conventions of “choice” or free will were inadequate. We needed a much broader definition. “I’ve defined ‘choice’ in terms of its causality, which must occur between two independent systems. We have observed systems, and examined them to see if “choice” might exist.” The footprints we detect were made by some creature. Footprints are

merely an example of direction. But so is self propulsion, motion. So is metabolism. Which causes “footprints,” distortions of molecules and normal chemistry.

Quantifying the Unquantifiable: The Meaning to the Search for Alien Life in the Universe

The original scope of the Crisis Equation, was to quantify a result that was before, non-quantifiable. Free will and Choice has been the realm of mere philosophy. As I have said, I searched for something that could be said physically about these systems. We can examine distortions in mud, (which could be caused by wind, rain, freezing, or any natural phenomenon) and imagine scoring these based on our causal equation.

It should be emphasized, to avoid confusion, that the scoring of our

result is based on a Causal Equation, and another way of seeing it is that we are examining mechanism. When we examine mud tracks, do we have an attributable cause for the disturbance? And where is it found, in nature, in the background? Note also that a positive value, a “1” merely indicates that there was a tangible force acting within the VCS that we found which is non-subtractable from observables by a rational mechanism.

“Recall that we are only scoring such an event, with a “0” or a “1”. A zero means that it did not exist. And “1” means it was a positive. Unexpectedly, the ambiguity of choice has been eliminated, and also unexpectedly, it is now more universally applicable not only to humans but to all organisms.

The system and particle models are non-interchangeable, and these distinctions between them are physically relevant. If we conclude that the markings or patterns are the work of particles then we have completely changed the experiment and denied the logical and mathematical implications of data specific to (and intrinsic of) these systems. It is incorrect physics. In a virtual- gene causative model, we no longer experimentally can discern these differences. As a particle could not have made those markings as a particle. In such circumstances, it would be incorrectly scored a “0”, (“no effect”) but that is precisely what gene centric models imply. That is what is implied when it’s claimed erroneously that reduction can account for the phenomenon shown here.”

But what we realize is that this phenomenon shown by the crisis equation is not isolated to tracks in mud, but possibly applies elsewhere in unexpected locales removed by unimaginable distances.

The system is the night sky, with its myriad background of electromagnetic energy radiating from stars and other celestial objects. If we concluded that an “irregular signal” was explainable in terms of particles, instead of as a system with a statistically relevant signal, we would incorrectly dismiss a potential alien communication. In theory, the “irregular signal” would not exist, as the particle causal model would not account for the signal, which is physically understood as a system. The incorrect interpretation of the data is a test case of what particle based causality would actually dictate, if faithfully applied in real world cases as there would be in theory, no physical means for one system, us, the detector, to evaluate another system relative to our own. The causality of each system, the aliens ship against the starry background would be invisible and indiscernible to us in any physical sense, because particles would affect us passively and the force vectors would be aligned in the data coming in. The data, i.e. the alien signal, must by an independent system causing a force which is independent of the light signals radiating from other sources. Of course, we assume that the aliens are benevolent in this case, and are not attempting to be hidden from us.

The Search For Such Alien Signals (Signs Of Extra Terrestrial Intelligence SETI) Is Ongoing

Recently, in January 2017, an unidentified radio signal was believed to be potentially of an alien origin, and made the news. The Causality Equation can be applied to this situation. The background radio signal is very noisy, which includes that of the earth, and is routinely subtracted. The total Signal is that which is incident on earth and available to the radio telescope, and so we can –Earth Radio Noise) to get a remaining Signal 1. Researchers then have to carefully subtract other natural radio sources from the scan. So we would have SIGNAL 1 – (Galaxy X) – Galaxy Y) Etc. to get Signal 2. Normally they could find another object Galaxy 123 and this would be the source, not alien. However, in this case, the signal could not be associated with any known source. In other words, it could not be subtracted. We just had Signal 3. However, later on when they took other measurements, another galaxy did match, hence Signal 3- New Unknown Galaxy= 0 remaining signal. It was not a positive or what we could normalize to “1”. However the search continues.

The question we recall, is choice. What would be erroneously concluded (if alien causality is ultimately a dictate of certain particles, genes or molecules) is that the ‘aliens’ did not make a choice to send the signal, but as we see in the crisis equation, this also means that they did not cause an effect on the system. (And further implies there was no ‘they’ it was particles in a system of particles). If the particles

comprising the aliens and their signal, are physically and causatively linked in their behavior to the normal behavior of the particles in their environment, there is no system ‘A’ here, that acts on “B” (the environment around A), and we would not be able to discern their signal from B. Furthermore, the particles comprising the aliens would move and behave, or be physical dictates of the same forces effecting the particles in the surrounding background or environment, and thus, because of direct communication and non-independence, we would not discern any difference between these systems in terms of initiation of causality. One system A would not cause the other system B, since by definition we have just stated that they are dictates of the same physics, the same causes. For a system to be causal of another it cannot be a dictate of the same causes, nor of the same forces. However, in many respects, that is exactly the implication of current gene centric and particle based models, (though it may not be as easily seen in ourselves as a far removed model) it is the logical and physics crisis of explaining away the cause since it must have originated exterior to, or within the system itself. (Cause is more than showing the effect, or showing a discernable change in direction, it must identify the initiating point, the actor, effecting that cause.)

In many ways our questions are very basic. Like physicists of the past, who asked “does the earth move when it is struck by the apple?” I ask now, what force moves the atoms of the creature. There is no suitable theory to describe such phenomenon, just as there was no theory in Newton’s time to describe what was called “gravity.” But gravity was a force that was imagined” (see Huygens’s debate about the existence of this imaginary theoretical!) in order to address physical issues that no other theory could account for. Schrodinger, (see “Notes #1) realized that the atoms behaved very differently in organisms. He proposed that the atoms must find these arrangements by “statistical if not thermodynamic determinism.” That belief has spawned numerous attempts, to prove it, with no success in showing how that might be possible, even theoretically.

Newtonian Mechanics fails in The Drug Cell Model

Still one might take the approach that there is no formal “crisis”, in causality, and I have deliberated on this for considerable time. However, if there is no crisis then it should be straight forward to show agreement between two types of experiments, the cell drug model and the particle determinism models.

Yet, If The Cell Is A Product of THE BACKGROUND , Essentially, The External Laws Of The universe, Will It Be Visible To Us?

If we have the cell as shown in Fig. 7 , below, there are a number of considerations, for example: The observed effect is concluded to be drug induced. The cell matrix is considered as a system influenced by the drug and also showing these effects. “Drug effects” are not extraneously produced or caused by the cell. This is “dogma” in such studies.

Fig. 7 In Drug- Cell models that I have run thousands of times, a drug molecule’s mechanical effects are determined for a cell. In this figure we suppose the cell is surrounded by molecules, and is itself molecular. I struggled with my own model, of the drug/cell. Did this model show what I thought it did? What this experiment demonstrates is that molecular causality is subtractable from cell causality. I can subtract the causality of a single molecule, mechanically effecting a cell. Thus as we showed with Mass, Energy and Force, we should in principal be able to subtract other external inputs, i.e. outside molecular mass, energies...all forces, to prove that we have an autologous generated force within the cell. Upon realizing that my years of cell research on drug effects confirms my theory of an autologous FN. Ultimately, the drug experiment can be thought of the Environment. We can ask does water, air or other molecules produce the Signal, the relative S/N we can observe from a cell? When these external molecular causalities (HEAVY ARROWS) are subtracted away from (Total Signal), we are left with internal causality emanating from the VCS we’ve drawn over the cell. (It is a circular VCS shape). To obtain this Cell (Signal) we must of course subtract the Drug, but also other molecular inputs.

But in causality we see further, that the observed “drug effects” cannot

be due to some extraneous input of the environment. Otherwise, the “drug effect” would be cancelled out (as we noted in the formula previously), we would conclude it doesn’t show a trend or correlation and the result would be the “no-effect” case. However, we also realize that the “drug effect” also has a contribution made by the cell, which can be considered as another causal vector (contributing to the observed signal). Though studies may delve into the minutia of these biochemical interactions, for our purposes these are simplified as

A 􏰀B􏰀C􏰀 (A causes B causes C causes D...etc.) in the way chemical species (A, B, C..) interact and the arrows for these purposes can be thought of as reaction arrows or other vectoral force arrows. Current studies do not consider causality in this way. Thus the total observed (approximately) drug effects = drug actions + cell-drug actions. [For example if the drug effect was a kinetic study of a metabolite then the drug effect would essentially, be the drug itself, but within that observation is the cell-drug interaction that caused the change, and the effect or footprint that the drug left inside the cell.]

Our question here is the following. What is causing cell-drug activity, or more generally we ask what is causing the cell matrix behavior?

There are two basic possibilities. We can conclude that this is originating from within the organism’s system, OR it is originating from the outside, from outside the organism.

As we’ve already explored here, if we assume the former, then another problem arises: where in the cell are the particles which initiate cause? But we’ve also explored the result that this cause is currently believed to reside externally as we might expect in the “biochemical robot” model (see “The Extended Phenotype”).

Interestingly, if it is external, which is the current model of science, we are now stating that the causal component of the “drug effect”, the contribution made by the cell matrix, is caused by the environment or system outside the cell.

But we now have a serious difficulty, experimentally and mathematically. Since we presumed initially to have a cell matrix which was not being effected by extraneous inputs from outside the experiment. This was the result we described in Figure 2B. Mathematically, how do we subtract off the environment? And what implications does this have for the causal geometry of the experiment?

There are two interpretations to be made to account for the difficulties above, a weak case and a strong one. The weak case is that the cell is viewed as pre-programmed in its responses, and therefore when the drug is injected, the “drug effects” are to be expected based on whatever that program might be, much like a biochemical robot. The problem is that such a system does not initiate action.

The strong case is that the cell is a system of particles, with no “system” boundary. Particles are particles, they are the same inside the cell and outside the cell, and as we indicated previously there is no boundary here, and therefore communication of extraneous environmental inputs (across the cell) is maximized. Initiation is essentially a particle based phenomenon. We also find that reduction of the system, as we discussed before, does not change the problem of determining causality, and ultimately “choice” made in a system. The atoms of the organisms must still move in a certain way, relative to the experimental object, and that data needs to be accounted for in causality. So to finish the problem, I find that in order to preserve geometrical integrity of the system, but also for other reasons, the subtraction of the environmental causes (which we cannot assign physically as causal) would lead to an “origin” or initiating vector, О, which is directed, externally, out from the cell and contributing to the observed effects. The cause of the drug effect must be internal to the organism, which directly violates the particle model.

A NEW CAUSALITY Implications

We’ve described for the first time, a physical means to identify if a ‘choice’ can be scientifically verified in a system. In many ways this is a physical definition of what a choice is. A choice must a) show a correlative effect on the system and b) cause useful work on the system. But also, c) for a “choice” to physically exist, it must also have an initiation point. A must have initiated B, while conditions a,b are also held.

I had said this is a, "new property of life" and this is an explanation.

In the laboratory, the natural tendency of processes is for the components to simply deteriorate. And to reach thermodynamic equilibrium. The initiator, ..the reason they do useful work against this

natural tendency is because of a human experimenter. But in truly natural settings, organisms serve essentially, an identical role in initiating chemical components to move against their natural tendencies of less order.

There are natural initiators, sunlight causes reactions on earth, in the oceans, on land, etc, but these reactions are part of the system that is uniquely different from organisms. In order for organisms to use sunlight, they must initiate a reaction, with photons, just as they would do with other chemical species.

But here is a crucial difference. We cannot find reactions initiated by sunlight, that do useful work, AGAINST other processes initiated by solar heating or heat from the earth. This can be shown by experiment, as in attempting to find "initiation" trends or regions in a grid, say from one grid to another. In a natural scene, we will not find an initiating region. We will instead, find gradual heat flow through matter, soil, rock, and wind, and water will flow consistently downslope toward paths of least resistance. In a grid, we will find natural tendencies, erosion , settling, that follow gravity and also oppose normal forces against them, in the least possible way.

Fig. 5a , 5b

Results. Initiation force grids or maps (Figures 5A and 5B). In 5A, we see the normal flow or tendencies of processes (averaging) towards uniform paths that find the least resistance against opposing forces. In 5B we see that with an initiator present, the initial movement of matter must be opposed to the normal flow. This is a requirement of “visibility.” Visibility is the ability of the observer to detect a difference between

one natural state and another. In these results, 5B shows the proposed solution to the problem, a formalization of a new system of causality. In 5B the conclusion must be that there is a causal vector, that it is directed outwardly, and that this is a new system initiating effects (i.e. doing useful work) against the normal expected tendencies, or background forces of the system. If we envision a third grid, such as the cross section of a beaker or other chemical system, in which a surface is partitioned and chemical species are located in each box, we would not find initiation in any of the boxes, since the collective whole, the chemical milieu , is reactive at the chemical level. It can be shown that this case, the theoretical volume, represented by the partitioned box, is causally equivalent at the scale to the molecular level, so initiation is coming from each molecule, each particle. Thus the smallest initiating entity is the particle or molecule in this case.

A divided or partitioned space superimposed on an organism shows something very different. Perhaps this alone, is a central difference between organisms and inanimate motion. Organisms initiate cause. If the grid space of the environment includes the organism, we find that there is a trend observable between these spaces, such that a time difference change in that trend, is perceived as movement. The movement is not in the path of these natural forces, (their tendencies) but always against it.

This would be a "behavior" fundamental to life, a property of it as I already described. Of course we are not really referring to movement, classically, but to a (time dependent) rate of initiation. When causality diminishes, falling towards zero, then that baseline is now at the natural background rate of change of the natural system. We do not observe a time rate of causality and an organism no longer can be detected in that grid space [Theorem 5B].

Causal Geometry

Somewhere along the route of considering the implications of my findings, I realized that this theory is based in a new understanding of time. And by that I mean I’m referring to directionality, but also to how events proceed differently in different systems, even though they are in thermal contact. The time related results of my research show the following. Particle and system models (in systems I describe here) are not interchangeable, meaning that a particle model cannot explain two different systems due to the issue of continuity. We recall that “Continuity” is a principal of causality that we introduce, based on (Indifferent Time) which simply means that causality in natural systems

is viewed as continuous, in constant communication, and therefore has no boundary in causality. Particle models implicitly, by their nature, require continuity between regions, and as we stated at the beginning, this is conducive with a single causal universe model.

Moreover, this causal geometry has other implications, as it directly shows that systems A and B, where A initiates B, are not theoretical but physically defined. The notion that symmetry plays a role in causality is a difficult concept.

But the problem of symmetry is illustrated by the simple subtraction of the background effects and causes that should be considered mathematically. In essence, there is no basis to claim that one region of a system is not background and another is, or vice versa.

It is simple enough to state. It cannot be claimed that the environment, sun, wind, inanimate forces of nature, are responsible for causing the phenomenon of life. If anything, these forces act oppositively to life, challenging its existence. The proponents of just the opposite theory, that of particle causality have a great deal of resources on their side, but they do not have truth. Nor science. To find truth we must look deeper and return to the headwaters, its source.

I discovered, some time ago, the discrepancy if not absolute contradiction in the way causality research is done in the normal laboratory and that reported by establishment journals, which support only speculative notions of “self-assembly” and “chemical selection.” I have written www.causaldistinctions.blogspot.com

showing why these lack any experimental evidence and are still referenced as though it is documented research. My skepticism was supported, as I worked through the problem, and I realized that the “cell” and its molecular behavior, cannot be a product of the environment.

The molecular causality fails in the unique and highly specific scenario I have presented, because it is always assumed into the equation, by the human observer, that causality has been initiated, though this issue itself has never been raised before.

The molecule, nor any other entity in a physical system, does not initiate the cause of the action.

The other incredible notion is that the System, what must in fact be a source of the positive “1” a positive result of a given analysis, is not defined in any physical way. Systems are composed of molecules and atoms, and smaller parts, sub atomic particles then compose these entities.

A system is not normally, a causal entity, unless of course we are willing to entertain the idea that there is a spacial force, and to abandon the notion that the causality is in fact molecular. That in such circumstances it is not “point based.” NOTE 1.10.17 In reality we have a point based causality producing outside in causality, which produces a behavior that is radial, however the opposition to this radial tendency would seemingly require a spacial oppositional force.

This is an incredible result. Historically, systems have always been a means of accounting for forces and effects caused by individual particles. In “systems” of molecules the system can be theoretical, it can be a mathematical volume whereby energy or matter fluctuates past it, but these are not defined as “systems” that effect their surroundings and in these cases, the particle is the smallest causal entity. The basic principal of Initiation introduced here, and of ”impetus”, has implications not only to biological systems but also to inanimate systems.

So there is a new concept we introduce here. One that no doubt would be difficult to imagine, since it contradicts the Standard Model of causality we are taught, that of a universe mediated by particles. It was Einstein that said “events cannot be simultaneous.” But the causality I introduce here would mean that events can indeed be simultaneous. Not only that, but causal events can be directly related to each other in space.

Consider the implications at much larger scales, for example on the galactic scale. If we observe form and shape in the heavens, this behavior could be a dictate not of particle causality, but of System causality. This means that actions on one side of the galaxy can be related due to simultaneity, but also due to their causality being Originated, in other words some of the behavior, could be due to “2” causality and others to “2...” causality.

It is possible obviously for a particle to be causal, but not be acting, that is, it cannot be an Initiator. And yet, for any experiment to be “positive” to score a “1”, initiation must be present, and one system must effect another system. Where the two systems are physically independent in some aspect. The notion of an Initiator” is in fact a system based phenomenon, it is defined by a two system scenario.

We should mention that the determination of all other kinds of causality, i.e. secondary or results of 2nd causality or that caused or mediated by transfer of energy via particles, i.e. “2..” are based in the causal chain by taking the subtraction of total secondary effects – background.

Molecules in nature and molecules in the laboratory do not tend to do useful work on their surroundings. Instead, their behavior tends toward diffusion and interactions that dissipate heat and potential energy. Not

the reverse. Groups of particles will tend to follow paths of least resistance, they are dictates of these pathways and the Second Law, and therefore do not initiate. The simplest definition of an initiator would be a system that opposes these tendencies, but this is a problem, since it implies that a “mono” force can possibly exist, violating Newton’s third law but further, a “system” also finds incongruency with the dogmatic particle model of physics.

Returning to the Drug Cell model in Fig.7. What this shows is that we can precisely subtract a molecular effect on the cell, from all the non- related background effects, but also, that of how molecular effects contribute to the net causality. If the particle model were correct, and statistical determinism if not thermodynamic determinism were imagined as responsible for the cell phenomenon, we might imagine that there were not only drugs’ effecting the cell, but along with these sporadic agents, a confluence of millions of other molecules and particles. Imagine if you will, the complex behaviors inside the cell, as the result of all these external molecules and particles (including light) which are hitting the outside wall like a snow storm. In such a model, would we truly expect that the white noise of those particles hitting the cell wall would mechanically result in true cellular behavior? What is obvious to me is that we have no chemical rational, no chemical model, for which to justify adding such causality. And so should subtract it. According to our axiom, individual molecules do not generate forces. The only way a cell could be a causal product of external physics is by deliberate force.

A New Causality: Traveling An Unexplored Road

If you go to the bank on a Friday afternoon, and you back trace your steps, what factors caused the trip? Were you caused to go by outside obligations or were you compelled by something internal? To assist in this determination, it will be helpful to draw out a causal chain of events, listing each event in order from “start” to “end”. Can you point to the event where the cause of the trip actually originated, such that there was no preceding or antecedent cause that triggered that cause? Perhaps one decided to leave because “they needed a break.” Then it was the need of a rest which caused it, and the cause of this need, was yesterday’s workout or the lack of calories. Ultimately a decision if pinpointed could be said to be the cause of a region of the brain, which is said to be autonomous. Regardless, we did not cause ourselves to be born? Wasn’t the cause of our mind the cause of the decision? These are the confounding questions that seemingly have no answer

and arguments like these are used frequently to persuade that choice is an illusion. In the end, we may look at the chain of causality and conclude “there was no choice here.” If you had “no choice” in going to the bank, many would interpret that to mean the former, as some outside obligation forced a visit. And “outside” is the same as antecedent or “before” cause. That is generally how we are to understand “choice” but that is about as good a definition as anyone will find on the subject. It is an intuitive understanding, and nothing more. However, recently there has been significant discussion of the issue of “choice” and if it ever exists.

If our destination was the local food store, perhaps the issue of what caused our trip becomes more clear. We must eat. And do we have a choice to feed our bodies or not? Though I have encountered this kind of reasoning in many a science book and blog, and it is often based in scientific language, it is not scientific explanation. And I have argued this point with other scientists. They, like philosophers some 2000 years ago, (Aristotle et. al.) believe that reasoned argument can
resolve this issue of causality. I will clarify one point and then move on. We can in fact state that we “had no choice” to eat, ultimately, and yet we can explore if this CHOICE was entirely original to our being, OR was caused by some external factor. How can we be compelled without any choice and yet have a choice? The impetus we could not avoid, under any circumstance, was both produced and sourced in ourselves! (It is logical, since we produced both the choice itself and the reason

for making the choice, i.e. the hunger is entirely owned by ourselves.) I will therefore adhere to the definition that we introduced at the beginning. This was by no means a “trick” of philosophy or of wording. We are exploring the spacial origin of the action. If it is contained within us, that is a choice. Here is how we take the problem and extract it from “reason.” If the final action, “going to the store” or “eating” is a reproducible action, meaning that it is not completely random (which would be very rare), then this action can be shown to have an origin, a causal Signal source within that chain. We must conclude that the cause is within the chain of events, and ultimately, did not have an antecedent elsewhere. That fact, of Initiation but also Originality of causality, is as we’ve stated before, a physical and geometrical reality, independent of what the details of the event where.

These musings are the subject of science fiction stories, but also of philosophy, and the field of biology. There is the position that ultimately the bank customer’s decisions, whatever they were, must be the product of science, and of the physical laws of the universe. And what if they are not? If they are not, then it is believed that this is the region of non-science, of perhaps mysticism. My position in my book, is that this is the source of a great deal of uninformed reporting in science, that humans and other organism, are caused to act by external factors. And

furthermore, that we are not aware of these causalities. In fact, what my theory proves, is that this is unequivocally false.

Where do conscious decisions originate?

We are told they are genes, and genes are based on external causalities. (External causalities of mutation and selection, which are events of the distant past.) But if we actually take that thinking to its logical conclusions, and imagine that an organism is 100% controlled by external inputs, what we have is the case in Fig A and also Fig 7, where there is no difference between the system of the organism and the system of the environment it exists in. “It” does not exist, which means it does not exist as a differentiable, independent system. There is only one universe.

We have to differentiate the gene determinism argument from gene based chemistry or biology. These are two different entities completely. But are often conflated as one, which does a disservice to applied sciences. The fields of chemical pharmacology and biochemistry operate based on Initiated Systems, but these fields are not aware of this causal distinction. The organism is already assumed to exist, and most of it is carefully and deliberately subtracted out of the problem of studying a specific molecule’s behavior.

This is not necessarily a problem with a gene based argument. Yet even if we said “let’s forget about genes” and take it to the extreme of some theoretical, quantum particle model, let us assume that such knowledge might exist. Even if that were true, the very fact that we made such connections at a quantum level between the environment and the biological system we sampled from, means that the environment caused the behavior. The energy from the environment came first, the “quantum result” (we can imagine for the sake of argument), second. Plugging into the causal equation, we get a “0”. In this case we cannot even conclude that the environment caused our behavior, as such a cause was actually “noise” and was subtracted. I should make another important note, to clear up confusion about the Crisis Equation. It’s a difficult test to imagine in the real case. You have to actually assume that we are talking about a group of molecules in a beaker, not a living cell. Because a cell model would not give us a non- signal. The closest we can come to this condition, is to test a cell which has just undergone senescence. It has just died. What is also interesting is that it has just lost Signal. And the molecules which compose it, now behave very differently than before, as though they are part of the surrounding molecular milieu.

We explore this problem even further. As I show later on in the book, in

“How Life Violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics” we can be even more reductive, and imagine the problem of where the virtual closed system, inside the “dotted line” of Fig A or Fig 7, can obtain for

us, something very critical. A reduction in entropy, which has not been

thought possible. And it does seem impossible until it is realized.

The biological community has not been too impressed with life’s accomplishments. If anything, biology has come to rely more and more on a chemo-robotic view of causality in organisms, forced I believe, by the progression of particle based , if not “Newtonian” causality. The details of the problem, if it is even glimpsed, have been glossed over in texts. Instead it is assumed that cell’s function much like chemical systems, taking in energy, converting carbon sources to sugars using enzymes etc. And larger organisms, are depicted similarly: humans take in energy, carbohydrates, extract energy, produce by-products, remove them as waste etc.

No one ever asks how the chemistry outside the organism is to understand” that it is to behave so differently than chemistry inside the membrane, even though the molecules inside and out, are in constant communication. The labeling of a structure of phospho-lipids as a “membrane” does not resolve the problem, but neither does labeling a structure as a “membrane pump.” That begs the question. We know that a label is not arbitrary, when the function of the object it identifies can be quantified in units or values that are relative to other quantifiable units.

These are largely fictitious models and labels, useful I suppose, in their required applications but useless in understanding the difficult questions we are asking here. Questions that I realized, require quantification in terms of a heat model. How do collections of molecules reduce entropy? Pump out waste heat? Generate forces? There has been work for example, showing how an enzyme is like a micro-motor, taking in energy and developing specific motion. Enzymes are really more like micro machines. One of these, that I have worked with is called thermus aquaticus DNA polymerase. It is taken from heat stable bacterium and often used to replicate human DNA. But an enzyme, even if it could be made by pure chance, the question is why would it? It is not only that the molecule is too complex to be made spontaneously, it is, as I develop in VCS, chapter II, the initial energy coming in, (i.e. sunlight) or E0 is not sufficient and in fact, drives a process- which is simply passive energy and heat loss, in the opposite direction. I have shown, we have seen this in figure 1, that science lacks any such reasonable model, within an organism, within a living cell, that explains how or why molecules continue to stay organized? In fact, science until now, is not even aware of the problem.

It is not just chemistry. In a living thing, the molecules are constantly opposing their order, in membranes and other structures, and this force is DIFUSION, it is osmotic pressure.

But what we also find is that implicit in this question is that the act of choosing, an active process which requires a vector force, is a new system behavior, not a particle one. This new model directly opposes reductionism, since it deals with biological phenomenon, and organism behavior, two hallmark arenas of reductionism and particle models.

So not only is there more than one universe in terms of causality, there is also a phenomenon called Initiation.” Which is not explainable by any particle model.

I will note one other detail, which was not in my initial paper I published online. The “causes” of the apparent behaviors that are observed or detected (see Fig 4 with the eye” representing the detector, human or machine), do not have to be known or understood. We can therefore consider them theoretically. It is irrelevant what those apparent causes might be that are external to the system in question, i.e. the cell or organism. By drawing our tiny vector arrows, we can always show that if the causality of the Signal is due to an external environmental factor, be it quantum mechanical, string theory or any other theoretical cause.. this causal arrow is subtractable from the equation. Why? Because this is a mathematical result of symmetry, of the causal geometry problem that is unavoidable in current particle and single universe. *The problem in the physics, shown here, is much deeper than I think most realize. One cannot claim “this region is different than some other region”. What basis would there be to make such an assumption? None. For the reasons we have discussed. Systems do not exists as causal frames. Only particles do. So for ever vector you claim is “causal” even a single vector originating from a tiny particle, I will show you another particle that opposes and thus cancels out, the one you claim. This is why we do not see causality or initiation in a system of molecules, say in a beaker on my laboratory bench. Not only is there no net direction, but there is no source of that directionality at any time. If there were, we would have a “1” and some explaining to do about those chemicals! Furthermore, it’s not just chemicals but ubiquitous.

Reviewing current scientific literature, it is often reported with certainty, that organisms, (systems that emanate signal) are resultants, genetically (M. Smith) and molecularly (selection theory), if not energetically (2nd Law arguments), of their environments. Yet if this is true, then the proponents of background causality should explain why the background causality cannot be subtracted. That would be a mathematical feat. It cannot. So we are still left with a question. Why are organisms observable at all?

The apparent certainty by which investigators “prove” that organisms are more and more explainable by environmental inputs, the more they prove that no Signal should be visible from these emanating Systems. If the Signal, which could be anything positive, any positive

reproducible, experimental result, is the result of inputs of external energy, of external causality, it cannot be unique to the experiment. It is background and must be subtracted from the measurement. Life is the experiment we investigate. The more certainty there is that living things occupy a region of space, continuous with the external system, and universe, and are the products of the external causality of known physical laws and chemical behaviors, the less confidence we must have in the belief that life can be differentiated physically. This is identical to the claim that our experiment is the product of external noise. Reductionism negates the existence of Causal S/N.

Our signal is frequency. We resonate into the universe, not simply on our planet but elsewhere. Organisms are observable, because they Initiate causality on the system around them. In the same way that we are experiential observers, the experience itself is this Initiation Force of self causality, Inside Out causality, on the inanimate system dictated by Outside-In Causality.

Figure 5B diagrams a case in which some causative act, is observable as it exceeds the background force, depicted in 5A with steady flowing vectors of force, all moving in continuum with one another and along paths of “least resistance”. Such a state would be expected in non- initiated systems. By definition, we can stipulate that if such a causative force exceeds its normal oppositional forces, acting in a continuous direction with each other, its direction must also be observed to oppose these. The corollary is that in natural isolated systems, the normal forces are in line with each other. (The notion that they are not in line is an artificial imposition of the observer as is the notion that there can be found an isolated region or state that opposes another.) So 5B shows essentially a microstate case in which a vector is opposing its surroundings, and an “initiator” would be the origin point of the vector(s)) In reality causal systems are only relevant, at least to living things, if a force exceeds the background. That is if the magnitude of F(normal) exceeds the –F opposing it. So in principal, no causality is possible in systems unless an FsubN exists. Thus “choice” can be physically defined the condition in which /FsubN/ > F(normal) in an independent system.] In reality Initiation can be itself defined as a physical phenomenon, the time rate of change of forces experienced by the ground state.

What can we learn from Life on our own planet? From the physics of understanding causality on our own planet?

􏰀 We do not exist in a single causal universe, but are amongst other causal systems or Causal Universes of differing size. Why can these not be of different size? There is apparently no

limitation on the size of a universe. But one limitation should be physical distinctness, in at least its causal basis. Causal Geometry shows that the behavior of a region cannot be the resultant of external behavior but has aspects #2 and #3 below. That would seem to be sufficient basis to conclude that it is a different universe, based on #2 and #3, (it has its own causality).

􏰀 There is a new physical property or aspect of the universe we have not been aware of, it is called Initiation.
􏰀 Causality can originate in systems.
􏰀 Choice” is only present when there is Initiation of one system

on another.
􏰀 Although more order might be present from dissipation of

energy, and disequilibrium, such a system cannot do more

work on its surroundings. The actual disorder has increased.
􏰀 an “origin” or initiating vector, О, is directed, externally, out

from the cell and contributing to the observed effects. The cause of the drug effect must be internal to the organism, which directly violates the particle model.
􏰀 I discuss the potential implications of Choice” as in mate choice, as a force driving the rapid development of homo sapiens under the reference of Hoetzer (below)

What I mean is the following which I discuss in a Note below (#20)

“The archea and bacteria that inhabit nearby, do impose vector forces in these systems in multiple ways, microscopically, nanoscopically, and macroscopically. Otherwise how would we distinguish the non-probabilistic tendencies of living “behavior” from non-living vent actions, and diffusion amongst others? A force cannot generate a second force against itself {26B}. And we cannot in these circumstances, claim that A, a set of chemicals (i.e. those in the hydrothermal vent or in the water around them), caused some behavior in the system.”MK

That is a new axiom which we explore, as an ‘elemental’ aspect of force. The force generated by a system of large molecules, DNA, or genes on their surroundings will be zero, F=0 as we find in the causal equation and force diagrams. This is known in solutions, no force is generated within a solution nor do random events cause forces to occur. This is also true of any natural background, as I discuss further in “Indifferent Time.”

And what is realized here, is that the notion of a random cause, (the theories which abound due to statistical based “disequilibrium and the

like) conflicts, in an equation of causality, and with the resultants of what we have shown in our experiments. It is not possible to have, as a base causality or primary causality, a first random cause as this then in theory, should produce a result which will contradict the outputted observation of non-randomness. Random causality, accidentalism, or non-causality of a primary event, is the current, incorrect axiom underlying all of causality that is relating particularly to origin of life theories but also to our basic understanding of what life is, relative to what it is not. This is based upon the failed particle causality, and it is a “chemistry came first” model for life’s origins (Biochemistry 5th Edition 2002).

But the fault of molecular determinism is revealed when the thought experiment is fully conducted and the actual consequences or causal products considered, i.e. which we show by vectoral analysis of these forces. Such particle determinism dictated by chance, would in fact negate any additive system of vectors as these cancel out, and go to zero, contradicting the observation of a net force and independent system which initiated it. Molecular or particle determinism is the current view of physics, and such determinism is advocated repeatedly by the equation of behavior of animate systems with inanimate systems by numerous sources (see below). But in view of the Crisis Equation and other new postulates here, such beliefs are not supported by the experimental models, but are shown to contradict them, or at the very least, fail to account for the key phenomenon they purport to explain. The basis of the disagreement exists in the crisis in causality and of the physical phenomenon of "choice," as shown by the Crisis Equation.

The search for Signal elsewhere in the galaxy is a good metaphor, for a number of reasons, as we could imagine that the alien signal we seek to understand is “life” on earth. In the case of my book, what I have shown is that no other signal, i.e. possible chemical or self-organizing phenomenon can be responsible for the causal Signal. More than this, my result shows that it is mathematically impossible to obtain Signal, due to a problem with Causal Geometry. This result is even true for what we commonly think are mundane examples from day to day life. A casual trip to the beach presents many interesting questions about the causality of what we observe, the signal washed up on the shore or imprinted in the sand.

My Laboratory Evidence In Support Of This New Theory: A Fortuitous discovery in my research of natural DNA to treat cancer

The Crisis Equation concerns not only a theory of physics but how we are to currently detect and evaluate our environment. Be this with machines or our minds; a fully functional and perfectly equipped detector of reality. The mind can be fooled. Yes. But in reality, the percentage of error is small. The literature and reports coming from establishment science, are highly biased towards attempting to convince human kind that it is not reliable in knowing “reality.” One is the psychological perspective, the other is a physical reality that is verifiable independently of perception. In regards to detection we are concerned with the latter. We are concerned with autonomous actions. Which are so numerous they may as well be infinite. (Think every action of our body, immune system, cell division, autonomous nervous systems, reflex). But in fact, I will venture that any action can be viewed as physical and autonomous, aside from far ranging conscious interactions or other physics.)

Here is a good example. If someone states “color does not really exist.” Do they really mean to say “color is just a word and we can’t find the word in nature or the brain”, or do they mean that there is no such thing as a wavelength of light corresponding to “blue?”

Yet regarding how we detect reality, this book concerns revealing a fundamental problem and error which is made in current theory.

The error is in causality, which I have taken great pains to produce experiment after experiment showing a problem that is made unresolvable by a fundamental flaw in methodology. Not only a flaw in what we call our “particle understanding” but of the way our perception of causal space is geared. I have shown where it does work, and that is in the inanimate, natural world. We have also seen where it does not work. Where it does not work, is the most interesting. and this has led me to conjecture that there must be an alternate symmetrical space, a VCS which has its own causality.

That is at least one of the purposes of our demonstrations of the “equation.” It is why I have spent so much time showing the mismatch. One can think of this as an error or in a more positive light, it is in fact a new universe of reality awaiting us. Regardless, the error in the current model led me to understand that the problem is causal symmetry. Yet, it will not be visible perhaps at first glance because of the way one is taught, essentially “coached” to read reality in a specific way using limited tools.

One problem I encountered in my own research was attempting to show the effects of a new micro-particle, a DNA that is stuck to a molecule that is toxic to cells. I was using molecular toxins which are known as intercalator toxins. These molecules bind specifically to DNA. It may seem strange to bind the toxin to the DNA and inactivate it, but I wondered how it would interact, if it could enter the cell. My idea was that the combination of the two entities would do something very unique to a cancer cell. To scientifically prove that my idea had promise, I had to show that the DNA did not affect the cell in a harmful way. And then compare that result to the drug itself, and also the DNA bound to the drug.

I can show that I have a DNA-drug in the experiment, meaning that these are physically stuck together and act as one micro-particle, because of a process of elimination. To know this, we have to carefully look at what the components do by themselves, by making different combinations of the unknown materials and seeing their behaviors on cells. Cells speak the truth, always. Presuming that they are pure substances, the drug, the DNA and the DNA-drug will all have unique effects on the cell. I know it is a DNA because it is NOT all of these other substances.

I’ll show you examples from my actual lab experiments with a novel DNA and drug concept that I actually invented and tested.

Here are a picture of the healthy cells from my experiment (first image) and drug treated cells (second image). It shows what cell might look like after being treated with a drug. When just DNA is added they look a lot like image 1. But this is also true of DNA-Drug in some cases.

Fig 86a-b

How can we prove that it was the molecule of DNA-drug that I added to the cells that caused this effect? We must be able to control the

experiment such that we can subtract all other possible effects, including the addition of the water that the DNA was delivered in.

We are dealing with secondary causality. The causality of the cell itself is not in question here and therefore the cell’s effects, virtually all of them, will be subtracted by our test so that we can see the DNA-drug’s effect.

􏰀 For this experiment we are using our own detector, our vision of the various cells in various states after treatment.
􏰀 We are also using an instrument which reads light coming from a chemical test of the cell’s health.

Our Causal Equation formula for causality is the following:

[Total Signal either visual or instrument] – Signal from DNA molecule only- Signal from drug molecule only – Signal from adding water molecules – Signal from adding nothing (noise) = Signal DNA-drug

We can repeat our experiments, and see for example, what just the effect of the drug or just the DNA looks like. My objective at the time, was to see if the DNA-drug had more of an effect than the drug alone, for different types of cells. There was always a difference between drug alone and DNA-drug, however, I wanted to compare the ratio of “effect” between drug and DNA-drug for different cells.

Here are the steps we took and the results:

When I add DNA to the cells, at 1 mg, I see no effect whatsoever on the cells.

Of course, the DNA was added IN water. At the level we are detecting signal, water can have an effect sometimes. So I must also test the water. And make sure it is not effecting the cell by itself. That also showed no effect. Here are our results. So we have [Signal from cell- DNA= signal. We also know that Signal from cell- water= signal

Then I also take the drug, which is cancer drug used to bind to the nucleus. I add it to the cells at 100 micrograms (1/10 of the DNA). It does have an effect and Signal is increased. Call it a 99. We only care about differences. Recall that for water, this was ZERO it is our baseline signal. It is also, by the way, the same Signal when we do nothing at all to the cells! (that is yet another control for our test).

I must By the process of elimination, by seeing a causality in cells or biology that wasn’t accounted for, there have been countless other discoveries of new molecular substances.

What does “life” really look like?

I can show you pictures of healthy cells, I can do lab tests on these cells and show you some numbers. None of those pictures or numbers says “this is a living cell.” You have to agree that the photo I showed you is of healthy cells. And if this is in doubt, compare those images to ones taken from healthy organisms. One may think this is very arbitrary. It is actually not so arbitrary in other sciences. If I say this is a spectra of absorbance for mitoxantrone, the drug we are using in the test, I can prove to you that this substance call it MTX” is a unique substance in nature and even in the universe. There is no other substance like it. And how would I show this to you? We have just discussed how that would be done, and I use the same standard of proof in this book. And for more assurance, we can say that you might argue, but you would not bet against me on that. I will be able to show it is a unique substance on earth, like no other.

We can show mitoxantrone is unique in behavior, and other substances we call “molecules”, by elimination, by subtracting off behavior of other possible structures until nothing more can be subtracted. We can even divide molecules, and examine behavior of their parts. In each case “Signal” must be from the region observed, and cannot be from outside.

But the problem is that if I use a “molecular theory” to show what life is, I show that this cannot work and can’t be subtracted in causality. A molecular theory is good for proving molecules and chemistry, but it fails to show behavior of a living system. If the behaviors of the substance “mitoxantrone” which I believe is made from the atoms, C, N, O and H, and has a structure (X?/\/\/...X) could match to much other substances, with C’s N O and H’s, we would not be able to say it is unique. Likewise, if my DNA-drug Signal was equivalent to water, or DNA alone, this substance could not be said to be unique.

Now, let’s say that “life” is an arbitrary identifier we have assigned just like mitoxantrone. Life is an unknown, but has properties we can assign to it. Here is the “money” question. Can the behavior of that thing called “life” have a behavior that is associated with it that is unique amongst the universe?

Let’s consider the counter argument, the control if you will. If we said that the behaviors of this substance “life” were actually identical to many other physical behaviors we know of, would it be unique? If we said that its behaviors were caused by other phenomenon, by other chemicals, we would also not be confident. In the same way

mitoxantrone” would not be a unique molecule. It cannot be a unique substance, a unique molecular structure, and yet have behavior that is not unique to it and it alone. So much of this book will be to present new evidence for why the behavior of life” is in fact not like any other behavior of matter.

Taking it further, I believe life has a structure not strictly defined by its atoms or molecules, but by the bonds within it, the forces that it creates and imposes around it. But to support this statement, I must show that those forces are unique, they cannot be possibly derived from atoms or molecules alone, which is the background.

We have pursued these examples to establish the rules” of proof that are required.

Should we wish to evaluate an unknown phenomenon appearing to us, the assembly of a cell from surrounding molecules and energy, or an imprint left long ago in rocks, then we can draw a dotted boundary around this region and evaluate the causality (both ENTERING this region and EXITING) that might be responsible for what is observed. For example, are the imprints in the picture I’ve taken from a desert hike, the sign of a natural disturbance of the surroundings on the rocks? Can environmental forces be causing these patterns? The

Interesting patterns in desert rocks. Was life here? Credit-MK

answer, we obtain by subtracting off known effects from a “library” of possibilities. We either imagine or document, these various possible patterns, and since none of these match they cannot fully subtract. The color of the rock is similar to surroundings. This is subtracted. As is the rock itself, that the fossil is made of. What we cannot subtract, are the patterns in it. These are like nowhere else we can find in the area, or any we’ve encountered before. But more than this, they do not fit within variations, we also can either project (using morphing computer images) or imagine. But what is also striking is when we put the forces together, they would have to be directed in patterns from simultaneous directions. Whatever was here in this rock, was disappeared long ago. The pattern is so unique and different that it shouts out to us.

In fact, most of its atoms have been replaced by the rocks around it, but as we look closer not all of them. There appear to be calcium from bone, but nothing else.

Discussion: These examples are an example of the current causal model, of physical causality. In fact what we realize is that I am using the molecular model when I do the testing above for my new DNA-Drug experiment. Because this is a molecular based experiment, it is expected that the interactions with the cell will also be molecularly based. In a sense there is continuity here between models. In this experiment, with drugs that effect cells, which by the way are chemically tested by metabolism, the drug and cell are considered as molecular systems. This way causality is accounted for chemically. But in the new experiment, in which we are attempting to understand new behavior, this model we have just showed is insufficient. In fact, as the Crisis Equation demonstrates, it gives the wrong answer entirely, when we are asking about the detection of change, of force and of Signal which is originating from a region of space.

But our examples are not at all without utility. The other reason it is important is because it in fact shows the problem. The failure of an existing basic model of causality is unexpected, it is good, and it is incredible to witness.

In many ways, I believe that this failure was expected. I believe that I was aware of it, at some level, many years earlier though it manifest in other theories I worked on.

Fig 89

Layered Causality Principal of the Crisis Equation.

How I show a unique, physical effect of a living organism on its surrounding system. In the model experiment, I have laid out a track of yellow molecules (a matrix) inside a small plastic well, which have been converted to blue form by micro forces, I believe are living cells. I allow a beam of 570nm light through the well to evaluate the system. Neither I nor the Universe surrounding the VCS micro-well above caused the unusually high concentration of “blue” molecules, which my spectrophotometer picked up as S= 1.970. Where did this signal originate in space? Inside or Outside the System?

Fig 90

I must subtract off “layers” of signal entering the VCS. The system is isolated from external forces, so vectors such as Observer, temperature, gravity, noise etc. are subtracted from the VCS. I added the matrix, salts etc, and so their effects including protein, produced molecular effects on the yellow molecules, which I subtract first, as these are the same in “controls.”

Fig. 92a (signal from cell changed molecules alone @570nm)

Fig. 92b signal from the control living cells

untreated @570nm)

Fig. 92c (signal from the plastic wells)

Then I subtract off the light effects of the control for cells (92a) which have been treated with TX (non absorbing molecule at this wavelength) but subtract these controls to be sure. Finally I subtract off the plastic the light passes through (92c). I’m left with a curious result. More signal remains for the alive cells than the dead cells. Why? It confirms my hypothesis, neither the observer nor the universe caused this additional, unsubtractable Signal. Furthermore, it was not the “cell” we detect [the cell is subtracted] but a net force from the cell in the form of a micro force. These are molecular, and they are of causality “2”, not “1”. They are bio-machines, which do work on the matrix or track of yellow molecules NOT done by the molecules in the matrix. Most importantly the Origination of this force was INSIDE the VCS micro well.

Matthew Kosak US20070225213.

[Total Signal- other contributing vectors from minor VCS’s [Cell, plate, chemical effects] = net Signal (if any).

We would have approximate (est.)remaining S of 1.71units, due to forces interfering with light entering, and confirming Signal originating INSIDE the system.

THE CRISIS EQUATION

What is going on in the cell? Is there anything we are not understanding here? We have already discussed the problem mechanistically, of accounting for behavior of matter in the System we investigate here, in terms of some kind of chemical or physical phenomena. Before I go into the depth, let’s take on the first most accepted causal account of what is occurring in the system. It will be stated by the biologist, the evolutionist, that the signal is due to conversion of the dye to blue, which was due to production of enzymes, and this was “directed” by specific genes (let’s say for argument that there is such a specific gene.) That argument is irrelevant to force mechanics or of energy, the context of our problem. “Put those words into numbers and units which can be measured.” Put that argument
into numbers. But this is yet another issue (where science falls severely short on evidence) that we have discussed. We already know that the enzymes converted the blue molecule to yellow. Very few explanations for this phenomenon would even discuss the fact that a force is required, a microscopic one, to produce the enzymes and convert the blue molecules to yellow. Osmotic forces are assumed by science without explanation. I am measuring the effect of such forces here, using light. We are asking, what is this chemical process? Did the causality of it begin INSIDE or OUTSIDE the cell? There are only two possibilities. 1) There should be a force balance [all forces entering and exiting the system, balance] 2) there isn’t a force balance. We need to add up the vectors of force, which I will approximate head to tail. The entire causality that I read in my instrument is some number of Units, which are due to an algorithm in my instrument which has measured the drop in light. In other words, we are accounting for micro forces due to light.

Fig 93a. The author strolling some other rooms adjacent to his laboratory.

Fig 93b showing vectorial subtraction of light signal

I have normalized the Signal to 200 units (Fig 93b), which we recall is caused by my wavelength of light I beam through it, at 570nm, to be physically altered by the path.

By subtraction of the causal vectors in this way, we are accounting for all causalities, all forces ENTERING and LEAVING our VCS. We are applying the Crisis Equation.

We have treated the absorbance reduction as causality, essentially for approximating the vectors of causality responsible for the drop in Signal.
We find that there is an unexplained amount of Signal remaining after every conceivable causality is subtracted.

We can detect life, when we are not sure if life is present by observing its causality on the background matrix. Here is life’s force against a background matrix, a “mud flat” of yellow chemicals laid out to detect its footprint.

We can assume that we have controlled, based on the selectivity of our trap, the kind of mud” we use, that no natural, environmental effects can be attributed.

-80 wTX

There is another way to confirm the non-chemical phenomenon, that life does not behave like a bag of chemicals. Our control is the cell, which obviously contains all the chemicals in it. And that is to in fact add a slight amount of chemical to the cell and then immediately determine how much of the yellow chemical it converts to blue. The chemical itself, TX, does not subtract Signal of any significance. Yet when the TX is added, at some 10 micro molar, there is a dramatic effect. When we subtract off this kind of cell, for argument we can use .8 units, we still have .9 u left over.

I have repeated such experiments.
We are in fact treating both the life substance “Cell” and the matrix as a

system of molecules. The important result is that my experiments (in my patents and here at the lab) confirms positive Signal! I cannot subtract this signal.

It might be argued that I have taken the cells, and caused signal to occur, simply by the addition of them. We controlled for this variable in the experiment. The cells do not cause appreciable signal, at 570nm. Yet that is an interesting point, but it is one that I would expect. Could I have CAUSED this signal? I assume that the cell is in fact, not made, but is at what we call “ground state”. The cells have not been modified

in any way that is unnatural. And in fact, I can control for that variable (in subsequent experiments if needed) by taking a quantity of cells, that has virtually no Signal, and growing this Signal.

I expect that the critics of my findings are going to be Evolutionists, and

physical biologists who practice “selection theory.” However, I will ask these scientist to show Self Order chemistry. And also selection. How would “selection” or Self Order explain the extra Signal of my result?

But returning to that point, I can just as easily go to the ocean and obtain a sample directly from nature. The sample will be fully ambient, as the living thing already was in existence in the System and in its matrix. The background matrix will be the seawater. Do we expect a different result? I predict that I will still obtain positive Causal Signal/Noise relative to the background matrix. In fact the saline solution I use is very close to seawater, which is not a coincidence. Is it possible that chemistry will cause or confound such results. In other words, can we argue that “chemistry” can produce Signal from the yellow molecules? There might be a baseline signal, but we expect that we can grow the organisms in the same matrix of sea water, and increase the Signal further. The growth” behavior is another means of showing Force but also something else that is extremely important to verifying my theory.
Growth is a micro force that confirms theorem 2B. We can certainly agree that the cell contains DNA. Causally, where did this DNA come from? Perhaps we will still not agree that it is not chemistry, despite the fact that you have not shown what kind of chemistry it might be. It came from another cell, and another cell. It’s very complex since this is a human cell. It was obviously colonial for a long time, but that cell’s DNA was replicated through many kinds of cells of many kinds of organisms. How many times has this genome and the material in it, been replicated? We don’t know. However, genetic sequencing has shown that the genes in a mammalian cell, a cell obtained from a human being, contain very similar genes to the most primitive life forms on this planet. That is remarkable. As it indicates that the components in this cell are likely as old as the oldest life. How else would they share thousands of identical sequences?

The cell replicating in the above images, are direct products of a Causal Chain extending from the cell in question, to cells which are only found in the oldest fossils, some 3 billion years old. I have supposed that life is a single continuous, causal phenomenon. There is no pause or break in the chain of causality from that cell to another living cell, 3 billion or 4 billion years ago. For all intents and purposes, we do not know what that age is. However, in the Second Chapter, this is strong evidence to support my position that life is perpetual energy

system. The atoms have been exchanged many times as has the energy, but the VCS more or less comprising those basic genes of the most primitive organisms, has run continuously for over 3 billion years!

System Mediated Origin Of Life (SMOOL)

It has been believed, incorrectly, that chemical processes could lead to primordial life. It has been believed, incorrectly, and against all observational evidence to the contrary, that life is somehow an extension of a form of chemistry.

Chemical processes are governed by Outside IN causality.

But processes which are living are Inside OUT. How is it possible for a living process to become Inside-OUT?

We can now suppose, with the VCS, and causal geometry, that the only way to physically generate such a force is by a System, a new form of causality that is not a chemically based phenomenon. I believe, such a system must also mediate a force. And so I believe that Systems are a new causal entity, much like a particle that mediates a force. No one has every provided such evidence for this force, the reason for that is because it largely requires a new kind of symmetry. The equation that I have provided uses symmetry that literally rewrites causality. In such a way that the equation is balanced. I have incorporated Newtonian Laws of motion, but in essence I have gone further. Newtonian laws would not allow what I am proposing, because at the time Newton and others that followed, (all the people from 1900’s to modern times) worked with a single causal universe, in other words no mono forces and an outside in (relative to a VCS) universe. This is not a complex notion. The direction of causality I propose is completely different for unique systems. An idea which is not possible in Newtonian physics. The origin force is not something that only had to happen in the past, it is actually happening currently. This force is generated by living systems, FN (FsubN) or FL (FsubL) (life).

SMOOL means that if life could not have started simply by spontaneous generation from elements or molecules, then this must tell us something new, not only about life but also about how earth was formed. Earth, may be much older than we could imagine, or detect, from science’s conventional ideas of formation.

The Particle Identity Problem (PIP)

Particles are real enough. As we showed in the illustration, “..Proving a molecule effects cells” we can show a molecule’s effects on a system like a cell.

But particles lack an identity other than what particles can do. The sea seems real enough, as do clouds, and yet a water molecule is not some fraction of “the sea” any more than it is a cloud, or a substituent of a mineral. Macroscopic behavior, waves, currents, are explained by particle behavior, acting individually. So it has been assumed that life, will also yield to such explanations.

Clearly if that is not obvious now, it should be, that I do not believe it ever will yield to such reduction. And partly because of particles “identity” problem. They cannot be made to act differently than their causality framework allows.

This means that we will not be able to ascertain an organism’s behavior or structure based on a particle or a set of particles behaving like particles.

This is in direct contrast to the known science of chemistry. We can ascertain chemical and molecular structure from the macroscopic behavior. A salt crystal for example, is based on atomic structure, ice crystals, fogs, and waves of water are the contributions of individualistic molecules. Should the structure of the molecule change slightly, the wave, crystal or fog properties are immediately altered and predictable.

This is a tricky problem. Is the wave or river, appearing to us because of its observed properties, properties observed by the observer? Though many may believe this is a philosophical problem, it is more physical than philosophy. In this book such distinctions are critical. And in reality the molecular constituents know of no wave or river, which means that the only “behavior” that we will find is that at the molecular level. A “river” or a “wave” are unmeasurable unquantifiable and most importantly, relativistic to the observer. We judge such observed properties of nature, based on experience and this experience is the sensing of force. In the strict physical sense, it is not accurate to believe that such forces are intrinsically existent in nature by themselves.

What is the difference? Molecules are indeed real. They are composed of a specific number of atoms in a specific arrangement in space. But the attempt to somehow reduce living things to a molecular matrix has been a complete and utter failure. This is what I term a particle identity problem, though it will not be solved by the discovery of yet a new particle, a “gene.”

Can We Prove Life Exists...On Earth? Before Looking Elsewhere, We Should Search for Proof Of Life On Earth (POLOE)

This may be news to the science enthusiast, anxiously looking for evidence from Horizons, Curiosity, Dawn or others, which may point to life in our solar system. The task before us, as intelligent species, should first prove, scientifically that life exists on earth.

And by “proof of life” I do not mean a definition of life, nor simply a theory of what life is, i.e. based on information. What I mean is that we cannot show scientifically that the phenomenon of life has any unique causality on its environment.”

Ask someone on the street, if life exists on earth and likely they assume you mean intelligent life, not life itself. Have you not heard?" Life exists! They exclaim.

But how do we know life exists here?

Was it written somewhere? In a cave? Where does such knowledge come from?

More interestingly, how can we trust such knowledge? This is an assumed reality, which appears obvious, but is not obvious at all.

The Four Force Emergence and Detection

Problem (FFEDP). What is it?

It is for somewhat illustrative reasons, that I have featured myself in the middle of the discussion, because we are a detector of this reality. The hunting or tracking instinct is an example. But unlike any machine our results of the test: “does life exist on earth?” Come a priori. They are processed and used, ,and have done so even before we had a system of language. This does not help however. As I have said, no theory comes from itself or nature. This book and its theories originated in my head, in my being, my radical notions of causality that is flipped, and if it does have proof of itself, then that too, is of course . But I make no claim that one could not prove themselves.

Here was my theoretical question. How do I prove that life, can theoretically originate from molecules?

This is not as useful a question as another. How does it emerge from the Four forces? I have labeled this the Four Force Emergence and Detection Problem (FFEDP)

Instead, the radical notion I introduce here in this book is that we are actually looking at how life appears differently to us, than the background molecules it is composed. There is a background matrix, which is the chemistry that life operates on, and which we are familiar. But this matrix continues now. The problem of emergence”

from that matrix is not one in the distant unimaginable past, but one that is current time. So in essence we ask how it originates now today and every second, from the molecules.

According to conventional S to N, and if life is a product of the four laws of physics, life should actually appear to us according to our science as indecipherable from the inanimate molecules.

This is an exciting realization that I have obtained from this study. I realized more and more as I wrote this book, that the question of how life emerged is the same as why it is visible now.

And to thicken the plot, I realized that it is essentially a detection problem. And at the same time it is not. Strangely, we can see life before us, and therefore it is almost impossible to imagine the idea that we don't really understand what is in front of us. But more difficult is to believe that our scientific methods our detection should give us a zero a null result for life. Can anyone imagine a machine on earth telling us "life does not exist" on this planet?

There is no denying that we see its properties. We experience life, a priori, and by such experience, we know it exists. There are many experts who will attest to its existence here on earth. Yet the task here in 2016, after all the scientific progress of the ages, is to prove it actually exists, scientifically. And without the requirement of asking one’s knowledgeable opinion that it does. We have proof of

molecules and structures on the one hand, that are indeed unique to life, but on the other, these are not proof of life.

And here is the consequence. If we were to visit our own world we would not be able to prove life empirically based on an absolute background subtraction of causality, based on algorithms of detection that we would apply to the detection of life on another planet.

We’re on the fringe of revealing the deeper problem. It is experimental, theoretical, and biological. We already know that life is present, but the problem is that we “know” that life is present. We’ve no sense of life physicality greater than our own intuition. This is because we are experientialists. We have within us, a better detector of life, than any machine.

Run a machine on a sample with life in it. As we've said the data from a machine can only show us molecules, which are then referenced to an arbitrary standard. It is irrelevant if the standard appears physical or chemical. The sample contains amino acids, a spectrum of atoms, C N O H F Cl Fe Mg, Ca, nucleic acids..,

We cannot name any processes or specifications that are not found in inanimate molecules!

Sometime at a presentation of my book, I will take a group and have a discussion of a question. How would you prove that life exists on our planet? I would expect that this question would cause some confusion. Likely people will respond “you mean, you don’t know that life exists?” “No.” I will say. “How will you prove it exists? And keep in mind, the rules for proving its existence, are to show experimentally, that it exists. Just like you would show a molecule or an atom. The standards are the same, and have not changed.”

I would expect someone to say “haven’t these experiments been done?” You might think so.

I would expect others to say, “but life obviously causes changes in the environment around us, these changes are unique.”

My reply would be. “Yes, what are those changes specifically, and how are they unique?”

Someone will likely give a definition of life they have quoted, which more or less states that “only life uniquely operates based off of a genome, replicates and survives, only life operates based on information.”

None of these “definitions” are objectively testable by accepted chemical or physical criteria.

What physical differences are there. Between living and non-living? Are there any? And regarding “information”, machines utilize information all the time. Is a machine, alive?

The Origin Of Life Prize (www.originoflifeprize.org) is a web site which is dedicated to the search for a credible theory of life’s origins. One would be hard pressed to find a more comprehensive task list for proving a theory of life’s origins. But one of the key burdens that a theory must meet is not only to explain a theory, but to SHOW an experimental validation. Theories of information regarding life, are heavy on theory, and rely on computer models. Obviously they cannot show even a basic physical test based in actual chemistry. I have levied such criticisms on other theories of life”, based on information or statistical equations, computer models etc. which have no chemical experimental model.

I have taken the position that we cannot prove that life exists, unless we can show behavior that is fundamentally different in a living system, that is non-duplicable in a non-living system, and to do so experimentally. In my view the Originoflifeprize.org is a non-starter. It seems to imply that such a theory will be found using existing motifs.

I have taken the radical position that if life obeys the Second law Of thermodynamics, then it is no different than non-living matter. We are instead, only observing a phenomenon of non-living matter. That

position was unacceptable to me, and has driven me to consider this alternative, and this book.

But the central problem of the Crisis Equation that I struggled with, was to attempt to prove, without question, and deductively, that life is fundamentally different than non-life.

To do this, I had to devise an experimental way to prove this. In the next chapter I outline how I did it. And though it is technical, that is an unavoidable consequence of the subject, and it is well worth the effort to read. It assumes the reader is already familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument for why life is presumed to obey this law. We shall have numerous discussions of the VCS theory elsewhere.

“The Arrow Of Time”

Before we launch into a discussion of why the Second Law is violated by life, I think it would be useful to give an example of how strange and beautiful the property of what we call the Arrow Of Time, or Entropy, actually is. How time seems to flow from past to present is what is referred to as “the Arrow Of Time.” But it is also intimately related to Entropy and not simply because of disorder. It has more to do with a concept called “irreversibility.” Here is a very good example. And you can find such examples anywhere, even in a diner. When you take whole cream and shake it, you will obtain what is called “buttermilk” and also solids which settle out. These solids are butter fat. What is interesting is that you cannot make the butter go back into the cream. Even if you melt it and shake it vigorously, it will not go back into the cream. It seems that it should, given the fact that you put work into it in order to make the butter in the first place. If you take table salt and dissolve this into water, it takes heat to do so. Heat must be added to dissolve the salt, as the water will not just break apart the salt by itself. The energy had to be added to make the crystals of NaCl come apart in the water. However, the salt in water example is completely reversible. I can take the salt water I have made, and then add more heat to drive off the water and give back the salt crystals just as they were. We can also collect the water and obtain it in its exact form. The point is that salt dissolved in water is a 100% reversible process. But in the case of our butter, this process is not. It is irrelevant how clever we are chemically or how much “free” energy we have available to add in our attempts to make the molecules of butter return to their original state. We will not be able to add heat or work and make the atoms make the cream for us. That is a consequence of the irreversibility of the process that obtained the butter. Why it is irreversible, but the NaCl example is not, is a key aspect of nature we explore in the next chapters.

This principal of time’s irreversibility is something I explore. But what is also revealed is potentially, its REVERSIBILITY. What is interesting is that I can in principal, produce a chemical matrix that is always reversible. In other words, there are no chemical processes that are non-reversible. If one adds the “required” minimum energy, E into the process. With E, the energy can be added, the starting atoms or molecules obtained and purified from their ground state components, and the original chemicals obtained. That is a principal of chemistry. Yet, there are some processes which cannot reverse themselves and it is irrelevant how much energy E we supply or for how long this is supplied.

We are delving into the fundamental nature of the universe. The nature of “before” and “after”. Terms that reflect Causal Chains. A system may be reversible only because it began as reversible, in other words that was its initial state. But more specifically its causality was a “2” and not a “1”, which I will discuss later. Cycles in inanimate chemical processes are completely reversible. So are the various cycles in nature. There is no chemical form that can’t be synthesized from very basic starting atoms, and molecules. Except, molecules such as proteins. And other naturally made molecules, made from processes which are non reversible. DNA itself is synthesized relatively easily, but a relevant sequence (functional and working in life) is not. I will assert here and now, that it is not possible to actually modify a living thing synthetically, and make that life operate more robustly than it did before. We are now returning to the central concept of Signal, which becomes a much broader idea. Crops which are engineered, appear to be healthier and to grow more easily because this is an observer biased phenomenon. It is not the perspective of nature.

______________________________________

Intro To: “Why Life Violates The Second Law Of Thermodynamics”

The second chapter of this book explores how the new Thermodynamic Causal Time Directionality TCTDP is applied to understanding life and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We explore to some extent, the specific reasons why science’s limitations, its algorithm based on Newtonian physics, will be fundamentally at odds with the causal relationships I posit here. Theoreticals and disagreements aside, there is a rainbow at the end of the path. The output in a Cost Vs Effort graph might be that one can see the potential for perpetual devices that can

in theory, repair themselves. From the simple principal of the cooling body, we can derive the directionality principal. Then from Directionality, the passive flow of heat, we can easily support the following arguments:

􏰀 A perpetual energy machine is not possible in an open system.
􏰀 We cannot create an ordered system of any kind, that will

restore itself indefinitely
􏰀 Since this is not possible (4) then does this mean earth is not open system? For our purposes. Yes. So I assert a new definition of a “Closed” or “Open” space. We distinguish “open vs closed” in terms of “required energy” to maintain system against entropy. [No machine on earth or anywhere else, will run perpetually because of the accumulation of entropy.
􏰀 Since this is true, (6.3) the earth is for the purposes of our new theorem TCTDP, a “closed” system. To prove otherwise, a machine would have to be able to absorb unique kind of energy and repair itself. There is no machine that will act, autonomously (no external assistance), as a heat pump. 6.4- My hypothesis is that this is physically impossible. A machine, a collection of atoms, is a dictate of, ultimately the energy

found in the system of atoms, composing the inanimate computer or machine is the result of passive flow of heat Externally, Outside-IN.
􏰀 What this means is that life, even primordial basic life, is constantly surrounded by atoms and molecules which are higher entropy and are a “closed” system, where order and heat passively escapes from these regions (6.5).
􏰀 Both the machine and organism are in closed systems, but only the organism can maintain itself indefinitely.
􏰀 Perpetual motion” is a meaningless term if the structure in question does not continue to exist, in perpetuity. I believe the mere input of energy or of force continuously would not preserve structure, but in fact, deterioration is a unique property of the system...apart from it. If we think of organisms as a structure, (its genome) this structure has been preserved for over 3 billion years.

􏰀 􏰀

􏰀

“Open” system is defined as a space which does not receive a minimum amount of energy required to maintain a machine against decay.

The consequence of 6.4 is that in order for there to be perpetuity of a device, it must at minimum, Originate force, and Signal, just as an animate system does (6.5A).

So the next chapter explores how we might go about building a perpetual device, which still requires energy input, but can in principal, lower its own Entropy and operate forever (6.5B). These would be machines that can repair themselves.

The 2nd Chapter: How Life Violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Implications of 'Virtual Closed Systems'

This is a new theory involving what I refer to as "Virtual Closed Systems". In this exploration of the Second Law but also perpetual energy machines, I derive a justification for Virtual Closed Systems.

This theory addresses the rather well known problem of open or closed systems. There are the thermodynamic depictions of earth, in which life forms, (and was basically a chemical product) , essentially due to what is believed to be extreme non-equilibrium behavior of matter, of basically systems of molecules that are disturbed from normal motion by dissipation of energy. It is supposed to be a spontaneous process, similar to?..but even the theoretical details are missing. First and foremost it needs to be acknowledged that the existing idea, of far or extreme disequilibrium makes certain , basic assumptions that I'm challenging here. The most basic, that energy entering the system, i.e. sunlight, can have sufficient useful energy within it, to yield, molecules, or products that are capable of doing work on the system. In other words, can the sun’s energy, cause molecules to initiate work against the system? That is a question that the VCS model raises.

It has been presumed that molecules can do work, and can act as tiny motors and since they do this in living cells, it should be possible outside the cell, or inanimately. The problem with that is that these molecules don’t know they are supposed to be in any particular place. Even large engine like molecules, want to get away from the pack, they want to diffuse and do so by colliding with other molecules until the collisions are lessened. So when we examine a VCS, how would molecules stay within it? What is realized is that it takes force to oppose the natural tendency of molecules to diffuse away. But it begs the question, if these were spontaneously generated, part of the problem is in fact, how such micro engines would be made in the first place.

One might assume that is 'negative entropy', but I'm introducing another idea there. Other assumptions, upon which the greater disequilibrium theory also rest, are already in dispute, because they have not been experimentally proven. They are purely speculation. The negative results are also important. This discussion does tie in with another partial theory I introduced in another blog I wrote earlier. But at any rate, I am making hypotheses that are testable, and in fact can be shown by experiments herein. The more I think about closed virtual systems and the implication for either mechanical robots, or of living machines, the more I'm convinced this new concept is useful for evaluating this problem. Is life really related to disequilibrium of ordinary matter? Is it a dissipation process? Those are some of the interesting questions.]

The second law is defined specifically for closed systems. In a closed system the amount of available energy to do work will decrease over time. It has been stated that the Second Law of Thermodynamics means that the disorder of a system, its entropy, will always increase in isolated systems. (1), [1b] ) (Schrodinger 1944).

Regarding the phenomenon of life, it has been long accepted in the sciences, that life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because we are told that life does not exist in a closed system. Instead it is assumed that we live in an open system, open, because our sun is providing ample energy to power life on planet earth. (but also, to drive the earth’s systems of dissipation).

But the concept of what is “open” or “closed” is at the heart of the difficulty and is actually central to the controversy and new theory I am proposing. It is assumed that it is open, and this is not the case. Which is the reason I believe the second law of thermodynamics will need to be modified. By saying “it is not

open” I am not proposing that there are invisible boundaries. We instead envision a unique system with a virtual boundary, that is a test case, call it our region of interest, in which we measure what is going in and out. Closed systems do not have to be closed, merely independent. Furthermore, I propose that if a space can be defined by what is actually happening in it, for example that it behaves as though it is closed, then it is closed. It turns out that the vast amount of space can be included into what is called closed”. These are natural, inanimate spaces. And they meet our new definition of what is a closed system. I replace closed by natural or environment.

Consider also, that in a closed system, a perpetual energy machine is not possible, as it will continuously generate a small quantity of entropy in each iteration, regardless of its efficiency. The generation of lower forms of energy means that it will eventually exhaust the available supply and cease to operate. (3)

The perpetual energy machine is a test case that if these existed, would violate the Second law, (but also the first law of thermodynamics, that energy can’t be created or destroyed). The First and Second laws are based on observations of behavior of systems. But what isn’t appreciated is that these apply to any processes which appear to
cause effects in systems around them. Life is a perpetual machine, but not because it is immune to heat death, or that it makes energy. So the closed” nature is only closed in certain pathways, and open in others.

But here is a very interesting question: Is a perpetual energy machine possible in an open system? (4) If it is not possible, which we can assume is experimentally verifiable, then does this actually infer that the so called "open" system is not really open? (I use a proposition or rule that if the experimental results or effects or identical, their causes must be equivalent. (5) [Newton's Rules of Philosophy, Principia (2nd Edition 1713)].

There are two primary assumptions based on observational experience, to support the assertion that life does not violate the second law: 6.1) life avoids so-called "heat death" by constantly absorbing energy from the sun. If this energy inputted into the system were to cease, then obviously life would cease, and 6.2) the earth is always viewed as an open system.

My point regarding the perpetual energy machine, is that it is possible that despite the fact that it might not be possible to formally show that we exist in a closed system, [based on (6.1)] the
experimental observations of non-perpetual energy machines, and

passive heat transfer, strongly imply that it BEHAVES as though it is a closed system (6.3). What then would be the difference?

If life is in essentially the same kind of system as the perpetual energy machine, which (we can assume for the purpose of this argument), then we would therefore have the same kind of problem for both (7). [So again I invoke here the principal of equivalence. If two systems have identical effects, their causes must be equivalent.]

By this rule, a “living machine” doesn't get a pass any more than any other machine. By the implication of this rule or postulate, we have now justified a new hypothetical space, in which a “closed system” may in fact exist within an open system, and we can consider the consequences of such a “virtual” system in Fig 1.

Key to this realization is that we are not defining “open” in terms of availability to absorb heat. It is now defined for our purposes as a space which does not receive a minimum type of energy required to maintain a machine against entropy, (nor to oppose entropy itself in the volume).

6.6) Is the earth a perpetual energy machine? Continually absorbing heat energy and running various cycles? The problem is the term “perpetual”. If it is then it is in a constant state of change. I believe this is yet another means to prove that the Earth lacks a causal system. It is a disordered system of atoms, in motion because of heat added externally or internally. It is a system of atoms, so it is in fact the “closed system” the atoms in the water cycle for example, will deteriorate any ordered structure, machine etc. So it is closed” in terms of lacking that critical energy “to maintain or repair the ordered structure or machine, our test case” but this is the correct definition as the prior one is meaningless in this purpose. The only source of that ordered energy appears to be generated currently by life. [6.7what number is this?]

Fig 1. The Virtual Closed System showing the Energy horizon (dotted) and Eo << required for useful work) imagined at a time 4 billion years ago. Note that the blow up” of the VCS doesn’t show its scale, it could be the size of a mountain, or a microscopic scale.

Fig 2.
A. Condition I* The system’s Entropy (actual) is the same inside

and outside

Sinside = Soutside And we assume it has already reached equilibrium after >4 B.Y.

Energy available to do work (inside) = Energy available to do work (outside)

In Condition I, in which it started with Eo<< below the threshold w/o life.
THE CRISIS EQUATION Copyright © 2017 Matthew Kosak. All Rights Reserved. 109

B. We can however, imagine another condition, “Condition II”** in which the system theoretically began with some organized matter. However, since we postulate (based on equivalence principal) the model applies to machines, inanimate matter as well as Living Machines”. And postulate that this is now a Virtual Closed system, with an entropy boundary, so any initial organized matter present at t=0 would undergo “heat death” or decay (inside that space enclosed by the entropy boundary).

[*In condition I we have essentially defined an equilibrium state, established over an assumed, very long time period, (i.e. 4 b.y. billion years) relevant to what is the available energy to do work, inside and outside the virtual sphere. This is not a maximum entropy state, but is meant to delineate an “indifferent entropic state” in which the available work energy has reached equivalence. The unexpected consequence, is perhaps, that this condition also would apply to other time states, much more recent, and could be envisioned in principal, as continuous. It is the basis of what is proposed here, as a ‘continuity principal’ of how useful energy is flowing from its source and is explored further in a later section. But this is further elaborated upon and supported by the "Indifferent Time” principal invoked in my other paper which examines micro states in balance (See indifferent time theory and my comment below regarding “solar packets” [4] ).

**Condition II would follow from the stipulation of Condition I but we’ve added the additional test condition of adding some initial quantity of order at some arbitrary time.]

In any closed system, the available energy for doing useful work, decreases over time (8). This rule applies equally to our virtual closed system with its entropic horizon. According to this law, a machine would eventually accumulate entropy and cease to operate. Given these results, we may ask the following: Why does this, our modified law applicable now to virtual closed systems, not apply to "living machines". [The answer, is that it does not apply differently to one or the other. Entropy applies equally to all processes inside the system.] We then have the question, how does life avoid disorder?, and its inevitable decline? (9)

In consideration of the foregoing principals, we can also propose that

the mere input of solar energy, of heat, does not at least in any experimental sense, ever demonstrate that this input of energy will do useful work on the system of molecules on planet earth (10). [This may seem to be a rather bold statement, but it bears scrutinizing further (below).] I have also elaborated with a comment in quanta see my reply [23]

So this is yet another strong, experimentally verifiable result, (also furthering our aforementioned propositions) which supports the notion of a system that BEHAVES as though it were closed. (And that such interaction(s) of a hypothetical ordered state (or non-ordered state at equilibrium) with its environment can be duly considered physically with this new virtual model and various possible implications tested.)
Thus, if we take the definition of the second law to mean that a system will eventually accumulate entropy, that is, quantitative non-useful energy, then any system including a living one, should cease. (11) Thus, we have obtained a new result, based on a virtual closed system, its properties of being closed*, verified by our principal of equivalence (above). That is, it does not comply with (6.1), (6.2), nor with (2) as it has no physical means of drawing order into itself, or of increasing the useful work energy contained within, to lower its equilibrium entropy density relative to the outside (12) The fact that it has no intrinsic ability to lower its entropy also is critical to its “closed” nature). We would expect such a system to effectively demonstrate a similar measurable potential energy density inside such a (virtual closed) space and outside, after equilibrium Sinside = Soutside at sufficient time, or ≥4 b.y. This essentially defines the closed behavior of such a space. (13)

In this regard, and in consideration of the principal of virtual closed systems, we have experimental evidence, that perpetual energy machines also are impossible in so called "open systems" [again on earth no perpetual machine is possible, not even one that runs on solar energy (14)*. [*a proposition based on a virtual entropy system proposed here, in which the machine therefore has no means of reducing its own entropy] as well as evidence, chemically, that energy from the sun does no useful work on the system. (14) ..And we are again, also defining “open systems” such that these are composed of smaller closed systems, in which energy flows in and out through an entropic horizon (15). This can account for why an “open system” still works to pose a theoretical limit on the possibility that a machine can self-regulate its interior entropy- (16)].

Thus, based on this new theory, it appears that living systems composed of molecules, do violate the Second Law of

Thermodynamics (17) based on condition I and II either the system was never at disequilibrium S(inside)=S(outside) or it would decay rapidly, to reach this state), and further, this is based on the preponderance of experimental evidence, e.g. the failures in laboratories to show otherwise (see Zeravcic 2014, Attwater 2013, Weissbuch 2009, C Huber 1998, Haldane 1929)). Though this is not strictly true. Living systems (which are natural, self-replicating systems) composed of molecules also appear to violate a number of other laws, including Fick's law of diffusions and Fourier's law of passive heat flow. Living cells have systems for removing entropy, and they have existed for a very long time, for all intents and purposes, in perpetuity.(18) With this new model it can hopefully be better understood why that is.

*Sub-Conclusions: We can see that the virtual closed system" model diagramed here allows us to resolve the original question we asked previously: "is a perpetual energy machine possible in an open system?" The answer is that one must consider the system differently, and if this is the case, if it is considered as a bounded virtual space, we can surmise that the net energy capable of doing work will decrease inside this volume...even in so-called open systems (19).

Discussion:

The position that life does not violate the second law is one of the most ubiquitous (if not ambiguous) statements one will find in virtually any text (web sites and also technical papers) relating to the subjects of life and physics. (19.1)

Here is an example:

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Law

s_of_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics “Some critics claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because organization and complexity increases in evolution. However, this law is referring to isolated systems only, and the earth is not an isolated system or closed system. This is evident for constant energy increases on earth due to the heat coming from the sun. So, order may be becoming more organized, the universe as a whole becomes more disorganized for the sun releases energy and becomes disordered.” (19.2)

The statement above is generalized and is not new but represents the dogma currently. It is a position little changed from what was believed by early pioneers in the field of thermodynamics and living systems. Schrodinger proposed his concept of “negative entropy” in which

organisms extract (or attract) lower entropy to themselves from their surroundings, but he clearly recognized the problem confronted by the cell of lowering its internal entropy. (Even earlier, Boltzmann, 1866 also recognized the problem of energy [2] as critical to life). One will find only slight variations on Boltzmann’s statement (made 150 years ago) if he searches the modern, technical literature. Let us examine what this argument is saying. The sun is generating vast quantities of entropy in its conversion of its hydrogen fuel reserves to heat and also light energy. According to this model, we can imagine that the earth is receiving some form of useful energy, Eo , capable of doing work, and the COST of that, in accordance with the second law, is that the net system, the sun and earth taken as a whole, create more entropy than they gain, in terms of ordering. The order in this case would obviously represent living organisms, but could apply to any ordered system, including inanimate machines. What this argument fails to account for, and what I am attempting.. in pointing out here, is that when it is portrayed in this way, we must assume that the light energy coming from the sun is capable of doing work, (that it can do any work at all). We must assume that it is a form of energy that is higher than the system it is shining on, the earth, (or other planets and objects, let’s not forget those.) This problem I am addressing can be better seen with my virtual system diagram. We also note, that the boundary does not have to be spherical and is only shown (this way) for convenience. It could in fact represent the boundary of the machine, its organizational interface (with its exterior environment), thus the “entropy horizon” would not be spherical it would be 3D and conforming to the machine’s interface.(20) Machine = ordered systems required for its existence/operation.(20.1) And the outer boundary is defined as everything else. I drew the spherical shape which also, best represents organized life’s basic unit, the cell.

(We note: The “order” in a system might actually increase, e.g. in the formation of crystalline substances and ordered lattices. However the capacity of that system to have energy that has a capacity to do work is diminishing. (And that is how we are defining entropy here as well as its implications to the second law.) We can simply state for these

purposes that the earth, if left alone at some theoretical instant in time, would progress towards equilibrium, owing to the fact that the earth is continually “attempting” to reach equilibrium and shed heat it is gaining from the sun. So it is valid to assume that for the next unfathomable period of time- external energy, capable of doing work will always be higher outside, as it is ENTERING the system of the earth, externally. We can neglect, the entropy produced by the sun, or that 􏰁S is always positive for the system outside in space. (21) Our question is: Does life violate the second law? And so for these purposes these definitions

should suffice. We have not stated anything special yet about the heat energy coming from the sun except to say that this is and must be at a higher level on the outside and is assumed to be continuous.)

“Heat is work and work is heat” This is the mantra from physical chemistry. And yet it is not correct physics, except when the heat is envisioned in an arbitrary, observer controlled universe. The heat only does work when the moving molecules... recall these are vibrating, are withheld at some pressure, in other words the molecules must be restrained from their normal motions, otherwise we simply have waste heat, doing no work. [This is the Non- Systemic Behavior Principal (NSBP) which supports FN but also #rule (25) below]

Unfortunately, this is precisely what occurs in nature. We do not find in

nature, barriers which restrain moving molecules laden with heat, to do work on the system. More simply put, nature imposes no normal force against heat, quite the contrary, it passively allows heat to escape, and it does so with high probability. (The probability is zero that we should find anything to resist it). So the dogmatists are merely presenting a story which has no mechanism to function. The problem is not so subtle, and it is the problem essentially that nature imposes no barrier, no normal force against heat. By nature we can say this is the known physical laws, and also the expected behavior of molecules, absorbing solar energy. No matter how much radiation they absorb, we should not expect a barrier to be imposed against heat. Recall that in the very definition of work, WORK , W, is defined as an application of force per unit time. Or force applied through a distance. The key to that statement is “force”. Where do we see such a resistive force in nature? But more precisely, and this is critical, the probability of such a force existing is prohibitively small and essentially non-existent. So this is in

a sense, another way of stating the second law of thermodynamics. (22)

It does not matter if we are talking about vibrating molecules or molecules cascading down a slope, resisted and guided in their path, by the normal forces of a stream bed. We see in this case that the molecules ARE being resisted by normal forces. Wala! Says the dogmatist, or Eureka! What we stated was that the probability of such a

normal force barrier, appearing spontaneously to do work is virtually zero, for all intents it is zero, particularly if we are increasing the magnitude of W. (22.1) So in the case of a stream flowing down hill, it has great potential to do work, but in nature, no one is there to impose a dam, (unfortunately), and in fact what the second law means is that there is no force, no physics that will make a dam possible. And by “dam” we are not speaking of random blockages, but to the force that the dam imposes on its surroundings, a force which will not spontaneously occur. We should also be more precise about the normal force of the stream bed (against the water) and state that the force of the bed is a resultant of prior forces of the water acting to move it and deform it, that is, it was never an “imposed” or Initiating force which is experienced, but is a consequence of actions already in play. The system is “rigged” against such resistance. Thus we can see that without a force to be opposed against it, the great potential energy of a moving stream is wasted.

“Evolution” neither explains nor accounts for how the heat from the sun might increase order on a distant body (asteroid, moon, or planet), nor the new problem I have raised in this new book. Specifically, the condition of 2b” which states that for us to detect a choice, a change that is different from surroundings, some work must be done.

The point of this argument is to take this knowledge and apply it to the statement “life does not violate the second law.” Since we now know based on this new argument I have presented here, that this cannot be correct. [The second law is intact as is the general assumption of entropy increasing outside the system]. We again consider the “micro state” , “micro” relative to the earth’s surface. Whereas it is true that the vibrating molecules (instigated by heat from the sun) that enter the sphere have the capacity or potential energy, we find just as the case above, that there is no resistive force to slow their motion. There must be a resistive normal force in order for any work to be extracted from this potential. We also see that the probability of such a normal, resistive force being imposed on these molecules is virtually zero i.e. the P <<<< 1 and is given by the equation. The notion that life does not violate the second law thus has a 99.99999..+% probability of being false. (23)

“Why would I state that the sunlight is not initiating change in our atmosphere. And run contrary to what is an assumed fact in public science? We must in this case differentiate change that is occurring, (convective heating or molecules) from initiated change, a new

concept in physics we have introduced and defined earlier in the first part of the book. One can test my hypothesis as such. Can one find initiated Signal from some region in the atmosphere? Can one measure a force generated? This is as we already specified in “rule 2b”. Signal will not be autonomous to any region of our planet as I show later in “Planet Engines” but should not be present according to the principal of “Indifferent Time.” One can certainly imagine that the sun is “causing” light pressure from photons on the earth’s atmosphere. Though this is mentally obvious” it is not provable scientifically without the addition of an external, artificial force. As I’ve said this force is what generates the Signal.”

As I have already stated, this argument can be falsifiable, if the

probability is determined and is at some level that is significant. There is significant physical evidence to support my case, however. The evidence that the energy Eo , incident on the entropy horizon, is capable of doing work, is negative. In view of the postulate here, the normalized force problem, we would not expect that this energy from the sun is capable of doing work on the system of the earth’s molecules. But there is another issue from this model. 2) we would also not assume that the entropy in the system, and this is again defined within or at the interface of the entropy horizon of the machine, would not continue to accumulate. Both cases I or case II, (in addition to the normalization force problem) would predict that under the known understood laws, any organized or ordered system would undergo heat death. (24)

Rule: heat exchanging or passing through an arbitrary

region cannot do useful work unless it encounters a normal force (opposing its motion.) (25)

Other discussion/references: In a recent review of the physics of far from equilibrium biology and physics, Axel Kleidon considers Earth’s systems that are pushed far from thermodynamic equilibrium by living things: convective cycles, weather patterns, mantle subduction, tides, etc. This would be in essence, condition II that we treat in this paper,

however, Kleidon is not concerning his paper with earth’s system from the perspective of condition I, in which we attempt to answer if theoretically, the solar energy is itself capable of doing useful work. The solar heat driving convection, is not an isolated force. But according

to the theory I propose here, such a force would not be possible to do work against the other surrounding forces

or its own contribution. (26) It is claimed (by one reviewer) that earth is in disequilibrium”, witness hurricanes, tidal forces, and other forces. What is it specifically at disequilibrium with? Is an asteroid on approach towards our solar system, at disequilibrium? No, it simply has momentum, mass times its velocity.

The heating and cooling drive the convective processes of the earth’s oceans, however, none of these winds or tides actually move against the impetus that drives them towards dissipation. As we have already pointed out, the stream flows downslope, unimpeded, and can therefore do no work against the force of gravity acting on its own mass or on the surroundings. (It is itself, subject to this force.) The movement of a stream would not be observed, if the earth were not in the path of the solar radiation, absorbing the energy. So it can’t really be seen as the “purpose” of the earth to dissipate this energy. Some tremendous percentage of solar energy simply radiates off into space, missing the planets (ref.) we will not, according to these principals, be able to find “natural machines” that in fact do work, as the sun’s energy, exerting a force, does not work against itself. [It is not possible for a force to have two simultaneous actions.] Which can be demonstrated microscopically. (26b) It might be supposed that turbulence builds clouds blocking the sun or cooling, much like Brownian motion might interfere with heating or cooling. There is no “interference.” These are taking the least path of resistance towards dissipation. And it is truly very difficult to imagine how one can make the claim that there is some “engine” within a natural system, speeding energy and wasting it in the least path of resistance. No engines that I know of, operate by offering least resistance and least work possible to affect their surroundings. That is precisely what occurs without a resistive force, and one cannot be found in these natural systems in the context of doing work. (26C) [note: (see my argument#16-17 from “Indifferent time” http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/04/i- propose-challenge-to-maximal-flow.html

specific to the arbitrary introduction of forces into diagrams “artificially

assuming a force entering the microstate” which “in reality these are not ‘entering’ but are part of the system” and the assumption causes problems for causality.. (26D)

Also, a planet is not doing ‘work’ any more than an asteroid is ‘doing

work’ by deflecting the solar wind (from deeper space) and moving in its orbit. So the question itself, that we ask here, cannot be properly defined under conditions where these terms are not differentiated. The process by which heat is dissipated or released also is not strictly a case where such heat is being ‘generated.’ As much as occurring, again continuously. As we note in the ‘*continuity principal’ in Fig 2]

Many of the maximum entropy production (MEP) advocates seem to be extremely confident in their physical results, they obviously believe that they are correct and that such models are experimentally substantiated. However, can these well-published author scientists describe how MEP would apply to anything that is of practical, physical or chemical relevance, and shown how that can be experimentally tested, proven or disproven? For example, the problem of improving drug function in a cell? Perhaps we are to believe that a cell model is less complex than turbulence in a solution? If this theory of MEP truly is so widely cross-applicable to physics, why is it not directly applicable to solving chemical problems in drug activity? What principal of MEP (or any other statistical energy theories) is not already fully encompassed by other theories of chemical behavior and structure? When we examine a theory like MEP at the molecular level, we can find that there isn’t a behavior that it claims that is verifiable, MEP is no different than passive heat flow or passive diffusion, which have been known for over 500 years.

On the other hand, the new theory I propose in this paper can be experimentally tested. But it is not required to use as complex a model as a cell drug model. One can use physical mechanical models, such as water tanks. We can physically measure the amount of work that the system may do at different times, say at arbitrary states of I, II, and III and show that the available work diminishes, in agreement with observation. I have adapted these basic principles to a much broader application. (27) [see (Lucia et al 2014) in my other archival paper “..Indifferent Time...” http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/03/..) as some are apparently applying constructal theory to cancer models and treatments, and constructal theory is a ‘preferred dissipation’ model like MEP see my note [17] below]

Viewing our planet as a system such as a “Gaia system”, seems expected for our living planet, but it wilts rapidly, when such a thesis is applied to the moon or to other bodies in our solar system. Europa for example, and the moon, both have water beneath the surface. In fact, far from equilibrium dynamics does not seem to encompass radiation

from lunar soil in the same way as it does convection of an ocean. Nor it appears would the Gaia hypothesis seemingly have any bearing on an asteroid floating between Mars and Jupiter. And yet a body such as the moon or a smaller asteroid, reflects heat and dissipates heat from its surface, in the same fundamental, physical manner as the earth. It would not seem unreasonable to require that a theory must apply to all objects as these all exhibit similar fundamental behaviors of energy exchange. These examples point out the risks of over anthropomorphizing theory to meet pre-conceived notions, particularly ones that seem appealing to the mind or socio-political or cultural aspects. Hence the necessity to reduce the problem to elemental units, and my reference to the passage of energy through open space. What is the purpose of open space flux of energy through a surface? None. No Gaia hypothesis applies to such space, nor it seems a “Maximum Entropy Generator” to the moon or our system’s asteroids. These are the objective elements of vectoral forces. But that is the objectivity that is demanded of the physics. No doubt, the theories advocating some aesthetic balance or drive will still have more appeal, but the cost of that appeal is the murkiness that masks reality and ethereal elegance.

Findings: We have derived a justification for a new space, a Virtual Closed System (VCS). We have justified this based not only on symmetry, as we did before, but now on thermodynamics. With the time equivalence principal, heat or any other energy source does not cause a self-opposing force. The nature of the difference between animate which reduce entropy, and inanimate (which do not) is that these are within a different space, and are a system in and of themselves. The VCS shows that chemical processes in general, starting with order as in the condition II described previously, lead to products which are then successive end points leading towards products of increased entropy and a lower capacity to do work.

If we are to assume the sun provides E0 of energy, then a system of atoms on planet earth (no matter how complex to begin with) will lose this initial organization rapidly. This is because a system of atoms cannot pump out its own entropy, and we know of no perpetual energy machine that can run indefinitely, because disorder will accumulate rapidly. The remarkable fact that independent life has existed so long, known to exist some 3.5-4 billion years ago, means that life in effect is a perpetual energy machine, operating against a system surrounded by increasing entropy. This is a thermodynamics support for the symmetry argument I make in Crisis Equation. The dogmatic model of life, that the energy from the sun, E0 overcomes toxic entropy building within life, or any organized system, cannot explain how this energy causes entropy to leave a system of atoms. And this was one of the big

questions we began with. Condition II, proposes that any machine, no matter how well conceived, will build its own entropy because it is a collection of atoms, not actually a system, as we define it. (Though it appears to be. We have no way of stating, except arbitrarily, that these atoms belong to a machine, and these atoms are where the soil begins, or the air. Moreover, according to my SN Hypothesis, we can prove

that such machines (currently) do not produce intrinsic Signal, unlike life.)

We can imagine that living processes must utilize, in some way, the sun’s energy, which is an external source of causality, an Outside-IN form of causality. We can see the enormous potential of my causal Signal to Noise theorem as the Signal we detect as life, cannot be the resultant of an external event occurring first, imagine this outside the sphere of causality, i.e. the production of energy from inside the sun. And we will discuss more about Time Maps later in the book. According to the Crisis Equation, which I later formalized as the Causal S/N Theorem, it is therefore impossible for Eo to cause Signal from a system containing life. If reduction in entropy, relative to background, is viewed as a form of causal Signal of a living system, this will not be detectable to an observer. The only kind of entropy reduction, relative to background is Inside-OUT causality based. The sun cannot cause a living thing to reduce entropy because this only adds energy or heat, making the atoms lose organization more rapidly.

If life is viewed as a collection of atoms, no atom model or molecule model, can explain behavior, as it would not be able to pump out entropy from the system. Most importantly, these experiments show the lack of any resistive force, chemically resisting that path that is intrinsic in these in vitro chemical systems. And indeed, machines, can be shown to lack such an intrinsic force, FL or FN generated against the surrounding system, what I call a Machine Limitation Crisis (MLC).

What is that resistive force? Where does it come from? That resistive force FR (Fsub R) =FL Fsub L, (28) necessary to do work, would be Critically present to our understanding that shows how life evades thermodynamics.

I believe it will be difficult to understand, potentially, that the Causal SN Theorem prohibits, mathematically, the current particle based causality of living organisms. Not only does it do this, but it also prohibits that former misinformed belief that such causality was secondary, causality assigned as “2”, in our Causal Chain.

Just as it is impossible for the observer to detect a phenomenon that is the resultant of external primary events, (as it goes hand in hand with causality), this also means that it is physically possible for such a phenomenon to be the resultant of external, Outside In causality. I said

this book would be radical and non-conventional ,and we are obviously meeting this expectation. We will confirm these theorems again,, late in the book, following SUMMARY of this Chapter, as we learn to assign “1” or “2” in causal time maps.

Addendum:

It can be imagined that the particles in motion (see radiative diagram in Fig. 3, below) are given some momentum from the sun, that is, they have some energy available EA or ES (EA=ES) meaning that this is the source of the heat or particle motion (and labeling differently from
waste heat which is of a lower form), which does in fact exert a pressure for example, in the atmosphere as it energizes and translates motion to molecules there [See Note 7.17.17]. [Note 7.17.17 *It was upon more careful analysis later on in the book, that I realized that this is not actually, physically correct, and might be misleading. There is no intrinsic physical pressure from the “sun’s” energy on the surface of the earth’s “atmosphere.” To understand the beauty of life, the property of life, we must understand the properties of non-life. And I have used quotation marks to indicate some of the flagged terms which are revealing of a physical problem in the perception of the physics. It is tricky and imperceptible, as it is so common in our thinking to assume that terms such as “pressure” are physical, a priori behaviors of natural physics around us. We are accustomed to seeing this in physics books, as though a “pressure” exists with or without us. Or a pressure exists, with our without the presence of the tiniest living organism. Such a pressure is a causal resultant of a System, and it is a vector force, emanating from that System, a VCS. In accordance with the indifference principal, but also of S/N theorem, in addition to the limitation on Force of particles...the energy radiating from the sun is not a “system” composing the sun or of any other “region” or volume of space. The energy is in terms of particles only. Only particles mediate this energy. So the perception of “pressure” of these particles in the conventional equations used to calculate it, is only due to the observer’s imposition of the normal force FN against it. The wind only

exists as the individual air molecules, and furthermore, the “wind” does not exist as a causal force. It is the type 2 causality, the moving air molecules only move because they were collided with previously with light photons or other energy particles. The long held perception that there are regions of molecules doing or extering pressure, is entirely a man made observer based artifact of being an independent, Originating force against the natural world around us. So we speak of “the sun’s pressure” or that of the earth, ONLY because we impart a normal force, not only physically by one made and produced virtually in our mind’s eye, in our brains, which manifests itself in our tools of perception. I am making the distinction in natural physics here, as opposed to the black board Newtonian world because we must do so. But this is still not resolving where the types of energies originate. So the sun is a source of energy, but this energy is not necessarily a source of any change, of any intrinsic work in nature. This relates to the whole problem of this book, and the paradox of the planet which has no life on it. It relates to the source of this incredible Normal Force, FN, which is not naturally present on other bodies in our system, such as Mars (that we know of) unless life is identified there. This sort of discussion will cause the typical university physicist a great deal of pain. Particularly when they come to understand that their physics is not correctly modeling nature, and its actual causality. The “pressure” caused by one’s hand against the wind, or the pressure in a carbeurator of an engine or of any engine whatsoever, is due to origination force, not a force supplied by the natural world, or intrinsically present in the universe, sans life.]

What is not shown but can be envisioned, is the same EA net from the sun, say some quantity of this heat, being instead incident upon a floating dust cloud. In this case we see some of the EA being only slightly diminished and continuing onward as it is deflected, whereas some is absorbed by the particles (by direct collision of the energetic particles with atoms in the dust) and is translated into motion of the dust and radiated heat QN loss. So the net energy is always, in the case of the earth or the dust cloud, essentially QN+ EA2 (net ('final'))+kinetic motion = EA1 (net) 'starting' from sun. But in the case of the earth, there appears to be a normalized force FL that is imposed and this imposition has some probability that is >>0, where the probability of a FN in this case is virtually 0. What I show earlier in the

case of “indifferent time” is that these incidents of normalized force, be they a normal force of a river bank, the water resisting pressure of the particle in momentum ( a packet of solar energized particles exerting a force) or the land, these forces do not appear to anything but passive, and thus only help move the energy EA in the least resistive pathway available. (Much as we’d expect of the particles in a nebular dust cloud) they simply excite and then relax as energy is reemitted back into space.) What then is the difference? This is a key issue.

*The available energy to do work, must be proportional to some average number of particles N with some average energy E. But if we trace such a “packet” after incidence upon the atmosphere, or on the magnetic field, it (the net EA) will be diminished in each drop of the “energy ladder”. The massive quantity of heat radiated from the earth cannot be completely waste heat, it must have some fraction of ES + a lower form of heat QN).

Fig. 3 The earth is constantly attempting to shed its heat energy absorbed from the sun and reach a thermal equilibrium or maximum entropy. The constant absorption of Available Energy, EA from the sun prevents this (yellow) by driving essentially the disequilibrium in the conveyor which I depict as an energy ladder. I have not shown the “entropy horizon” diagram here (for simplicity). Normally, the available energy of the sun cascades along a series of steps, ejecting waste heat (that can’t do work) QN in each step, and the remaining available heat proceeds along until it eventually radiates to space. Not shown are the numerous steps, but clearly, each step is robbing the available energy, the active heat (ES = EA) of its capacity to do work on the system. I show also with the wiggly line drawn deliberately, across a step” a normalization force or FL, which also exhibits a unique QL at some special rate of loss. What should be diagramed is essentially the particles bunching up against a wall, forming a gradient or pressure’ experienced by the FL normalization force, which also extracts some proportional amount of work WL not shown. I drew FN northward,. depicting it moving against the gravitational field, but is originating as the result of lost heat, QL.

Regarding the Eo, in which I define it as having energy (sun light energy), but such energy is much less, <<<... than that required to do useful work on the system, I do not intend for this definition to be unnecessarily obtuse. We do not know really “how much less than necessary” the energy of the sunlight is, but we do know that it is not initiating change currently. Why would I state that the sunlight is not initiating change in our atmosphere. And run contrary to what is an assumed fact in public science? This is an important causal distinction. We must in this case differentiate change that is occurring, (convective heating or molecules) from initiated change, a new concept in our physics we have introduced and defined earlier in the first part of the book. One can test my hypothesis as such. Can one find initiated Signal from some region in the atmosphere? Can one measure a force generated? This is as we already specified in “rule 2b”. Signal will not be autonomous to any region of our planet as I show later in “Planet Engines” but should not be present according to the principal of

“Indifferent Time.” One can certainly imagine that the sun is “causing”

light pressure from photons on the earth’s atmosphere. Though this is mentally obvious” it is not provable scientifically without the addition of an external, artificial force. As I’ve said this force is what generates the Signal.

So I’m actually referring to a concept that I believe is reasonably testable. Though (for reasons of the argument I make here), there are no known cases of self replicating inanimate systems that we know of in nature (nor on the bench top). Rather, in every case where there are self replicating systems that we encounter in nature, these require some input, not only of energy, but also of order, at some minimum threshold level. I don’t believe this is well understood but the concept seems rather straight forward. Obviously, the ‘seed’ order cannot be below what is required and intuitively we recognize that living things required not only DNA, but also a cell body. My point here is that we can envision these “virtual closed systems” as actual systems present in nature, and I believe they are, that is in fact at least one of the testable constructs of this paper. Such ‘virtual closed systems” would be isolated in a significant way from the environment around them, likely by a semi-permeable barrier. Such a barrier would of course, allow energy to enter. This energy might be in the form of potential energy, such as that from chemicals in for example a heat vent, or it might be in the form of kinetic energy or both. There are certainly many potential regions we can envision on earth, and lakes would be one example. Water is entering the lake, bringing organized molecules, and they might congregate in this region as there is a barrier to the movement of molecules out of the lake by the structure. Sunlight enters, as does some geothermal heat, so this would be Eo, and my statement , Eo << work required” is that this is not at a sufficient level to do work on the molecules in the lake. A similar case might be found in isolated regions of tide pools, or caves. The mere fact that there are molecules present in these locations, that have some gradient, either in concentration or in their energy state, does not indicate that self replication is possible. This does not show in my mind, evidence that the sufficient energy level can be met. We already have for example, a massive virtual closed system, and that is the earth, with its sunlight

providing a massive gradient in terms of potential energy. We can imagine many different syntheses in which molecules are ‘made’ spontaneously and yet we also know that this thermodynamic model is fundamentally flawed. Even if it was possible that advanced organic molecules were being made en masse, in some isolated primordial lake, the supposition of this model would require that the driver of the process is the energy of the surrounding system.

However, this situation lacks an energy model, and the complex molecules being made are going to be made, that is true, but it is a process that resembles normal synthesis on the bench, not self replication. And that it is still not shown how such a system of molecules will pump out other molecules, to form a gradient. That is the problem that all of the articles regarding elaborate self replication computerized models seem to lack, no thermodynamic model. Never mind the actual molecules themselves, how are groups of replicating DNA or RNA and proteins going to be shown to actively oppose their surroundings? [*in bench models we have roughly Condition II, but not exactly. It is experimental fact that these systems still run down hill” even from their energy inputs, the external supply, (which themselves run downhill think of the power plant), and they proceed more TOWARDS equilibrium of total work potential S inside= S outside than AWAY from it. For example, what happens when the Peltier driven thermal cycler is turned off?] So we have instead the case of Condition I, in which the equilibrium is established after some time. and S inside =S outside. And that can occur even in cases where vast quantities of energetic molecules are being made naturally. They are simply part of a more elaborate energy exchange process in which energy is being dissipated, they are NOT in fact showing an exception to the Virtual Closed System,” but demonstrate that the available energy (density) capable of doing work is equivalent inside the entropic horizon and outside it.

If living things including ourselves, were in fact, a form of “energy dissipation system” much like other systems, in what fundamental way would we , living things, be different than other systems? But what is also clear is that in such a system, in which life is a dissipation system,

albeit a much supposedly better dissipation system (see Prigogine 1977 et al..) then we simply have the problem of such a system be determined from the external energy sources that it dissipates. In other words it is a fundamental issue of causality.

A Summary And Proposition Of A New Law Of Thermodynamics

In the Chapter “How Life Violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics” the reader will notice that I’ve numbered some arguments as (1), (2)...etc. I am summarizing, building upon, and further discussing those crucial arguments here in this next section, “A Summary and New Law Of Thermodynamics”.. This is by no means a boring dead section, but leads to new and important realizations, among these being “relativistic entropy” but also what I realized are limits of “natural machines.”
I prepared this summary very quickly at that time, because the ideas at the time were very fresh and this led to the realization that I was in fact proposing a New Law Of Thermodynamics.

References are also included to further illustrate them in this Summary, some are new, and are bracketed [1], [2], ..

We are literally still building upon the first Chapter “The Crisis Equation,” and will return to a discussion of force vector time maps.

Regarding (1), (2) we have as support: [1] "When a system that is not alive is isolated or placed in a uniform environment, all motion usually comes to a standstill ....A permanent state is reached, in which no observable events occur. The physicist calls this the state of thermodynamical equilibrium, or of ‘maximum entropy.'” (Schrodinger 1944) And also [21].

(3) "..In a closed system a perpetual energy machine is not possible, as it will continuously generate a small quantity of entropy in each iteration."

By “lower form of energy” we are referring to different forms of energy, which include the kind that can do useful work on the

system. ‘Useful energy’, is reasonably defined as that which gives direct kinetic power, but also enables the hypothetical device, as this form of energy (which I refer to as having ‘relative entropy’ also diminishes with time from a system that includes the machine. A perpetual energy machine makes more kinetic energy than it consumes, but we also must consider a different kind of ‘energy’ making device. A machine also, cannot make this other form of energy which minimizes its relative entropy, the energy that enables the machine, this applies in a closed system. Useful energy, would contain this quantity available to do useful work on the system, that required to for example, reverse ‘wear and tear’ on the machine. But if this theory is correct, then this also would be in limited supply in a closed system, and its entropy would increase, thus the need to acquire ‘negative entropy’. The question does the EsubA have this negative entropy, is a critical one. It has been assumed that it does, hence the model of the open system, but this thesis claims specifically that evidence is negative for that conclusion, and this takes different forms, negative data for spontaneous self-replication and also the new theoretical model proposed here and its experiments. *and what is clear is that any of these solar generators, including wind powered generators, extract kinetic heat exclusively, none of these machines can extract the other form of energy, which has ‘relative entropy’ sufficient to enable continuous operation and reverse

degeneration i.e. wear and tear. The same rules apply to perpetual energy or motion machines. No one historically has been concerned with anything but the classic energy part, it is always thought ‘well, we’ll supply the manpower! Getting it to ‘make’ energy would be feat enough and of course it is physically impossible. However, what has not been considered theoretically is the other form of energy dealt with here, (it is a theoretical question) of this being limiting in closed systems, specifically in the case of the Second Law. So that concept is fully developed and explored here.. as well as its very theoretical implications to the question of life.)

**And the other meaningful aspects of this paper are the following. Spontaneous generation,..or chemistry duplicating life, has been attempted by many chemists for over a century. These efforts have failed. But even very sophisticated attempts are being reported in the field of so-called, ‘self-replicating’ machines or molecules. What these fail to appreciate I believe, are these two thermodynamic aspects, 1-the useful kinetic energy or potential energy, and 2- the ‘relativistic entropy.’ In every case of so called self-replicating molecules, the system works in a sort of ‘chemical menagerie” , (which is orchestrated by the experimenter), and then ceases. Why? Because the kinetic energy component, the useful work energy reaches equilibrium, but so

does the relative entropy, which is in a sense, the lack of any pumping mechanism to remove entropy. So this paper shows that these self-replicating chemistries are no different than other chemistries, and are no more like life in the sense that they can escape a closed system, than any other set of molecules. The theoretical model I propose would clearly imply that these also, are impossible particularly in isolated, natural systems. How are we to regard these negative experiments and this theory? That in my mind, has tremendous implications.

...Surprisingly, what this also supposes is that, whereas there might exist a gradient of potential energy in nature between various locales, (a heat gradient) we do not find gradients of this other form of energy, relativistic entropy, in which it is higher outside of a region and lower somewhere else, i.e. across the entropic horizon’, and so can drive repair or other functions in a system. So S (inside) = S (outside) the barrier of a virtual closed system, as we note in Fig 1. In ‘Condition II’ we find that the relativistic entropy is higher inside, initially, but this is an artificially imposed condition by experimenters.

3. (6) Why life DOES NOT violate the Second Law: "1) life avoids so- called "heat death" by constantly absorbing energy from the sun. If this energy inputted into the system were to cease, then obviously life would cease, and 2) the earth is always viewed as an open system." See [1], [2] (Boltzmann, 1886), [8, 8.1, 8.2], [15,16,17], [21]

(7) "..the experimental observations of non-perpetual energy machines, and passive heat transfer, strongly imply that it BEHAVES as though it is a closed system." and "By this rule, a “living machine” doesn't get a pass any more than any other machine). By the implication of this postulate we have now justified a new hypothetical space, in which a “closed system” may in fact exist within an open system, and we can consider the consequences of such a “virtual” system in Fig 1."

The virtual closed space of Fig 1, is justified by the portability of the machine across a larger region [which might be fixed by certain parameters, and might even be an open system]. It justifies the physicality of such a system experimentally or empirically, by its occupation of space. If we knew nothing about the contents of the virtual space [it occupies], and only what it ‘does’ this would be sufficient to justify its existence. Hence the ‘equivalence’ rule applied to virtual closed systems, I’ve invoked here.)

4. Fig 1. The Virtual Closed System Showing the Energy horizon (dotted line enclosing the system) and Eo << required for useful work) t= 4 b.y. (billion years)

This depicts a "Virtual Closed System" an exploded diagram from a small arbitrary region on the planet's surface, with “Entropic Horizon” (dotted line) through which no “useful” energy enters the system. Useful = capable of increasing order or available to do work.

This Energy Eo has relative entropy SR- For all purposes its E<< required to do useful work on system.

Matthew Kenneth KosakMay 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM

Fig 2.A. Condition I* The system’s Entropy (actual) is the same inside and outside. S(inside) = S(outside) And we assume it has already reached equilibrium after >4 B.Y.

Energy available to do work (inside) = Energy available to do work (outside)

In Condition I, in which it started with Eo << below the threshold w/o life. B. We can however, imagine another condition, “Condition II”** in which the system theoretically began with some organized matter. However, since we postulate (based on equivalence principal) the model applies to machines, inanimate matter as well as Living Machines”.

And postulate that this is now a Virtual Closed system, with an entropy boundary, so any initial organized matter present at t=0 would undergo “heat death” or decay (inside that space enclosed by the entropy boundary).

Indifferent Time” principal invoked in my other paper which examines micro states in balance (See indifferent time theory and my comment below regarding “solar packets” [4] ). **Condition II would follow from the stipulation of Condition I but we’ve added the additional test condition of adding some initial quantity of order at some arbitrary time.]

(10) "we can also state that the mere input of solar energy, of heat, does not at least in any experimental sense, ever demonstrate that this input of energy will do useful work on the system of molecules on planet earth." see notes [23]

(11) "Thus, if we take the definition of the second law to mean that a system will eventually accumulate entropy, that is, quantitative non-useful energy, then any system including a living one, should cease."

(12) DEFINITIONS OF VCS: "We have obtained a new result, based on a virtual closed system, its properties of being closed*, verified by our principal of equivalence (above). That is, it does not comply with (6.1), (6.2), nor with (2) as it has no physical means of drawing order into itself, or of increasing the useful work energy contained within, to lower its equilibrium entropy density relative to the outside." The fact that it (the VCS) has no intrinsic ability to lower its entropy also is critical to defining its “closed” nature.

(17) "Thus, based on this new theory, it appears that living systems composed of molecules, do violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

*We note that based on condition I and II, either the system was never at disequilibrium S(inside)=S(outside) or, it would decay rapidly, to reach this state.

For support of hypothesis (17) also see "experimental

evidence, e.g. the failures in laboratories to show otherwise"

(see Zeravcic 2014, Attwater 2013, Weissbuch 2009, C Huber 1998, Haldane 1929) and others...

In (18) we note that life is also violating other laws, including Fick's

law of diffusion and Fourier’s passive heat flow..

(19) Revision to The Second Law Of Thermodynamics. The

potential to do work will spontaneously decrease in Open Systems.

"[In]..a bounded virtual space, we can surmise that the net energy capable of doing work will decrease inside this volume...even in so-called open systems"

(19.1) This is primarily because entropy is intricately related to this issue, and relates to irreversibility which isn’t present in Newton’s laws or other laws of physics and chemistry. Boltzmann attempted to derive the second law from his entropy equation, but failed. (McGuiness,1973)

(19.2) [I should note that this site might deserve a bit of skepticism as it cites “Biologos” the compatibilist organization spearheaded by F.S. Collins.

(20) "We also note, that the boundary does not have to be spherical and is only shown (this way) for convenience. It could in fact represent the boundary of the machine, its organizational interface (with its exterior environment), thus the “entropy horizon” would not be spherical it would be 3D and conforming to the machine’s interface."
(20.1) "Machine = ordered systems required for its existence/operation." We're essentially defining the hypothetical machine in this case as including ordered systems supporting it.. See "Addendum" section and Fig. 3 for more treatment of Eo and E(A) and the FsubL as well as the "normalization force" FsubN.

(21) "The “order” in a system might actually increase, e.g. in the formation of crystalline substances and ordered lattices. However the capacity of that system to have energy that has a capacity to do work is diminishing. (And that is how we are defining entropy here as well as its implications to the second law.)"
(22) "Heat is work and work is heat, but heat only does work when the moving molecules... recall these are vibrating, are withheld at some pressure, in other words the molecules must be restrained from their normal motions, otherwise we simply have waste heat, doing no work. Unfortunately, this is precisely what occurs in nature. We do not find in nature, barriers which restrain moving molecules laden with heat, to do work on the system. More
simply put, nature imposes no normal force against heat, quite the contrary, it passively allows heat to escape, and it does so with high probability."

5.14.15-This is essentially another way of expressing the second law, that there is no normalized force to oppose the natural flow of heat from one point to another.

10.

11.

(22.1) "...What we stated (in 22) was that the probability of such a normal force barrier, appearing spontaneously to do work is virtually zero, for all intents it is zero, particularly if we are increasing the magnitude of W."

(23) "..We also see that the probability of such a normal, resistive force being imposed on these molecules is virtually zero i.e. the P <<<< 1 and is given by the equation. The notion that life does not violate the second law thus has a 99.99999..+% probability of being false."

(24) "As I have already stated, this argument can be falsifiable, if the probability is determined and is at some level that is significant. There is significant physical evidence to support my case, however. The evidence that the energy incident on the entropy horizon, is capable of doing work, is negative."

12.(25) "Rule: heat exchanging or passing through an arbitrary region cannot do useful work unless it encounters a normal force (opposing its motion.)"

13.

(25B) "[It's]..from the perspective of Condition I, in which we attempt to answer if theoretically, the solar energy is itself capable of doing useful work. The solar heat driving convection, is not an isolated force. But according to the theory I propose here, such a force would not be possible to do work against the other surrounding forces or its own contribution."

(26) A force cannot do work against the other surrounding forces or its own contributions (its own action). This leads to the non-simultaneous actions rule.

14.

This is based off the problem of a force , e.g. the sun's energy,

"opposing its own contributions" therefore: (26B) [It is not

possible for a force to have two

simultaneous actions.] Which can be demonstrated microscopically.

Rule 12.22.16 System Force Synchronicity (SFS) Vs Particle Force

Particles exhibit one force, per unit time, not simultaneous forces per unit time, which means that a particles net force, which might be some combination, of micro vectors, is not going to be multiplied. Force multiplicity, or Force Divergence, is something that an organism does. It can have multiple behaviors simultaneously controlled, so this is yet another physical uniqueness between non-living (particle based) and living animate life.

15. (26C) "..And it is truly very difficult to imagine how one can make the claim that there is some “engine” within a natural system, speeding energy and wasting it in the least path of resistance. No engines that I know of, operate by offering least resistance and least work possible to affect their surroundings. That is precisely what occurs without a resistive force, and one cannot be found in these natural systems in the context of doing work."

16. (26D) (see my arguments#16-17 from the “Indifferent time” paper http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/04/i-propose- challenge-to-maximal-flow.html

specific to the arbitrary introduction of forces into diagrams “artificially assuming a force entering the microstate” which “in reality these are not ‘entering’ but are part of the system” and the assumption causes problems for causality...but we also see the problem of MEP theories conflicting with our ability to differentiate causality and whether or not something like heat "QsubN" for example (see my addendum in this paper) is truly being 'generated' or is passively occurring.

17. Matthew Kenneth KosakMay 14, 2015 at 5:20 PM
(28) Conclusions..."What is that resistive force?

Where does it come from? that resistive force

FR=FL , necessary to do work, would be Critically present to ANY equation that relates thermo to how life evades thermo currently and in the past."

Organic Living Structures/lattices As Natural

“Machines” (OLSNM)

[26] 5.21.15 Virtual Closed Systems do apply to machines and this has a surprising implication. A machine must have some entropy in itself, that is lower than outside the boundary. We are defining them differently, as having some minimal level of potential energy, the kind that can do some useful work. So this energy unlike Eo has to have a relative entropy associated physically with its form, such that it is useful (in the way we define the term here).

Machines are inanimate structures containing some level of "potential energy", which is a unit that has a density lower than S (ex) external to the boundary.
We note that its potential can be defined by its capacity to re- achieve equilibrium with its exterior, we also see consequentially, that it is also closed.

But such machines have been in existence long before man made the first "smart phone."
Organisms make these machines, structures which "assist" in keeping and maintaining system's boundaries and opposing entropy.

Examples would be the structures of diatoms and toroidal mollusk shells. They built their homes, which served as protection from ancient seas.

But we are simply attempting to understand these structures much like one would see the shell's capacity to oppose the force of surf crashing on top of it. Except that the physics here is relating to the potential of these structures to cause change in their environments.

Other forms of these machines would be energy storage "devices' of very small scales, even molecular scales.

18.

In Fig 2a we stipulate that the entropy potential S is equivalent inside and outside the sphere. The reasons are as follows: The

sphere or virtual closed system is a sample region of a natural system shown in the exploded view. The energy available to do useful work is the same both inside and outside the sphere. A system of molecules within this system cannot lower its entropy by pumping out entropy, or by taking in lower entropy products. When the virtual closed system absorbs heat energy Eo, it will passively diffuse and radiate this heat, as there is no imposed resistance to prevent it. Furthermore, we note that the Eo has "relative entropy" and is insufficient in adding useful work energy to the internal system, thus the entropy potential does not increase inside the system relative to the outside, S(inside)=S(outside). We can further stipulate that this rule applies to nano scale systems, as these can be subject to an imposed resistance, but in the case of a virtual closed system in Condition I, no imposed resistance is assumed. In condition II, we begin with a lower entropy inside, however, the diffusion and loss of energy are passively occurring, since there is no imposed resistive force to prevent it. The two conditions of the virtual closed system demonstrate that the entropy potential, the capacity of the energy to do work is independent of the starting amount of entropy in this case.

19. Regarding my post 5.31.15 “Self Replicating Molecules and why it should be rejected”http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/05/self- replicating-molecules-why-this.html) (See for example Seravcic et al, 2013, and Saccana et al 2010)

"Firstly, the self-replicating model presumes that the potential entropy can arbitrarily be maintained by the molecular system. In other words, it assumes that entropy can be passively removed by the system of molecules, in direct contradiction to what I propose here. (i.e. in a virtual closed system where the potential of S(inside) is equivalent to the potential of S(outside) in a natural system as posited by Condition I."

"Secondly...As I discuss in the case of machines, either perpetual energy or perpetual motion machines are forbidden in the virtual closed system of Condition I or Condition II. These results are not what would be expected. The amount of useful work energy, Eo (We have made no distinction between total potential energy here, it is net energy) that is presumably entering the system is not sufficient, i.e. Eo<< than the useful work energy required to maintain the machine against its intrinsic increase in entropy. I have defined potential entropy as the actual difference in entropy between itself and its surroundings. And though we can imagine that potential energy is being added to the system from an outside source, capable of doing work, thereby creating the impression that the entropy is being lowered) what is discovered in this model is that in the closed virtual system no work is being performed and

there are specific conditions that are discussed for why this does not occur. As I further discuss in (27) HERE, we discover that there is a critical lack of any imposed resistance. Diffusion and heat loss occur passively from the energetic molecules until they reach the classic maximum entropy permitted. The problem in understanding this new theorem is defining entropy differently. (As we've discussed) Boltzmann, Schrodinger and others have defined this I believe, classically, without making exceptions to animate vs inanimate systems . We are defining this in a special case of the virtual closed system, which is a natural system without sufficient input of Eo to do useful work on the system. As we’ve said, in this case we should not expect to find a potential difference in entropy between the inside and outside of such a system, i.e. across the “entropic barrier”, as there is no means to increase or decrease the absolute entropy of a system of molecules, nor can the actively transport lower entropy into and across the barrier to reduce entropy. This is rather surprising and disagrees or contradicts with the conventional entropy definition."

Conclusions from Summary of Chapter 2: A New Natural Law Of Thermodynamics?

In case it has been missed by the reader, in the second Chapter of this book I have proposed a radical new proposition of Thermodynamics.

This stemmed from proposition (22) “More simply put, nature imposes no normal force against heat, quite the contrary, it passively allows heat to escape, and it does so with high probability."

Which became

(22) “This is essentially another way of expressing a new law of Thermodynamics, that there is no normalized force to oppose the natural flow of heat from one point to another.”

I went on to find that as W, the work we might “expect” to find existing randomly in nature, increased, the

probability of a normalized force existing to generate it, would decrease further.

Rule 25: heat exchanging or passing through an arbitrary region cannot do useful work unless it encounters a normal force (opposing its motion.)”

The implications of these findings go well beyond the fact that Becker’s seminal thesis can be effectively rejected.

Why is it so important for physicists to believe that the earth’s atmosphere does work? Though this was largely the objective of my proof I posted on my blog. It also overturns this long held position of physics, that one can take a first region of space, call it V1 with some heat deficit in it, a cold sink, and another region of space V2 with a much higher amount of heat a heat source, and calculate that there is a natural potential for work between them. In reality, there is no such thing as a “sink” or “heat reservoir”. What is true is a difference in pressure of the air, is caused by the sun, and this pressure, the force of faster moving air molecules, will be reduced naturally. But that is actually not physically different than the statement “a ball will reduce its speed once encountering drag in the atmosphere.” Air molecules will gain energy, causing them to gain velocity, but when they move to cooler regions, they will slow their velocity.

Such distinctions, though easily made on a blackboard, have no actual substance in natural thermodynamics, nor are them representative of actual nature. The misconception is that one can choose regions and imagine potential between them, when in fact, these are individual particles.

Does the wind CAUSE change to the surface of the planet? The answer appears to be obvious. As we are told in books about erosion done by the “wind’s forces.” However, though this is change, it is not work done by the wind. In other words, there is no such a thing as autologous, natural engines which cause change in systems around them. I do not know how many papers have cited G. Becker (1914), but I would estimate thousands, and these must be corrected. What I realized from a position paper I wrote and posted in draft form, is that this result, more supports the existence of FsubN, a force that life generates.

What is extraordinary, I realized later, is how it applies to the universe and what it means when such a normal force is absent.

But here on earth, the definition of work in thermodynamics already assumes that this critical resistance will be supplied. Open any college textbook and you find such examples in Carnot’s definition of heat

engines. But none of the giants of thermodynamics ever envisioned a world in which such resistance would need to exist, even virtually.

In Natural Work. We will call this “K”. The product of FsubN times a displacement (some distance in meters).

I’m excited to be the first to present the case for such a new term in physics. This resistance” force is I believe the same force we have proposed must be present for causal Signal to be generated.

In our original questions we ask at the beginning of this book, what is the cause of life, how does life exist, and later, how does it exist against Toxic Entropy, we do not have the luxury of making the assumptions that conventional thermodynamics has made historically. This basic physical rule I propose will test the fundamental notions of reality. Is reality what a being makes or is it simply what it is. In some ways it is both.

The Crisis Equation-The First Video Demonstration of a VCS On Huntington Beach

On December 2016 The Crisis Equation was demonstrated on the beach at Huntington Beach CA. Here, was the first physical demonstration, and movie, showing a VCS being drawn around footprints of various sea birds. Though they were grey skies, I was truly inspired by the moment. Standing on the beach, I realized there were many aspects of causality to explore, in virtually any direction. Does the wind cause a deformation of the beach? We can imagine that it does, but in reality we are only imagining ourselves in such a capacity. It is a form of unconscious simulation of force. Such distinctions, normally are possibly not important. Not true for my new heat theory of causality. Does the wave cause remodeling of the beach? The sand is obviously displaced. And yet neither the wave nor the beach cause action, as we recall both are collections of atoms and neither Initiates. In reality, the “event” that we speak of is not really defined by discreet systems “acting” against one another. That too, is a dance done in the mind, and is an assumption that clouds our view of a new reality possible with this physics. The wave crawling to the shore “intends” nothing, it is passive.

I look forward to dialogue with physicists who still believe in earth engines, and the “forces” that “earth engines” apparently produce. I expect I will ask them for data showing these forces. That would be expected. The data that they provide to prove the wind does work and

has a force, they will tell me was measured by fixed devices planted in the ground. And so this artificial force is imposed on a natural system! Even if the wind’s speed is measured by light for example, or some extrapolated virtual method on another planet, it is still being artificially caused based on a fixed reference point, and a force (supplied by the observer) artificially imposed relative to the data they measure.

The seemingly obvious impression that the wave does in fact disturb the sand, we now can possibly glimpse with new physics here, that this an imposed judgement, a conscious simulation that our minds do upon the visual information we receive.

However, for our species to gain knowledge of what life’s force truly is, we must abandon archaic notions of physics and of causality. These are truly exciting times.

These are the whisperings of inspiration I heard as I was on that beach.

Here in such natural surroundings, I was struck newly, by the sudden realization that even though we can point to life and say “life is obvious”, we cannot scientifically prove the existence of life, even on our own planet.

And by proof, I mean to prove scientifically, its existence by methods that are not reliant on one’s objective opinion. I have confidence that should we find samples of life on Mars, it can be evaluated. However, what I am saying is that such a determination still requires, a human to say “yes it is” or “no it isn’t”..life, based on a subjective opinion. One can say “the vanilla orchid flower is alive, the rock is not.” Because the orchid resembles other life forms, and only because of this, and ONLY this. That is the ‘standard” we are referring to of determining life from non-life. And yet such a position, though “obvious” is not defensible in terms of numbers, in terms of physical quantities. Such standards are woefully inadequate for actually physically differentiating living from non-living matter.

We search the sky for signs of alien life, and yet, have not reached the stage in our development to have the capacity to recognize even ourselves, distinct from the surrounding atoms that ping against our bodies. I have set out to produce a theory of life that can be verified experimentally. To do this, we have had to abandon many “cherished” and dogmatic notions of concepts that are no longer useful or are a hindrance.

By now you have probably noticed that we have spent considerable time on actual experimental examples. This is because we are establishing not only new definitions of “choice” but also our new form

of Causality. It is critical to realize that I am defining to “cause”, in the experimental way, not strictly according to what one finds in an English dictionary or I believe, in the way it is psychologically or intuitively understood. I have always believed that “actions speak louder than words.” By our actions then, we are going to be defining what a new understanding of “causality” actually means.

And there is no simpler elemental action than the movement of atoms due to vibrations of heat. “Heat” is nothing more than the individual motions of atoms. Our version of causality must be consistent with this notion of how energy propagates through matter, by transfer of heat from one region to another. But I believe it is truly remarkable to show what is actually happening physically and chemically and thus, it is what we can show experimentally. We exist in a world of experiment, of trial and error. Thus to prove something is being caused is to associate the thing or subject with the impetus.

We return to our simple heat flow experiment. Can the current theory explain why the molecules of a living organism do not lose heat? Why the molecules of an organism do not each react individually and thus, eliminate their excess energy? This is a catastrophe of science theory that is not currently known. No doubt it will be inconvenient to consider, but then why is it so convenient to discuss the “ultraviolet catastrophe” or the problems with classical particle theories, and uncertainty, relative to quantum theories?

CAUSAL CHAINS and The THERMODYNAMIC

CAUSAL-TIME DIRECTIONALITY PRINCIPAL

A volume of space filled with atoms will remain at a fixed temperature, until some event external to that space, causes it to change temperature. I realized early on, that this theory of heat relates also, to the way causality propagates around us. The central region of a volume of space, will be unaffected until some event causes an effect on it. If we imagine again how a body begins to cool, I realized the only way this is possible is if the heat leaves from the exterior first. In reality there is nothing to cause the heat to leave from the inside first.

Interactions in our world are in a spherical space, since forces and interactions can occur from any direction. These may be the exchange of heat energy or of macroscopic energy exchange. But strangely, both of these events really only differ on the scale of exchange, meaning micro or macro. I found that macroscopic events, the ones we are most familiar visually, also obey this law of motion. What is extremely interesting is that the laws of motion essentially in existence, are essentially two dimensional. This is true even though they are able to be calculated in x,y.z space.

A causal system (of any size) may effect another, which creates a two dimensional space. But the way in which objects interact occurs in a spherical three dimensional space. “One event interacts with another” is a two dimensional argument. There is no orientation in space. What I realized is that a new Thermodynamic principal applied to dimensionality in this respect. What was unexpected, was that this theorem exactly predicted Directionality, in that it allowed for directionality to exist at all in space, and second, that this Directionality is critical to the phenomenon of life. As I said the Directionality Principal is the foundation of Causal Chains. But the mathematical beauty of this theorem is ultimately confirmed by the Causal S/N relationship.

Thermodynamics should be utilized in essentially each step of a Causal Chain.

Macroscopic Experiment Concept of TCDTP. Array Of Spheres placed in nature illustrate Inside OUT or Outside IN . If an organism is inside the ring of spheres, movement of balls is always from Inside OUT for an organism (the mouse in the center). It is not possible for the organism to cause outside spheres to move first. Yet for inanimate (red vectors on right side) it is always Outside IN. It is not possible for Nature to cause the inside spheres to move first. This is Time Dependent Directionality of THERMO CAUSALITY. It is impossible for motion to begin inside without FsubN.

In the diagram for the cover of my book, there are two graphs superimposed on one another. These are causal Time Maps (From top down) depicting the directionality of different types of causalities, which are superimposed, much as they would be in reality. One is Outside IN causality and the other is Inside OUT. There is a peak rising in the center of the graph labeled with "1"s and then on the shoulders, there are "2"s. I have labeled the center of the graph “1” as it is a region where events occur first. The “2” are events with are caused by the first event, and occur later so have lower elevation. The other graph shows a valley in the center, and rising plateaus on both sides.
These peaks show, if one can imagine , vertical time racing or progression of events. If you imagined the plot of where events occur first, then more recent events have higher elevation. Less recent events are at lower elevation.

(At higher elevation, that graph point is a datum that went to completion. The others at lower haven't started.)

One of the critical concepts of the Time Map is the Causal Chain. Which is the chain of physical causality that leads from one event to another. The Time map depicts such a causal chain of events, or even can imagine one event, as the chain of "this action causes this action" propagates in some direction, from one place to another.

If we imagine a sphere of some arbitrary volume, Thermodynamic Causal Time Directionality Principal states that the heat inside the sphere will not change its state until some event external to the VCS occurs FIRST.

TYPES OF CAUSALITY

“1” Is an origin point of Initiation of causality. This is the first source in

a causal chain. The “1” is found by S/N where S-N>0 or S/N is > 1 or <1

“2” Is a secondary action from an Initiation, a “1”. We can call them 1,2,3,4...or a,b,c,d..or whatever label we want to designate the order but realize that these are all of the TYPE of causality of “2” It is a “2” since, S/N >1.

2.. I give these causalities a secondary dot dot, not just a “2” as they are secondary leading to secondary. And they lack an initiation point. S=N so S/N≈ 1. We also call this non Signal” or score it as zero, to avoid confusion. We can call them 1,2,3,4...or a,b,c,d..or whatever label we want to designate the order but realize that these are all of the TYPE of causality of “2..” In theory each “2...” shares history with another event, as they theoretically originated at the same “1”.

If we follow strictly a particle model, it forces us to predict that any behavior within the VCS is CAUSED by the external forces acting inwardly. So causality, if we imagine the causal chain, is coming always from a distant source. And I realized early on that this form actually follows what we expect from particles. This is an unavoidable scenario produced by particle determinism. What does this mean? This means that the inside behavior must be changed and influenced directly by outside conditions. But “causally external” is a different form of “outside”, and we simply mean that

the initial event, the first in that chain, is so removed that it is in some other time. But time flows very much like heat.

TYPES OF EVENTS

Draw a small droplet. Then draw a circle around that droplet. Where did the energy come from that gives the particle its energy? Unless you are drawing such a region around the “Big Bang” singularity, (which has no known location) that energy came from outside that circle. As I’ve shown, the causal geometry of this is a consequence of symmetry. Energy cannot be made or destroyed, from within a point or a particle, nor in a volume of space. Draw a circle around any arbitrary matter, and it is true that neither the matter, nor the energy, did not originate in that space.

But the cooling of a body, a drop in temperature, is also an event. So is a wave. A change in heat from one region (Inside the VCS) to another (outside the VCS) can be caused by Work.

This means that when an event occurs inside the circle, in the environment where an organism is, a prior event not only preceded this event, but this prior event is always located outside of the circle.

Conventional causality “Outside-IN”:
An event inside the VCS, must always be a product of a first event occurring outside the VCS.

If a single molecule moves inside the VCS circle, this EVENT happened after another molecule moved just OUTSIDE of it.

How do we establish what is inside or outside?

By causal geometry, the center is a region where causality can begin. But energy cannot be disposed of here, nor created. A center is completely arbitrary at least physically, in “2...” causality. However centers are physically real where there is causal Signal, and an Initiation point, a start point for a Causal Chain.

The possibility that causality defines space is absolutely incredible. How does it do this? Causal Chains. Causal Chains have if we imagine it, are just like billiard balls colliding on a table. There is an order of collisions or effects, which began at some ball, and then propagated to other balls in the direct path. If we imagine such a chain, the simple event actually can define a space.

If we have a uniform space with no change within it, there is no VCS that exists, and no causality.
To understand this we must return to the example of the hot body cooling in a room. The heat inside the body cannot be destroyed, it cannot go anywhere in space until another event, externally, occurs to release it. The theory I propose is in agreement with the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy is neither made nor destroyed. However, in order for a molecule to lose energy inside the beaker, another molecule must lose energy outside the beaker. And this event must occur FIRST.

Directionality of causality, the order in which events proceed, supersedes any other physical consideration.

Does the wind CAUSE change to the surface of the planet? The answer appears to be an obvious. As we are told in books about erosion done y We can arrange an array of spheres on a surface in a pre ordered format, and then observe causality on them. Provided the causality we wish to detect or hunt, effects the balls, we will have a good test. (It will not be useful against heat or light, microscopic causalities. Movement of balls is always from Inside OUT for an organism. For inanimate it is always Outside IN. This is THERMO CAUSALITY. It is impossible for motion to begin inside without FsubN.

I have set out to understand what might be a fundamental causality of life. to do this, is to ask “is there a force of action that life itself is responsible for, and that is unique to what we call life? we are in fact looking for something physical and tangible. There has been an active process, a way of thinking, that has dominated science which has proven otherwise. It has turned to randomness and statistics, to attempt to explain the unexplainable phenomenon. The question, “what made this imprint on the sand” has become warped by a science that is dominated by a bias to alter the discussion towards a philosophical debate, rather than physics. It is dominated by the explanation that is in fact mental, and not physical. Given the history of this problem, I realized the question is in fact to prove scientifically if possible, a force that can be unequivocally associated with living things. I believe that moment in December 2017 on the California beach under grey skies, marked a realization that my theory was correct.

Thermodynamic Causal Directionality Theorem can answer the question “how was the imprint caused.” And it is irrelevant if we know “what” caused the imprint. Heat is a blind, “black box” measure of physics, like mass and force. It has not been possible to even entertain the idea of rational physics, because the problem of life’s origins is dominated by a mindset that it will always be seen one way. For example, of genes actuating a body. Yet as we said from the beginning, the atoms are not aware of any such reasoning’s, neither are molecules. The spheres show radial tracks, that causality has been directed outwardly. Had we used a detector more sensitive for actual heat, we would detect such radial heat from each print. The imprint is initially “1” but becomes a “2” to indicate it is no longer Initiating Signal.

Again, my aim was to develop a technology to prove, scientifically that life has a force within it. A not very popular idea, I might say, for getting you favor in the evolution dominated science. However, the search for a rational understanding of our world should not be governed by politics. To ask “how” a thing occurs, is actually, in my mind, only to prove that it is evidence of physical causality that cannot be associated with any other natural phenomenon. And secondly, to show that the result cannot be “fooled” in that it is absolute and independent of the observer.

For us to understand a new theory of life, it will be necessary to understand a new kind of causality. What is the simplest way to describe why this causality is so radically new? The following example is a good illustration and as simple as possible. Imagine that you have some billiard balls on the table. I take a cue ball and strike it while aiming at the “six.” The billiard ball moves of course, because a human being caused it to move by striking it. If we remove this causal factor, the billiard ball will not move, except perhaps by slight motions of the floor or room, but if these are also eliminated, the ball will stay motionless. That the ball, will

“remain at rest, until acted upon by another” is a law of motion. This law of motion applies to any object, essentially any clump of matter. What my theory states is that a clump of matter can move itself, and it will do so, by Initiating a self-directed force. Is this force accountable to any known force input into the “box” containing the balls? No. And we have to consider heat and momentum of any matter that is being added. So my investigation of the cell and other causalities was to show that there are Causalities that are unsubtractable.

But what should also be apparent is that Causal S/N>1, mathematically predicts this to be the case!

Black Box-Thermo Causality The Crisis Equation evaluation is a black box, with causes entering and exiting, in which we only have to examine the forces at play, and then by vector subtraction, find what force if any, remains.

The floating sphere model that I have diagramed, presents a way to mechanically detect the Crisis Equation in large systems.

I believe in physical demonstrations of this alternative physics. The ocean shore is a perfect ‘laboratory’ for exploring causality. A jog down the beach will immerse us in various types of causalities, but wait for the night to appear!! We can then also imagine causality stretching to the vast reaches of the universe. In such a state, we can contemplate the nature of Signal echoing from the heavens and its deeper implications.

For now, imagine that we stand somewhere on the beach within that sphere. Beach homes and cities are interspersed in the natural wonders of the coast line, there are different causalities at work in this scenery. Each phenomenon, from the appearance of a tiny sea shell, an ocean wave, or a sea gull, are resultants of causal chains. The question is, where do these chains originate?

We ask, can the laws of physics account for these phenomena? This theory will apply at any scale, large or small, it matters not wherewe look, it will be demonstrated in every case.

Recall, that on a much smaller scale, a micro scale, I have already done this experiment with cells. My region of “spheres” being the microscope dish. I add a chemical and wait to see if there is an effect. Upon seeing an effect, I then begin subtracting potential causalities entering the polystyrene dish, (the dish is the VCS). After subtracting all known causalities responsible for the Signal I observe, I conclude that the Signal was not due to chemistry, it was due to another causality, called life. The living cell makes tracks, it changes the color of the chemical from yellow to blue. Some chemistry does this, so this also has to be subtracted in order to see which tracks are uniquely cell caused. I have confirmed my book’s central premise, and the Crisis equation method

Can it be used on larger scales? Yes it can. We can work with any force or energy. The theory is based in thermodynamics.

Remember, we are looking for the first, quantifiable evidence, that a force exists in the system that is autologous, and that is unsubtractable from the background. That is, it cannot be cancelled out by subtraction of background. Or to be more technical, you may interpret this as my experiment to challenge the dogma that “life obeys the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics [1,2, 5, 6, 8, 8.1, 8.2, , 9, 11, 16, 21 etc.]

We are hunters, seeking out a causal chain, to find its origin point, if any. As we stipulated above, in a Causal Chain, we are looking for physical causality between points. If the points are justifiably large, we expand the size of our view.

To simplify, let’s imagine that the spheres” are now grains of sand. Each imprint now displaces the sand in a region of space.

Imagining Origin Points (by S/N>1) on the beach. Origin points for Causal Chains are either “1” (finite non-external universe caused) or “0” (regions of no Initiation point and external universe caused).

Does our result depend on where we imagine the spheres are? Yes it does. And though I don’t show this part of our test, the placement of the VCS up and down the coast, will produce very different results.

We are looking for places on the beach where a Causal Chain starts. This is a region where events, changes in conditions are beginning and are at higher elevation. If we look at force, we find that birds do not move because of a causal force striking them form outside their sphere. Although birds are constantly dodging, hunting food, behaving,...neither I nor anyone else, actually can control a bird’s movement. Which is a critical aspect to giving the gull its own “1”. An imprint is a “2”. It is not a “2...” as it is in fact, a deficit of energy, which might be a discontinuity from the Initial causal source. I mean its discontinuous, in causality, because the gull has flow away, and left the print. But the print is stored energy, Signal, because of the Crisis Equation S-N≠ 0, but also Total Forces – External forces≠ 0. That is, S/N >1. So it is a “2”. It is Condition II of Chapter “How Life Violates The Laws Of Thermodynamics”, where the imprint forms order in the sand. Believe it or not, that imprint is a machine. We can prove that it causes for example, a diversion in the flow of water (momentarily) filling it from the surf. Why? It goes back to my proposed thermodynamic rule #25, in which a normal force is required for nature to do work. It is not a good machine, but it is still acting like a machine because it fits our definition now of “K” which is FsubN applied over a distance or for a time period.

Early on, I realized that I needed my theory to give a definition of Natural Machines, which could virtually be anything that an organism creates to enable it to shunt or translate its Initiating force upon the surrounding environment. By accident or deliberately. I imagined these ‘machines’ could be tools used by animals, for foraging or propulsion, but they can also be homes, and the beach is strewn with these empty homes. One example is the hard shell of an ocean dwelling creature. On the rocks of the California coast, one can find all kinds of shells, in the form of limpets, barnacles, muscles, and others. The shell serves to protect the organism from the surrounding forces, it is providing a normal force which resists forces of wave action. But there is no justification in the claim that such a structure is for any particular “purpose” as a shell. For the purposes of illustrating the point, a shell translates a force via the force generating regions of the organism. A shell is a secondary, 2 type causality, not 2.., in which it imposes Signal on its environment. How can we know this? Recall the experiment of the organism imprint in the rock. How does the imprint stand out from the background rock? These principals of imprints, relate directly to understanding the nature of Natural Machines, and more broadly, I have realized this theory applies and encompasses both. In

terms of causal geometry and force, there is no fundamental difference between an imprint in a rock, left behind in silica and an imprint of the organism on sand or other atoms which are used to construct a home. The imprint has simply changed form, from something left behind to something it carries with it, for longer duration. In fresh water lakes of mountainous regions, I have seen some larva create a protective shell of grains of sand and other debris they pick up from the bottom and create a ‘shell.’ These distortions of the background are not physically different, but we are making a fundamental distinction between the types of causalities involved. Though a shell is made of inanimate atoms and molecules, and in fact, behaves as the natural background, the arrangement of its atoms in space is directly due to I force, to forces originating in an independent universe of a VCS. That is the principal. If such actions were due to natural forces, (inanimate behavior of matter) we, another system, would not pick up and detect these distortions. The FsubN micro forces have left an imprint, in the form of a conical or flat shell, or in a soft body structure of an alga, a kelp plant washed up on the beach. Does the imprint, a fossil imprint or shell, cause a Signal? Is this why it is detectable to us relative to the background? I considered this problem for a long time, and have come to the conclusion that it does not. The reason we detect the shell or the imprint is because our detector, our biological brain, is imposing a force. Our detector is differentiating the imprint because the imprint is physically different, and yet it is not because such an imprint has intrinsic, autologous Signal. We do not observe distinctions between the ocean waves and the beach because the water molecules are doing work on the beach, or the water molecules are initiating actions against the sand. The forces of motion we perceive, from the movement of the sand grains to the movement of the ocean waves and the wind, are relative to the force we impose, mentally, and psychologically upon the observable world.

An ordered structure, created by an organism, can be a source of potential energy. Good examples, are chemical imprints left by plants on the background, molecular matrix of CO2 (incident solar energy) and surrounding molecules. These imprints are concentrations of carbohydrates, in the stalks, seeds and leaves of the plants, which we know can be a great source of energy. Ordered structures such as these, are type 2 causality, meaning that their effects are system related, not just molecular. If we were to encounter a collection of molecules in a lattice, say, on another planet, we would conclude that such an arrangement was not possible by external causality of inanimate. We would conclude that it was produced by a force acting on the region, Inside OUT. My spectrophotometer and other instruments, can confirm that the effects, for example, on a beam of light, cannot be accounted for by external background (which would be subtracted as a vector) in the same way we detected the MTT signal of the cells earlier. There is still intrinsic, unsubtractable Signal in such 2 type causalities, despite the fact that these systems do not actively reverse disorder within. What is perhaps unexpected, is that the footprint, or skeleton of an organism, bears a fundamental (thermodynamic wise) relationship with even the most

sophisticated tools and machines known. This is a remarkable, though I suspect controversial claim. What can be so similar between an advanced robot roving on Mars and a feather of a bird? It is that they share type 2 causality, both can continue to do work on their surroundings, as a system, largely because they have been driven by type 1 causality of an organism. The main difference is primarily the amount of time between Initiation and subsequent action on the natural environment.

The recognition of order in our surroundings by an observer seems unique. How or why do organisms respond to the tracks of other organisms, and for example, if we are wandering a beach, how can we recognize a clam vs a polished stone? I have taken the position that a “psychological” explanation will not suffice. And the clue to understanding the differences in the behavior lay in the physics. Again we can test such a model at a cellular level. And though cells have no sophisticated brain, cells of the body recognize foreign molecules, and foreign cells, and can distinguish these from other cells and from the background matrix of molecules. The explanation for such recognition is believed to be genetic and to be a “program.” You will find in texts, that molecules in cells are “programmed”. Yet it is obvious to me that molecules can know no programs. If the program is a machine, then we can see that it does not agree with Condition II but also violates S/N because it is external causality to the organism. It is a priori external, in time, because it must exist PRIOR to the action it supposedly dictates. The problem is the failure to recognize that this thinking about programs and genes is in fact Outside-IN causality. Just the opposite of actual causality of an organism. Could I recognize” the fossil track because something else, call it an “internal control” told me to do so? This would claim that the decision was already made, prior to the encounter with the fossil, and would be Outside IN, based on the time argument I make in this book. A program, by definition is a pre-determined code, which determines the subsequent actions of the machine.

As can pointed out in the references cited, science continues in its herculean effort to prove the particle causal model, and to prove that organism’s behavior is a manifestation of molecular, inanimate behavior. It has sought to explain a flying bird as a form of “maximal efficiency” or a cellular life form, as a manifestation of inanimate “droplets”, of statistical non-equilibrium of matter, and of maximum entropy (see reference notes). Moreover it continues with its failed paradigm of a single smooth causal universe (outside-In), “unification” and a continuous function.

Early on, before I wrote the Crisis Equation, I envisioned a mouse navigating a maze in order to get to the proverbial “cheese” at the end. It makes decisions, in order to navigate the maze. I grappled with the problem of where the cause of a mouse’s decision might originate with the mouse, and came to the conclusion that the impetus, the antecedent cause must originate within the mouse. We have primarily dealt with the question of “where” such an impetus originates, and not why. The reasons for why a mouse behaves the way it does, why organisms can track prey, why birds

have taken to the air, or fish have grown limbs and crawled onto the shore, is fundamentally because of a driving force, FsubN.

The New Universes Amongst Us

I will conclude this work, in a place of inspiration, to the imagined sound of the surf crashing behind us. Our only anchor in the drifting tide of causality, is the invisible Initiating force.

What this work presents is the possibility of a radical new view of how we may view the universe if not ourselves. Each organism achieves a “1”, because it is unique behavior in causality. Arguably, these “1” begin at the cellular level, and perhaps even smaller. It is an originator of force. a force which has an origin elsewhere, and is not of this world. We are just starting the Crisis Equation, and this is not an end, but an Origination point.

In the last chapter, we were essentially, attempting to replicate the results of the cell experiment, with that of a VCS the size of Huntington Beach. To give a sense of scale in the comparison, we substituted a field of yellow colored molecules, for a beach full of sand. Instead of tracks made by cells, as they “walk” on the yellow molecules, turning them blue, we have tracks made by fellow human beings, gulls, and other birds, maybe even a crab. We have the tracks of other sea animals, clams, but also algae. We could go further and say the tracks” that living things are making are also within the matrix of atoms that compose them. And that “beach” that naked untrodden background is much less visible, but still real, it is a matrix that normally is flat and colorless, and shuffled reaching the state that the individual atoms will achieve, much like beach sand.
Thermodynamics is an invisible journey. It takes me along a path where there are virtual terrains. No matter where they trod, the steps are always accounted for.
I have visited such landscapes under the microscope. They are real. I have peered into the microscopic world of jiggling particles, clumps of hot matter and wondered at a motionless cell, its molecular scale operations, some one-ten thousandth the size of it. But if you look even deeper, with the mind, instead of the eye, the human cell which virtually identical to my own, is a fraction of life. This is how a microscopic fraction of “self” exists in a void. It has a genome which is fully capable of forming a complete organism. [cloning proves this]. Yet, here, the cell behaves differently. It should be remarkable that our cells of our body can survive outside of it, actually they can replicate for years. Under the microscope, I see the vibration of particles near it, but I know that the vibrations inside it, which are invisible, are under the control of

the cell. And it is very precise control, which comes from within the cell, and radiates outwardly from the nucleus. The cell is a black box” which right now is making protein or in fact, removing foreign molecules, and even atoms, K+ , Ca2+, ...shuttling them, by microscopic vesicles from inside it to the outside. Whereas I can add such molecules, I do not cause the cell to do all of these near countless actions. In fact, there is no external control. But the reason the matter inside that cell works as magnificently as it does, are hidden from us. The matter outside the walls of the semi transparent membrane behave one way, the matter inside, behaves completely different. It wasn’t until much later that I realized that its behavior is literally reversed, backwards from the reality we are familiar. This is why I believe directionality” is itself a physical thing. Most of the behavior, I witness under a microscope of those atoms, is not from the outside. It is directed from the inside-OUT. And so is the force. Microscopic forces are generated, Inside the Cell, which cannot be those force entering the cell, there is not balance of force, since in reality, we know of no cases where atoms generate force and do work on surroundings. The statement to “do work on surroundings” entails geometry, and space, in the way we can understand space.

Can such micro forces of a cell , micro FsubN, exist on large scales we can see? We have perhaps a notion that applies on much large scales. We can see that these microscopic FsbuN’s have a source, and it is microscopic, even subcellular. By addition of vectors, such microscopic FsubN “arrows” can be much larger. What is not appreciated now, but will be discussed later, is the fact that such micro forces contribute on much larger scales by a process I call “coherence.”

The power plant, at the beach gives off steam in the early morning hour. The energy that it uses, came from somewhere else. We could assume that it was piped in from one of those distant oil wells in the bay, so it comes from outside our VCS window. Yet the power plant did not just build itself one afternoon. It was designed by living beings. It is, a machine and we talked about Natural Machines and what sort of causality we label them to be. The energy of the plant is accounted for, the force in this region where the plant is located is not, that is why it appears “unnatural.”

I realize that the experimental results of cells, (the graphs) might make someone wonder, “is that all there is?” However, imagine that we are on Mars. And I am telling you that I have found some behavior in matter that is not from Mars, it is “not a molecular behavior that is from Mars. The behavior of the cell, is a physical behavior which is not of this earth. It is causality that is reversed, it is Inside OUT causality, and so I believe, we should find out where it came from.

The “Real Picture” within life

An art showing mechanically, how I envision a nucleus is driving with FsubN... large elaborate constructions, proteins and molecules, through an organized mechanical lattice of molecules, held together and permeated by FsubN Force.

This is an artistic representation of FsubN. And such a diagram is important to realizing that there is no net, external force crossing the boundary, and driving the particles. It would be impossible for such a force to do so.

In reality, the sun is not “Powering” life. The sun’s energy is driving against and is opposed to such a construction-
A Natural Machine that life constructs, will utilize an energy source. Similarly to the way that humans build machines to harness a raging river. However, these energy resources cannot be harnessed without FsubN which is a force already present.

The Radio Station Revisited

Finally, we revisit the Radio Station problem to clarify some critical aspects of the theory, namely something I term “Observer Bias”. Our initial problem was to detect radio waves, something the human body cannot do without a machine. This is exactly the same problem that we would experience with all kinds of effects including sound waves and also waves of visible light
With visible light we can ask the exact same question that we

asked for the radio station ,how can I pick up visible light?

To understand the physics of our universe we must be willing to set aside many of the inherent, if not innate biases. I also believe that as experientialists, to understand ourselves at a deeper level is without question, to understand the Universe. Critical to understanding ourselves is to appreciate Signal. What is it precisely? I’ve brought up the point before, that we have a very sophisticated onboard detector.

In neither case are we actually hearing sound nor are we seeing light. Instead we are hearing and seeing signals in the brain.

This is a good example of what I mean by Signal.

These explore perception and key to understanding how we define life, but also understanding life's properties.

At least one of those properties is the active manipulation of reality that is interacted with.

At the time I wrote this, I was working on some perceptual problems of how to describe the phenomenon of Causal Signal. It can be a challenging concept to explain and I soon realized that the model seemingly did not encompass all of its features.

The problem of the artificial vs natural signal sources is captured here.

Let's imagine I am traveling through a remote part of the desert and I want to try to find a music station. I know there is a station nearby because I see some towers blinking in the distance. Furthermore I am hunting for a particular kind of music that night, the glen miller trio. However, when I turn on the radio I hear only noise. This is because the antenna is picking up radio waves mostly from the background. It is picking up electrical signals, which might be from local storms, or from space, but these are not the electrical signals I desire. If there is too much noise I will not be able to hear a station. Generally, radio device picks up the white ambient noise all around and signal equally, as it makes no difference to the mechanics of the radio, if I'm tuning into static or a station. however I can improve my chances of finding a station, by turning the knob slightly to amplify the Signal further. This mechanically can adjust the receiver to match the frequency.

As I drive towards towns I notice it is easier to pick up more stations, this is due to signal to noise being much higher. It is always possible to detect the signal. However as I drive away, it becomes irrelevant how much amplification I use. Signal matches noise.

Someone else, who has a much better radio device, might want to try listening to natural radio waves, say from an actual storm. They want to hear the storm but not so much radio stations. But this is a different kind of result. Though the radio used might be more sensitive than my car, the observer will never hear a program come from that storm. Furthermore, although they will no doubt tune into a frequency they desire, amplification nor traveling closer, will not pick up more Signal from the storm.

This no doubt will be confusing. However this result is in fact correct.

What is going on?

Though these might seem trivial cases illustrating the principal of Signal To Noise , there is a surprise. Only one of these is true Signal, meaning that it has a true Signal To Noise ratio. The other Signal is purely imaginary. The natural signal from the storm is not real signal. And by real we mean to say that it did not begin with an actual signal to noise ratio of any kind.

We are taught in physics that such cases as these are equivalent. Detecting radios waves from either source is an equivalent problem. Both experience noise and background. And we are accustomed to believing that Signal is what we make it to be. Yet for the purposes of a new radical understanding of physics, such assumptions cannot be made.

The radio station gives true Causal S/N. The natural station does not.

Whereas the real radio station has specific broadcasts, a finite number, nature does not. Key to realizing the distinction is that the natural station has an infinite number of channels. But this is not the only case where such noise reduction is imposed.

Radio waves are out of the spectrum of light that humans can detect. We need a radio device to detect such waves.

For example when I run a test for a compound , (the blue molecule) in order to see this molecule I must impose a force on it, I select a wavelength of light to expose it to, then measure the difference between what is soaked up by the molecule and what passes through the rest of the matrix. Imagine I am hunting mtx molecules in a forest of other molecules, I can measure the amount of mtx in a background based on its wavelength of absorbance. Because the wave will pass by other molecules but not the target.

Critical to this idea is that the molecule is not there essentially. It has no Signal. I am altering the background of its domain . The same applies to altering the sensor the detector to subtract off incoming waves which are also background.

It is irrelevant if the molecule naturally absorbs or emits energy, in order to see it, the system is changed.

But if I am to detect a living cell it is the same process. I have to identify a physical parameter, then apply some impetus of measurement to it. For example, the test for yet another chemical, e.g. The blue molecules of the test for a living enzyme. Involves a wavelength of light and determining its relative absorbance.

􏰀 This means we are not evaluating non-life and life differently but actually in the same way.
􏰀 This was why the example seemed arbitrary at the time and likely why it was fascinating.
􏰀 The noise cannot be resolved in the natural case. I realized that Signal and Noise were the same substance.
􏰀 This radical principal is deeply applicable to understanding our reality of this universe.
􏰀 No doubt I'd be asked what is the main significance of this book? This principal would be central as it has limitless new potential for understanding physical reality. But also to our aspects of perception of that world.
􏰀 It appears that humans are not necessarily equipped to evaluate what is life and what is non life. Because both are sampled identically, but this isn't the only aspect.

When we are exposed to visible light, in order for us to evaluate reality that we see, the light has to be changed and resolved. This is a spacial reality of the equation of autologous causality, S/N. Like the radio which detects and amplifies radio spectrum, the eye takes in light, and refracts an image. The brain then works on the raw Signal further. And when we observe and think about the environment we are actively altering it to what we choose to focus on. This is mental altering to synthesize Signal. And it isn't required that the field observed starts with any causal Signal, and even though the environment might have causality of “2..” (all natural) we can imagine the natural world as having distinctions, and having various details, depending on what we are looking for. There is a physical difference between the water of a mountain lake and the rocks, and this is not because of the intrinsic

THE CRISIS EQUATION Copyright © 2017 Matthew Kosak. All Rights Reserved. 159

property of the matter itself, but how the mind does work to differentiate these properties.

I am not claiming that the molecules of water do not differ from those of the rocks. The distinction is that they are not Causally different from each other. The water molecules do not impose on the rocks and the rocks do not impose on the water. I make such a distinction, purely for mathematical reasons, (it is demanded by the theoretical Causal S/N equation, and it is irrelevant if this is applicable to animate matter or non-animate matter, but is abstractly a different mathematical space. When I realized that the original cell problem from the Crisis Equation could be solved by realizing the Observer must cause and impose an FsubN to create Signal, I knew it would be challenging to grasp, but it is correct. Mathematically it is correct. And I realized it is irrelevant if it is secondarily assisted by a machine appendage, either biological (i.e. the eye) or non-biological), which merely translates FsubN to the external natural system. The fact that an instrument, like my spectrophotometer, appears to physically pick up more of one kind of light than another (by its physical action of filtering or grating) does not confirm that Signal exists between those wavelengths. Nor does it mean, however that the Signal ratio is not physically real. Far from this. Where does the cause of that separation of S/N vectorally originate? And the answer is that it mathematically must be autologously force generated.

So this is why I will continually state that the physical evidence of this theory is confirmed by this principal, which I term Observational Bias.

How Can We Understand Reality?

Recall that we are only concerned with what causalities contribute to the total Signal. In summary:

􏰀 After we have subtracted background, the only causality remaining is that of the living cell. It is irrelevant if it is healthy or not. We have revealed in this experiment the cells tracks clearly and unequivocally.
􏰀 I can't show that the Signal I have detected , that which is caused by microforces of the cell, is the result of (inheritance). It is not the result of external chemistry or physics, as we ruled these out as well.
􏰀 Am I the observer causing Signal and if so, what kind of Signal am I causing? This is a problem. But the detection of any phenomena, is ultimately because of work the

observer, I, do on the system. Detection of natural signal, is an illusion. [Just as the case of the natural "radio station." The detector we recall, only shows "2" type causality,] But I do not do work to cause the cell to live in the well. Nor cells in nature. And living, is not the actions of the molecules, but a property of the geometrical, Closed system. It must by geometry, be more than one”, be more than individualistic atoms or molecules, otherwise we would only have molecular exchange of heat. That is true causal Signal, Originating in the cell.

Ultimately we know this because Signal must be the resultant of work. The conversion by the cell, of yellow molecules to blue, is the result of not only work, but work done by an Initiator, within the cell.

There are other ways to measure Initiated causality , "1" causality. And this is autologous, Initiated force generated by living organisms against their surroundings.

First expression of System Initiated Work

Based on FsubN we now can have a new expression of Initiated, or Intrinsic 1st work. W=(X1-X2)FN

I will leave you with one final graph. We've talked about what reality "should" look like. This is what reality appears to be if no work is done to create Signal. If we can imagine what atoms “see” [it is essentially a box with no information]. Then, how our molecules “see.” S/N can be seen to emerge from the page so it is very elegant in my view.

When I look down a street and see a city scape, what I am seeing is in fact the Signal generated by my mind. If I view myself as the VCS, as a system, in reality, without the work provided by the

Origination Vector in my brain, none of the people, cars, or buildings would appear differently than white noise. For those skeptical of this reality, I perform a simple experiment (in my video lecture) which demonstrates the point. In reality the light would only appear as shades of white or black, and there would be no color. But the principal of the experiment also applies equally to any signal including sound. All of the color as well as the fine detail we observe, is information that is generated by an Origination Vector Force within our bodies. Given this reality, perhaps we might appreciate the beauty of even the simplest flower, or the sound of the wind, that much more.

Time Directionality- More Explorations

We have seen previously, the demonstration of Time Directionality in the passive heat flow experiment we explored in the introduction. We recall that it's impossible for molecules in a region to gain or lose energy, unless, an event occurs externally to this region. It is also impossible for atoms to cause a force, that is to be a source of such a force.

We explored how this fundamental theorem can explain differences between inanimate and animate, between machine, and the living organism.

This theorem then led us to a new more generalized theorem, Thermodynamic Causal Time Directionality.

Let us explore the problem of the warm body further. A region within a volume of space, will remain in a stable state until another event causes this region to change. A thin region surrounding this volume can be considered as a buffer zone, and we can envision that it has some temperature. As long as this temperature stays constant, the inner region , the volume it enclosed, will not change in temperature because there is nothing to alter (remove or add), heat. Should the buffer be infinitely continuous, The temperature should remain constant in perpetuity. However, in reality this buffer is not infinite, and there is a volume just outside this buffer region, that is not constant. Let us further expand this principal to not only encompass changes in average velocity of molecules, but to any other perceptible change, including force. We then consider at the boundary zone, force entering this region, and moving through it. A force experienced by the buffer region, either came from outside the volume, or came from inside. That is, the flow of matter crossing the buffer, originated from one direction or the other. And when this occurred,

The Directionality of the causality is an unavoidable property of any system. It is applicable to any matter or any space. We can examine the orientation regardless if it contains a mouse, an amoeba , or a machine. Any of these is composed of atoms, and each is governed by the flow of heat, as energy is never made or destroyed. The same has been believed for force, and it is true for inanimate systems, and the background that we perceive, that any action or impetus has some causality external to it. Causality cannot originate within the volume, or within natural matter, otherwise we would have perpetual energy systems.

(Earlier Time) / (later Time) >1.

Normally, there is no expected causality generated in nature, contrary to what is believed. The observer confidently states "there is Signal everywhere" in the ratios of atoms emissions, of any measure observable, and yet this signal is only possible because of the observers input of force on the system, which produces the difference in Signal. These differences at least in observable science, are not as we've said, intrinsic, nor are they Initiated.

Other evidence in support of my theory is theoretical and empirical. Empirically, the theory can be shown from the passive heat flow experiment we visited at the beginning of the book. We can imagine a natural space containing some temperature of molecules, which has some thermal ‘color’ relative to the surroundings. Such temperature will fluctuate passively, depending on the ambient flow of heat into the space. What is critically important is the concept of autologous force and of autologous motion of natural matter. The motion of the atoms in the space, are not moving from one location to another, as there is no such locational reference, no actual physical boundary” from where they are moving to or from. In reality, the atoms and molecules have autologous motion and energy left over from the ancient past, and are no more the result of actions ‘today’ as they were ten thousand, or a million years ago. Autologous time is arbitrary, which is the notion of “Continuous Time”. So though we imagine the sun’s heat, “driving thermals” over the ocean, the sun does no work as there is no oppositional force a ‘normal force’ occurring in nature (the non-animate case). It is correct to simply view these as motions and collisions of molecules in continuous time.

So returning to the room or space, in order for there to be any change in temperature, relative to the normal background, there must be work performed on the system. And for work to occur a force must be applied. This is in the simplest terms, the verification of the 1st work formula, based on temperature change per unit time, per unit time. The problem ultimately in understanding this result, I believe for many, is the observer’s interference in the physics, which cannot be easily removed. In Newtonian physics, the observer is omitted from the problem and at the same time interferes with the observation of reality. The reality I am describing is an autologous reality independent of the observer.

In reality, we can’t do empirical based physics without imposing a force on our surroundings. But this fact does not interfere with verification of the theoretical principal of autologous force, FsubN. Through layered causality” a principal I introduced at the end of the Crisis Equation, we can use basic subtraction of vectors to show autologous force generated by the cell. The understanding of causality is key to understanding autologous, continuous time with is “2...” type causality. Though one is taught to imagine accelerations and decelerations of objects in nature, we cannot suppose that such accelerations were ever caused, and thus, we cannot show they exist empirically.

Autologous or Mono-Forces

This book deals with autologous forces.. In writing this book, I decided early on, that it is unjustified to claim there is an Initiated force F on a rock causing it to slide, when in fact, no such force can be actually measured, as an actual autologous force. We can identify no specific Initiating cause of that action. If you intend to measure the “force of the wind” an autologous force, you will only succeed by imposing a force against it, and thus causing that force to exist. These forces are real, there are accelerations due to collisions, but these are not causative in the sense that they do any real work or change. The fact that no causality or change is measurable by such forces is verification of my theorem, as I showed with “layered causality.” What is unsubtractable, is a true, Initiated autologous force. I differentiate natural forces, the flow of rivers, and winds, as translational forces, translating a different causality of type 2... I believe this work will truly cause a division between the nature of what is “theoretical” and what is actual.

The problem of lack of fundamental reference, loomed in the early experiments I did in cells and on the causality of particle models in organisms. When we look around and observe nature, no matter where we look we will see the background case. We will

see type 2... causality. This is a mathematical result of my theorem, it is I believe irrefutable result of the theorem. Since in reality, we can never have two different functions, or two different substances with which to reference one another, When we sample various regions of nature, we will always essentially have the following: N/N=1. This is justification for stating a more formal, Independent Function Theorem: F(animate) is not a function of F(inanimate). In type 2... causality, you essentially have many kinds of functions all continuous and directly the function of a prior function, i..e the velocity of some particle is the direct result of a prior particle’s velocity. In other words both are of the same substance of causality, they are of the same causal source, and ultimately the same system. The only case when we can indeed have a non-unity ratio, that is, to have two samples which are not functions of each other and are independently derived is when there is a sample from an animate system and a sample from an inanimate system. In that case, and only that case, is there a true S/N >1 as my theorem predicts. The exception is that it may be another animate system, (so S1/S2 >1) as animate systems generate their own universes, and their own independent causal VCS.

Where did FsubN originate in the Universe?

There is no such thing as an Autologous Force in Newtonian Mechanics. In accordance with the laws of motion, any object in such a universe is already in motion, or it is about to be struck by a mass which already has motion previously.. and on and on. What was never realized in Newtonian or Quantum physics, is that it is a mathematical requirement, i.e. to meet the equation, for two

functions to be unrelated in order to satisfy S/N. We know of no way for particles, for atoms or molecules, to generate an Autologous force. This confronts us with a difficult spacial problem. How can a change in a system not be predicated on an external action, and even more strangely, how can it occur first? Time is reversed. The actions of one organism, can and are, completely independent of the actions of another nearby. Neither the balance of energy nor of momentum, account for the principal of Directionality or the reversal of time. And one might believe, that since living things must replicate, the physics of this causality can account for the behavior manifest of an independent organism. Strangely, it cannot! It seems as though the structure of human thought processes, of how we are taught in school to envision the causal world, does not allow for a force to appear from space. Yet the Autologous Force has been present on earth for as long as life has existed, and was necessary for life. Since it is not possible that the Autologous Force self-generated from matter, as intelligent beings we must ask where and how it came to exist in the Universe.

Motion is everywhere, all bodies have motion even at the microscopic level, and whether that motion is due to the action of an organism, or of Nature, we know that a force was at work, which caused that motion. The fundamental question I have raised in this work is thus, where does a force on a body originate, e.g. which caused the motion on the body we observe. And secondly, did it in fact originate? Does any force in such cases originate?

It turns out that all motion, from planets to atoms, contains energy. And this energy must come from somewhere. Based on this logic it might seem obvious that any motion could be explained by the mere transfer of energy from one place to another. The motion of (all inanimate matter is found to obey the balance of energy [kinetic and potential], and thus a living thing might be explainable by such logic, since heat or chemical energy must be absorbed by the organism, in one way or another, in order for the organism to move. Yet this view does not hold when we consider, in the most objective way possible, the simple flow of motion, which is heat. It is the recognizance of, as weve said, not an imbalance of energy, but of the type of energy that is contained, and such an inequality reveals that the spacial source of that energy cannot be assumed as equivalent in all cases. To solve this dilemma, there is as I've said, a new geometry in space which must be accounted for, and a new kind of causality.

In actuality we do not have to speak of biology or organisms or any practical applied physics. The theorems I propose, and the new geometry of causal space, is my answer to the problem of explaining why motion, or heat should ever travel against the norm, the flow of heat, from one place to another, observed in Nature. Such is the case when there is in fact, no Initiated force. All forces, including the flow of heat, conducts itself by vis a vis, action -reaction, where the "applied" force is the response to another applied force, and so on in a never ending chain of causality. We can imagine that at one time there must have been an Initiation event, a Bang, that preceded the Natural motions we observe on and about, the Earth.

We have already visited this problem, and concluded that it is physically impossible for passive heat to create an impetus force against itself. The very definition of life is to violate the Natural flow of heat, it can only do so because of a critical detail, it must generate a resistive force against that flow of motion, or if you prefer, of heat.

So in the case of the phenomenon we call life, we return to the issue of Origination forces of type I. We have not addresses the question of where that force originates.

Where does the vector originate?

We may recall again, Fig A, the arrow that appears to experience a change in direction. As we subtract this diagram pictorially, from other arbitrarily selected regions, we obtain a net vector arrow which cannot be subtracted nor accounted for by any known external vectors.

A force is a force. I do not doubt that Many will disagree with my assertions. There is a near unshakable belief that we must exist within a single causal universe, and that limited belief is the basis of 'unification'. yet I know that it is impossible for this to be the case. It is impossible for a force to convey the kind of information or "substance" (I am using substantive causally) that must be conveyed to oppose not only causal forces which oppose it in every way, but tendencies of disorder, which is no longer ambiguous but we've defined and expressed as directional, (as a form of directionality) and secondary causality.

So information, the kind with which we are familiar, even our knowledge about how to organize and design our world, is physically originating from another world, within the external universe. That knowledge is itself, a physical manifestation of vectors which oppose the normal tendencies of what we call our surroundings. It differentiates us, from it, from the particle

universe. And from its shared continuous causality. It is the same manifested causality that originated within the cells in our experiment earlier. After all the normal vectors are subtracted, is is the remaining motion that is unsubtractable. It is unsubtractable mainly because as I've shown, there is no mathematically justifiable means of subtracting this directional motion. There is nothing else in proximity (of an Originator) to which to compare and use as "smoothing" and to cancel it out. That is the mathematical nature of a new geometry we are opening the door upon. The unsubtractable motional vectors form the virtual closed system, a three dimensional image of it. We must agree that 'information' is this unsubtractable motion, and is Originated microscopically at cell and submicroscopic levels), that is, DNA levels.

We are speaking of the edge of the known observable universe, and I am advocating that there is a new and vast world we must venture to and explore. I realized that a simple vector force is not so simple nor necessarily equivalent. To reverse time, and as we've seen ..,the simple flow of heat from a space. It must have some component in it. I believe it is spacial, and on a different dimension. The famous equation F=ma which every student is familiar, is not actually applicable to these forces Fsub1 or vectors with orientation essentially from mathematically independent regions of space. As I've said, an initiator force must be presumed, it is not F, but FsubN as it must be originally present in the diagram, but cannot 'originate' outside the diagram.

Modern physics concerns itself only with what forces may do, their magnitudes, their angles, and it has always presumed them into existence. We are concerned with where a vector originates, and if it in fact originates. We are concerned with the type of force it may be. There are at least two types of forces, we can see from this book, and that notion, that they have a type is deeply fascinating and beautiful to me.

We may close our eyes and imagine a space in which forces might be acting, in which they act against other masses. Yet if we imagine another space nearby, we can imagine it too will be subject to the same forces. The fact that both imaginary regions are Continuous with each other and inseparable, means that there is no relative reference frame to gauge their differences. [Further, and though perhaps less apparent is the causal geometrical result that..] There cannot be an observer in this case, since there is no physical distinction between an observers space and the space surrounding it.

Thus we are venturing into the nature of a problem which I call the oneness problem. There is only so much oneness we can achieve with our surroundings. But, when all of those similarities are removed (as we see with the cells case) there must be differences. Can we prove we exist? The solution is mathematical. But it is not only S/N it is also that new mathematics will be needed to account for the independence of two universally independent worlds.

OTHER REFERENCES

1. Matthew Kosak. “The Crisis Equation”

http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-crisis-equation_22.html

2. Matthew Kosak. "Does Life Violate The Second Law Of Thermodynamics? Implications Of Virtual Closed Systems" http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/05/does-life-violate-second-law- of_14.html

3. Matthew Kosak. “II. Is Theoretical Biology Hiding A Critical Flaw In Selection Theory Proper? “Molecular Selection” Is A Crack In The Foundation. Is Molecular Selection just pseudo-science? http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/10/ii-is-theoretical-biology- hiding.html

4. Matthew Kosak. “I propose a challenge to Maximal Flow theories by a new theory:Indifferent Time” http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/04/i- propose-challenge-to-maximal-flow.html

THE CRISIS EQUATION - NOTES and REFERENCES

1. Schrödinger E (1944) What is life? Cambridge (United Kingdom):

Cambridge University Press. 194 p.2.

“The arrangements of the atoms in the most vital parts of an organism and the interplay of these arrangements differ in a fundamental way from all those arrangements of atoms which physicists and chemists have hitherto made the object of their experimental and theoretical research. Yet the difference which I have just termed fundamental is of such a kind that it might easily appear slight to anyone except a physicist who is thoroughly imbued with the knowledge that the laws of physics and chemistry are statistical throughout.”

This paragraph lays out what is essentially the statistical mechanical view of organisms, and very clearly, this is asserting the principal of statistical, if not thermodynamic determinism.”

Schrodinger is likely responsible for “statistical determinism” which I have called “accidentalism” the modern notion that the very atoms that “differ in a fundamental way” came to be in that arrangement by some statistical mechanism. But Schrodinger qualifies “statistical” as thermodynamic, and so implies that it is somehow favored by thermodynamics.

NOTES and conclusions [Apr 23’15]So it cannot simply be “non-randomness” that is of issue here, as non-randomness is a relative term. It can be argued for example, that there are many non-random occurrences in nature, the non-random ordering of atoms in a crystal lattice or the highly ordered structure of carbon in a diamond. The non- randomness we define here is specifically a quantity of useful work that can be potentially done on the surroundings by the change itself. That is why I stipulated “useful” work as a requirement of defining “choice” physically. So in the sense that we must be able to measure a useful quantity of work, call it a potential to do work, as associated with a choice, that is what I am arguing is NOT found in the ordered inanimate structures. Thus a “choice” made by an organism must also in theory, impart more than simply order, it must also impart a change, however slight, in the system such that that change is a quantity of useful work. We have measure this or defined it in terms of the capacity of the quantity to alter the behavior of the micro system (at least) in question, such that it is deflected in a path that is differentiable from the average behavior of the particles in the system around it. The fact that this quantity of work is at a slight potential with respect to its surroundings, indicates that a force must be applied in order to achieve this potential. So this hopefully will differentiate what is meant by “non-random” behavior of animate life. The order in the system created by organisms, cannot be simply of the normal accepted form of order that one finds in text books or that which is discussed in the past regarding the connection of inanimate systems with animate systems. It is no wonder that there is so much difficulty in delineating ordered crystals from the order in animate systems. The very definition of order already pre-conceives animate systems (defined molecularly) in these terms, (NOTE: see “aperiodic solids, chromosomes discussed by Schrodinger p27, 1944) not allowing another conceptualization. [Mate selection the very act must essentially impart useful work (of the organism) on the system, relative to the background (though as we have discussed it is a resultant of multiple systems in the organism, not isolatable to a particle.)] Choice, we define here as a physical action which must do useful work on its surroundings, and thus is a much broader encompassing behavior unique to organisms. [But what is also realized here is that this quantity of work in #1, and #2b, must take place along with condition #3, which means that an effect was initiated.]

2. Prigogine I (1977) “Time Structure and Fluctuations” Nobel Lecture, 8 December. I quote a specific paragraph of that lecture in which Prigogine Line 35, p.267 derives “dissipative structures”. He specifically addresses far from equilibrium dissipative structures in terms of “bifurcations” which he believes introduce a new term previously not encompassed in biology, physics, or chemistry. Convective systems form when non- equilibrium is instigated say in a flat sheet of liquid at a constant gravitational field. And a temperature gradient is created. “Non-equilibrium is a source of order.” Prigogine discusses a system with “bifurcations” which obeys “deterministic laws” of chemical kinetics (p 273).So this should be a further reference specifically to the use of the concept of determinism in physics, chemistry and biology.

Brief review and comment on Newton’s Laws Of Motion.

3. Serway R (1990) Physics For Scientists And Engineers: With Modern Physics 3Rd Ed. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing. 1990 1441 p. I reference specific pages which discuss the definition of vectors and scalar quantities..p24-35 *Galileo actually formulated the 1st law of motion “p.99 Serway: Galileo also stated (as the result of thought experiment) that it is not necessarily a bodies tendency to remain in motion, but to “resist deceleration or acceleration”.

“Any velocity once imparted to a moving body will be rigidly maintained as long as the external causes of retardation are removed.” Compare this with Newton’s1st law “an object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will continue in motion with a constant velocity unless it experiences a net external force” p.99, and Newton’s second law “The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the resultant force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass.” And finally the 3rd law, “If two bodies interact, the force exerted on body 1 by body 2 is equal to and opposite the force exerted on body 2 by body 1, thus F12 = -F21”. Quoting Serway’s book in this case. For Newton’s actual laws, I wrote a paper reviewing laws 1- 3 specifically with actual sources.

4. Laplace, P (1820) “Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités forming the introduction to his Théorie Analytique des Probabilités” Paris: V Courcier; repr. F.W. Truscott and F.L. Emory (trans.), A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, New York: Dover, 1951 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace Laplace can be credited with formulating the modern version of the particle determinism*,that can in principal, explain every physical phenomenon. Laplace is referenced repeatedly by numerous sources (S Hawking, Bried History Of Time), and more specifically it is a key thesis or quotation that is repeated: “this....”which summarizes the modern notion of a particle based model of reality. [I probably could also reference Schrodinger’s work in thermodynamics specifically his book on life’s purpose’in terms of energy maintenance, a particle based model.]

* Boltzmann was actually the first to describe the model of atoms, (which were explicitly not allowed in his publications in French science papers, [there’s an ancient letter to prove this] as they were believed to be too theoretical. But see also (citation below) Schrodinger’s “the laws of physics and chemistry are statistical throughout..” which is the thermodynamic determinism.)

5. Chaix R, Cao C, Donnelly P (2008) “Is Mate Choice in Humans MHC-Dependent?” PLoS Genet 4(9): e1000184. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000184 This reference supports the notion that the cause of mate choice is external, i.e. it is a molecular signaling. Such a molecule could be artificially made. Again this supports the view that organisms are not making these choices from inside the system, but is caused outside. But this model also opposes, explicitly, the notion that choice exists, consciously.

6. {10.27.14Hypothetically speaking, it is well known that pheromones, chemical attractant molecules, can be shown to attract insects by artificially mimicking mating attractants. The conclusion from these types of experiments might be that insects are obviously under the control of external molecules, they had no choice but to come to the trap. But from a causal framework, how is such an experiment and others like it, different than using other molecules which repel and congregate insects? And further, how are these experiments any different than using physical barriers to trap insects? The experiments themselves, though useful to mosquito abatement, do not bear out scientific cross applicability to causal models. In fact, the conclusion that insects, which seem very simple organisms, are essentially complex bio-robots subject to control from their environment, is incorrect. In fact, the outside in model of causality of their behavior based on the particle model, obviates the independence of the system. We can test the current causal model. Would insects not mate if such pheromones were not present? Possibly. But would they mate if they were physically restricted in boxes? Or chemically anesthetized? We can’t find a difference, at least relative to the experiment in question, between a physical or a chemical barrier, and these types of experiments produce a false interpretation as they essentially lead to conclusions that are pre-defined by their design. These models actively interfere with the causal system they purport to test. In reality no human is there to spritz pheromone into the air to coax a grasshopper to take flight in search of a mate. We must consider these systems fairly. The assumption of gene centrism, gene determinism and virtual particle models is that the organism is not an independent system, from a causal standpoint. The “this molecule causes the behavior” approach does not help to answer the question about what it is that is actually causal of

the behavior in its natural state because it manipulates the experiment and the system. We can verify this in the crisis equation.

[I don’t believe that a reference to this material is required. It is well known that chemical attractants exist, and the scope of my discussion involves generalities, not specifics to any particular research. A reference to pheromone research would be needlessly superfluous. ]

7. Montague R “Free Will” Current Biology Vol 18 No 14 584-585. Specifically relevant is Montague’s quote specifically on energy constraints of organisms being the ultimate determinant of their behavior, not free will.

8. Alexei A. Sharov, Richard Gordon, “Life Before Earth”(Submitted on 28 Mar 2013)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381

Using Moore’s law to estimate the age of organisms based on their complexity. I quote two sections that I think are relevant on current understanding of causality in organisms based on the genetic model. “Biological evolution is traditionally studied in two aspects. First, paleontological records... Second, Darwin’s theory augmented with statistical genetics demonstrated that heritable changes may accumulate in populations and result in replacement of gene variants (Mayr, 2002). ..But despite the importance of these two aspects of evolution, they do not capture the core of the macroevolutionary process, which is the increase of functional complexity of organisms.”

“The mechanism by which the genome becomes more complex probably relies heavily on duplication of portions of DNA ranging from parts of genes to gene cascades to polyploidy (Ohno, 1970; (Gordon, 1999), followed by divergence of function of the copies. Developmental plasticity and subsequent genetic assimilation also play a role (West- Eberhard, 2002).”

But what is evident is that these are not specific; terms like “plasticity” and “assimilation” describe phenomenon, but do not account theory wise for causality driving such complexity.

9. Hoelzer GA, Smith E, Pepper JW (2006) On the logical relationship

between natural selection and self-organization. J Evol Biol 19: 1785–1794.

An interesting article. It discusses some of the socio-political dynamics of how evo biologists have resisted SO (self-organization theory) particularly as Darwinism has been under “attack” by alternative theories based on “largely metaphysical” theories. The first reference cited to support this point is (Ruse, 1982). Again, the theory of self organization, fails in several respects: 1) It cannot differentiate self organization” from ordinary chemical behavior that is well known and based on well known interactions, and 2) self-organization fails to account for the very basic issues presented here, namely the non-randomness of sexual selection and the behaviors of animate systems with respect to how they are defined here. Do organisms make a choice in their selection of a mate? Or is it a random occurrence? The significance of other “issues” relating to inanimate self organization or optimization pale in significance to the question of what “choice” is, physically. Choice” as in the conscious selection of one variable over another, has been more impactful on the acceleration of “evolution” of variants in certain animal species, than any other that is known. The morphological shapes and variation of domesticated dogs in the past few thousand years, for example, is unprecedented, and exceeds the total variation in skull morphology observed “clearly surpass the maximum divergence between species in the Carnivora.” (Drake, 2010) see reference

Abby Grace Drake and Christian Peter Klingenberg Large‐Scale Diversification of Skull Shape in Domestic Dogs: Disparity and Modularity. Am Nat. 2010 Mar;175(3):289-301 The greatest shape distances between dog breeds clearly surpass the maximum divergence between species in the Carnivora.” And...The disparity among companion dogs substantially exceeds that of other classes of breeds, suggesting that relaxed functional demands facilitated diversification.”

One important object of this paper is to elucidate the fact that this non-random outcome, of “choice” is in fact causing acceleration of change in various systems. I’ve been struck by the recent findings in anthropology, the rapid development of homo sapiens, of intelligence, of tool making and Paleolithic emergence of culture and language, in a relatively short period of time, would suggest that sexual “choice” in an elementary form, likely applied significant “pressure” which was critical to accelerating emergence of more intelligent and culturally adaptable homo modern homo sapiens. (It does not explain how homo sapiens Neanderthal perished roughly 30,000 years ago, perhaps because they were the victims of a critical lack of “beauty”? Such speculations are left to anthropology, the important point is the impact of “choice” in the example of domestication and sexual selection, which both defy the particle and thermodynamic syntheses to account for their non-random behavior.

10. U. von Stockar, J.-S. Liu Review: “Does microbial life always feed on negative entropy? Thermodynamic analysis of microbial growth” /Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1412 (1999) 191^211 p.4

“Since in all but very special circumstances microbial cultures do not do any useful work, W (work) can be usually disregarded.”

10B. Denise Woodward, (2009) Biology 110 - Basic Concepts and Biodiversity,

PENN State, https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/110Master/Energy+I+-+Thermodynamics “In a general sense, life channels energy thermodynamically (via a complex series of energy transformations) for the purpose of decreasing entropy (creating order). For the majority of life forms on Earth, this energy ultimately comes from the sun. Indeed, all the order you see around you is a direct result of the small fraction of total solar radiation that is absorbed by the our planet.”

I discuss this concept and how this paper differentiates causally, the difference between what is essentially secondary causality and primary (or perhaps elemental). However, what is also interesting is that in considering primary causality, a synthesis of the non- random event or of initiation, is not possible by considering solar energy as the impetus, as solar energy, exerts a force via stored energy in molecular systems (kinetic) but in actuality this heating opposes ordering of molecules, and does no useful work on the natural system. [For example, we do not find ordered chemical or pre-biotic residues, which have the capacity to do work on the system, which only adds to the mystery of life’s origins.] Since this article does bring up delta G as a basis for discussing life’s chemistries, however it should also be noted that the actual reaction, in which the most simplistic pre-biotic form has been synthesized, has never been done anywhere in the world, thus the more relevant delta G for such an animate process is unknown. Again the delta G’s even for enzymes and DNA, are for inanimate, bench top experiments attached to calorimeters. “The study of thermodynamics originated in the problem of steam engine efficiency..” Many thermodynamic principals discovered as a result of work on steam engine efficiency, had influences far beyond the steam engine. If asked about the importance of this work, then that would be a valid example of how theoretical work translates to applied areas.

*I was further struck when it was stated that –G must always be negative, that in fact a form of sentient life might be able to subvert such a law. A group of researchers find such a form of life, inadvertently, that seems to not generate more entropy. However, on closer analysis, someone finds a problem with the data. It turns out that the sentient form of life, previously undetected, is able to manipulate the system by which the researchers interpret their data. The question is, is this possible? Can a very clever intelligent life form manipulate the awareness of or experience of, a law and is this a valid physical question?

11. Whitfield J (2007) Survival of the likeliest? PLoS Biol 5(5): e142. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050142

12. Dewar RC (2005) Maximum entropy production and the fluctuation theorem. J Phys A 38: L371–L38

13. My comments on Schrodinger’s atom model (below) and MEP failure to resolve S/N as (0 or 1)

Dewar RC and Maritan A, (2010) The second law, maximum entropy production and Liouville’s theorem.

14. NOTE: “MEP (maximum entropy production) can be derived from the fundamental rules of statistical mechanics developed in physics by Boltzmann, Gibbs and Jaynes – implying that MEP is a statistical principle that describes the most likely properties of non- equilibrium systems.” http://biology.anu.edu.au/research/projects/theory-and-application- maximum-entropy-production

However, none of these complex, statistical mechanical methods gives us a satisfactory answer to the very simple experimental problem of determining if the systems in question, are generating a random or non-random outcome, or in terms of causality, if we can assign it either a “0” or a “1” e.g. it was or was not caused. It appears the Dewar concludes that the ATPase was arrived at by natural selection mechanisms.

Understanding the problem of life in terms of atom models. Schrodinger , 1944 “What is Life” p27 “The unfolding of events in the life cycle of an organism exhibits an admirable regularity and orderliness, unrivalled by anything we meet with in inanimate matter. We find it controlled by a supremely well-ordered group of atoms, which represent only a very small fraction of the sum total in every cell. Moreover, from the view we have formed of the mechanism of mutation we conclude that the dislocation of just a few atoms within the group of 'governing atoms' of the germ cell suffices to bring about a well- defined change in the large-scale hereditary characteristics of the organism. These facts are easily the most interesting that science has revealed in our day.”

Schrodinger outlines the original particle causal model of the cell, which has been unchanged more than 50 years later.

These are specific references to the Cell model I discuss in the Crisis Equation paper as they define the clear difference we are making between causality that is external and causality that is not, i.e. derived from a fundamentally different model.

More discussion of the causality of cells externally, as for example from “E” the environment surrounding the cell, such as, from energy drivers or systems of molecules is relevant to origins of life, but is a subject beyond this paper. We can see that this may take the form of specific “feed stock” molecules, molecules which are higher in energy and thus lead to chemical reactions which drive various process in theory, towards structures more amenable to life ore early life forms. References are found here.

14. Braun D1, Libchaber A. Thermal force approach to molecular evolution” Phys Biol. 2004 Jun;1(1-2):P1-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16204812 This reference is advocating that thermal gradients such as hydrothermal vents, could drive pre biotic chemistry, so this is the E model, or “environmental causality” model that I have described in our experiment .

15. Demetrius L (2000) Thermodynamics and evolution. J Theor Biol 206: 1–16.

Example of prior theories proposing..Background causes the Signal (Outside-In Symmetry)

16. Baaske P1, Weinert FM, Duhr S, Lemke KH, Russell MJ, Braun D.

Extreme accumulation of nucleotides in simulated hydrothermal pore systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 29;104(22):9346-51. Epub 2007 May 9

17. Background causes the Signal (Outside-In Symmetry) Another reference relative to the two Cell Model Diagrams in my paper, (B. Herschy, et al “An Origin-of-Life Reactor to Simulate Alkaline Hydrothermal Vents” (2014) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247476/, discusses methanogens, Archea organisms which metabolize H2 and CO2 to methane as an energy source. Key to this causal model for life, is that it is again, an Outside In” causality, in which the initial causative impetus is the chemistry (reactions we’ve designated as “E”) outside the primordial cell. Like the other references, these are not in any way, complete models, but are riddled with holes in their logic. Namely, how the vectoral arrows drive chemistry of a primordial cell from the Outside-In*, and how the vat of chemicals can do so. As we’ve indicated in the “vat of chemicals” problem, in which we view life as a system of particles, we lack a centralized driver, there is no direction. Nonetheless, this reference further delineates the current reasoning and approach from the new theory I’m advocating here, based on vectoral analysis and causal geometry.

18. Other references specific to external or environmental causality theory for cells is Herschy B.,et al (2014) “An Origin of Life Reactor To Simulate Alkaline Hydrothermal Vents” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247476/

One of these was a Press Release: “New Research Rejects 80-year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life” http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-67977.html “We present the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent – one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores.”

These theories support that the force impetus for causing life’s initial power was originally from inorganic chemical systems.

19. Mitchell P (1959) “The origin of life and the formation and organizing functions of natural membranes.

20. Victor Frankl (1946) “Man’s Search For Meaning”

21. B. F. SKINNER (1974) The Causes of Behavior. A.A. Knopf. Specifically “About Behaviorism.”

CAUSAL REACTION CHAINS

22. Just as in the problem of particle based causality in organisms, the problem we explored briefly, where we are to imagine that individual molecules are catalyzing some effect “downstream” say a decision or behavior in an organism, the origin of life model described in these papers based on particle models, suffers a similar problem in its geometry. The authors envision step-wise reactions, ones that create formate and formaldehyde, then react to form sugars, lipids etc. But the step wise ABCD ...etc has problems in its geometry as we’ve noted. Why should these compounds react in any particular predicted manner? They do not. They react in the manner that is naturally spontaneous. [22a. I should refer here to my chemical synthesis of various compounds, I will refer , just as example, to my notebook MK 2002-2009..and synthesis of hydroxy-chloroquine-PEG or diepoxy-cyclodextrin compounds, and various well-characterized complexing reactions of synthesized PEI-PEG polymers with DNA.]

We realize that a solution of chemicals will behave exactly as a solution of chemicals, achieving the shortest route towards stability (22a) as predicted by the Second Law. We have also raised the issue of how individual molecules, A, can initiate causality of behavior. We predict, that if such systems are viewed as collections of molecules, then for every behavior output of “D” a new initiation from A must commence (in order to drive D). That is extremely unlikely. What we see in such particle models, is not a system of behavior, but individual events, like those depicted in the diagram (Fig. 3).

Where the vector arrows are moving roughly in parallel to each other, this is showing the pathway of dissipation taken by the system which is composed of individual, non-communicating events. At any point in such a diagram, or in a natural setting for example, the molecules are reacting toward their least free-energy state. This would hardly be the setting for finding forces which drive moieties toward assembly of lipids and other molecules. Nor would we expect, that even if such complex carbon fixation is evident, that such fixation is “living” as opposed to dead. Not even the most imaginative scientist believes that non-living molecules can spontaneously produce life (but this was a theory entertained in the days of Newton). The view that thermophoresis or proton-gradients, in hydrothermal vents can supply the motive force is problematic, thermodynamically, because these too are not providing a motive force as I describe here. Such a motive force would be an F which specifically opposes surrounding forces and does useful work against them as we stipulate in postulate 2C. the alkaline waters around a vent are indifferent if not directly oppositional to any (potential) directed activity that would oppose the surrounding forces, as I depict in the diagram with the vectors all pointing generally in one direction. Furthermore we do not find an initiation point where such an F is to begin at some source, as we stipulated in a later postulate.]

The step wise ABCD reactive model of particles is a causal chain. It is not unlike any other chain of causality, as all chains require energy to drive them.

It is important to realize that in step A, there is assumed another causality, in the Newtonian view, which we discuss later as a “2...” since these are secondary causalities.

Viewing A as a reaction, “A” eventually leads to the production of D, by way of reacting B and C, and this is relatively straightforward in chemistry. But applying this causal model to explaining causality of living organisms is a different matter. In view of the “water world” motive force hypothesis, if we are to assume that semi porous nano-tubes (a solid state lattice) are to concentrate reactants in step A for example by "thermophoresis” concentrating them so that their reactive rates are encouraged by concentration ,and further assume that this produces B, which further reacts in reaction C with yet other reactive species, what drives this process forward in the hydrovent system? It is the dissipation of energy from higher temperature of the vent to the cold “sink” of the ocean water, but it is also proton-gradients due to the difference in pH. Both of these are operating to get rid of” excess energy. In continuing with this causative model of forming pre-biotic chemicals, we have to ask, if the products of B are biologically useful, we are to assume that another set of reactants are going to come along and help these form C. This causal chain might continue along for some time and involve many steps, but we realize that the causal impetus of this events had to be from several sources simultaneous and independent of one another, for example multiple synthetic sources converging, or they would be driven from one source. The problem with this causal chain as we’ve said is that if we suppose that far down the link there is some other process, more complex, say self assembly of nano-structures, are these also driven by A, such that if A stops the entire chain collapses? Or do they gain their energy from A? if so, the further away they are in steps the lower energy they would have.

If we then imagine that such ABCD ...causality leads to further self-assembled vesicles, which, then theoretically are claimed to IMPOSE actively a force (see “proton pump” of Russell et al) upon their surroundings, by moving their mass M, in a direction opposing the current, or by creating for example, a K channel or osmotic gradient with a force F, now we have a further theoretical problem, as we are to believe that the aforementioned chemistry which was purely natural and inanimate, is now driving a force to oppose itself, its own tendencies. Where in theory, would such a force originate? More specifically, if we consider that the fundamental driving impetus causing these processes is dissipation of energy and increase in entropy, we can see that such a phenomenon is impossible. [1.11.17The driver” of entropy and dissipation is the actual driver, not a theoretical one. And the “preferred” state is the opposite of that which is not preferred or unexpected.] A natural chemical or mechanical system will not develop forces which oppose itself, this was a corollary postulate of 2B. Recall that we’ve stated that living

systems should not be physically differentiable from the background if they do not impose any force on their surroundings.

The chains themselves are driven by minimum energy, which means that they do not technically speaking, impose a force against their surroundings. The explanation is that it is “selection” or molecular “learning” or the more common “molecular adaptation”, which are non-physical terms, and should not.

The whole idea that these chains of reactivity ABCD ..., might be driven by entropy, is a logic trap that science is falling into. I have already argued (in comments etc.) that if the reaction of the molecules is tending toward such a state that is new chemistry” and so the logical question, where is this new chemistry? But that issue, actually steers us towards an issue I raise later in this book. It steers us towards systems and conditions that likely do not exist on this planet. But may exist elsewhere in the galaxy.

If life is viewed as a by-product of chemistry, and more specifically the surrounding chemistry we’ve designated as “E” such that ABCD ...are driving “E” to cause necessary products to appear near a cell we can see that this is an absolutely bankrupt notion of how life is to be generated or sustained. Though there are plenty of references supporting the notion of “vesicles” and other small bodies, all products of precipitation reactions and of chemistry, what is not appreciated is that real living cells do not have such open communication with their environment. If they did, if materials flowed so easily that the vector force arrows were essentially unimpeded from their origin, outside a cell to somewhere through the cell and out, (as we’d expect passive flow) the cell would not be alive. Such cells are “stainable” to agents such as trypan blue. But this communication with the supposed causative agents of “E” is disrupted. All molecules are gated in their entry to the cell, and many are blocked or are pumped out, actively by the input of energy from ATP powering such molecular pumping mechanisms. As we’ve mentioned these pumps are critical to removing many drugs and in fact, respond specifically to drugs on a cell receptor level. The hypothesis that hydrothermal sea vents provided necessary chemistry and physical motive forces to assemble and form early cell structures, and in addition to fuel “them” or embody them, with the ability to self assemble and even metabolize, is pure fiction. Particularly since none of these studies is able to account for the non-communication of these pre-living regions with their environment. How did such non-communication arise?

There is much confusion about the vectoral nature of the chemistry as is found in B. Herschy et al (2014 Origin of life reactor...) “One factor in particular distinguishes living cells from conventional synthetic chemistry as practiced by humans: biochemistry is fundamentally vectorial. It has structure and direction in space, as pointed out by Peter Mitchell from the late 1950s onwards (Mitchell 1959, 1961, 1966).”

And yet what is not realized is that according to my theory, these are equivalent. The vectorial forces used by humans in biochemistry arises from micro-vectors components in cells.

(NOTE 8.10.22MK) Here they equate vectoral inanimate with animate physics..Herschy et.al., central thesis is "Geochemical systems with analogous vectorial chemistry could therefore offer valuable insights into the origin of life, (page 1)" and yet but assume the vectorial behavior of inanimate sea smoker vents, is "analogous" to animate systems.

2nd Chapter “How Life Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics”

Notes and References specific to this chapter:

1. The second law is stated more formally as “the change in entropy of the system will always increase in a closed system, OR it is always positive. (Schrodinger, “What is Life” 1944) “(Chapter 6 LIVING MATTER EVADES THE DECAY TO EQUILIBRIUM) When a system that is not alive is isolated or placed in a uniform environment, all motion usually comes to a standstill very soon as a result of various kinds of friction; differences of electric or chemical

potential are equalized, substances which tend to form a chemical compound do so, temperature becomes uniform by heat conduction. After that the whole system fades away into a dead, inert lump of matter. A permanent state is reached, in which no observable events occur. The physicist calls this the state of thermodynamical equilibrium, or of ‘maximum entropy.'”

So we can see that the ME or MEP was already clearly stated in 1944 by Schrodinger. Though it was understood that “living matter evades the decay to equilibrium” it was not shown how it does this, or if such a process is not dictated by the inanimate properties of particles composing life, which Schrodinger sought.

1b. {5.9.15 We will further define this entropy more universally as the system will tend towards a state in which a quantity of energy is no longer contained such that it will spontaneously do work on the system around it, though this is specifically in Case II, where some order exists, technically speaking, the classical definition of entropy does not apply based on Case I, that is a surprising implication of this virtual space and that condition. The notion that useful work declines in a closed system is itself an observer imposed condition which is not apparent, or known to be apparent, in natural systems.}

2. “The general struggle for existence of animate beings is not a struggle for raw materials – these, for organisms, are air, water and soil, all abundantly available – nor for energy, which exists in plenty in any body in the form of heat Q, but of a struggle for entropy, which becomes available through the transition of energy from the hot sun to the cold earth.” Boltzmann, L. (1886). The second law of thermodynamics. Populare Schriften, Essay 3, address to a formal meeting of the Imperial Academy of Science, 29 May 1886, reprinted in Ludwig Boltzmann, Theoretical physics and philosophical problem, S. G. Brush (Trans.). Boston: Reidel.

3. “Newton’s Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy” (from Principia, editions 2nd (1713) and 3rd (1726) tans. A Motte 1729:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Math ematica Rule 2: “Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.”

One can, based on the “time equivalence” principal, (I show elsewhere or in the principal I refer to as “Indifferent Time”) conclude that everything (in true isolated, inanimate systems..i.e. natural systems), is at thermodynamic equilibrium, the only constraints would be the amount of time and perhaps the scale of the system in question. This means that in essence, there is no such thing as “thermodynamic non-equilibrium” in an absolute sense or a physical sense, it cannot be observed or defined. It is an artificially imposed, relativistic statement, unlike the law of gravity or even of heat dispersion itself (Clausius), or diffusion (Fick’s law). A natural system is neither at “equilibrium” nor “disequilibrium” but is simply what it is. So we must be careful about the bias of observer imposed psycho-physical expectations for how nature behaves. Furthermore, equilibrium is not a dynamic itself, it is not a tendency, unlike other physical laws. Actually, entropy states just the opposite, natural systems tend toward non-equilibrium. Would we expect that a body at rest, a rock lying on another rock, is a preferred state of nature? More “preferred” than the rocks sliding down the hill?

5. My comment relating to how energy from the sun effects force balance on earth, thermodynamically. In Quantum Magazine, May 5, 2015 at 4:08 pm “To C.H. (commentator), May 2, 2015. It is not that I'm saying things are in balance in so much as I say that the force applied is in balance (in the cases mentioned). There is an appositive force of equal magnitude , I'm making that claim for specific reasons discussed. I should probably state that it applies to the equilibrium condition, though it's implied when I state 'normal force' N-bank. As I diagrammed a bit more clearly: http://causaldistinctions.blogspot.com/2015/04/i-propose-challenge-to-maximal- flow.html

6. In such a force diagram, we're not talking about conditions for "all of time" or even 1 billion years, but it is assumed for example, that a book resting on a table is in equilibrium, in an interval (of virtual time), and thus experiences an equal and opposite force pushing back. However, we also know that the third law applies in non equilibrium, the net force does not have to be equal magnitude since it is only proportional to the mass , ball 'A' can impose a force, 'ma' but ball "B", a smaller 'ma' so the net force might be highly skewed in the other direction, and b will go backwards, hence non equilibrium. But if you notice I am also making the case" for molecular based theory of a macro state, which you'll notice is being negated by constructal Law and PB. basically

states "it isn't necessary to consider molecular theory to obtain macro behaviour", which I paraphrase, but he's dispensing with particles and I'm showing why that's wrong. But returning to equilibrium condition, let's assume the river bank is more or less in equilibrium, in this state the force opposing the water is equal and opposite. The interesting notion is the causality of how that equilibrium was achieved. If you consider that the greater source of non equilibrium is the sun, and if we imagine there are packets" of this energy incident on our planet, which translate to the motions of storms and.. rivers then any non equilibrium from that equilibrium state, is thus some unit of that packet, it is not ridiculous to say it is molecular scale, as you're aware of planetary scale weather theories based on molecular theory, i.e. how well CO2 absorbs sunlight, or how water dipole effects its heat absorption more than say, CO2 (no dipole) or any other gas really. But the big point of my derivation, its implication, is only to state that the non equilibrium is due to these packets- the non equilibrium of the river is caused by Fluxes in these energies, NOT by the river itself, nor by the change in the river bank. There is no such thing as constructal law governing a river as we have just defined the rivers motion as the sum of these "pushes" from the sun, (being counterbalanced by normal forces of the bank and river bottom) so these are as much relevant to the rivers (acting) force than what we observe (on earth),..a river is not a discreet, defined thing in terms of this physics.(I should also say that this kind of "being a stickler for precision", in causality is relevant to the thermo issues here, but also to the problem of equating animate and the inanimate..which you'll note is assumed in the article above, and by maximal flow laws).

8. G. S., A Second Look at the Second Law, Appl. Math Lett. (2011) “Anyone who has made such an argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and entropy can decrease in an open system, as long as it is “compensated’’ somehow by a comparable or greater increase outside the system...”

8.1 Paul Peter Urone, College Physics, Brooks/Cole, 2001 (via Sewell 2011). “It is true that the evolution of life from inert matter to its present forms represents a large decrease in entropy for living systems. But it is always

possible for the entropy of one part of the universe to decrease, provided the total change in entropy of the universe increases.”

8.2 Angrist, L. Hepler, Order and Chaos, Basic Books, 1967 (via Sewell 2011). “In a certain sense the development of civilization may appear contradictory to the second law. . . . Even though society can effect local reductions in entropy, the general and universal trend of entropy increase easily swamps the anomalous but important efforts of civilized man. Each localized, man-made or machine-made entropy decrease is accompanied by a greater increase in entropy of the surroundings, thereby maintaining the required increase in total entropy.”

These are debates about the status of reality. But in it is confusion about reality itself. Most of it comes from tables of entropy one can find in a standard book of chemistry. The “entropy increase” for the surroundings, after for example, a crystal is formed, is not a phenomenon of a system, but a phenomenon of an individual atom or molecule. Multiplying the phenomenon by some molar ratio, though useful for chemistry, does not physically distinguish the system. It is the same argument we have made with “indifferent time” where I am saying it is also not physically valid, to take measurements between arbitrary regions of space and say “here is a force between these.”

9. Brig Klyce, (updated 2015), http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm “Sometimes people say life violates the second law. This is not the case..we know of nothing in the universe that violates that law.”

10. JBS Haldane (1929) Primordial Soup theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane

11. Avshalom C. Elitzur (1994) Let There Be Life: Thermodynamic Reflections on Biogenesis and Evolution.” “...The evolution of any type of self-replicating systems, even the simplest ones, is shown to be highly efficient in extracting, recording and processing information about the environment. A variety of related issues yield some surprising conclusions when discussed in the thermodynamic context.”

12. Claudia Huber and Gunter Wachtersha“Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on(Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life” 31 JULY 1998 VOL 281 SCIENCE

13. S. W. Fox and K. Dose, 1977 “Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life” Dekker, New York.

15. See Kleidon’s “ Life, hierarchy, and the thermodynamic machinery of planet Earth” Axel Kleidon doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.10.002

16. John Whitfield, Complex systems: Order out of chaos Nature 436(7053):905-- 907 (August 2005) “Can the behaviour of complex systems from cells to planetary climates be explained by the idea that they're driven to produce the maximum amount of disorder?”

17. See Kleidon’s et al, (page 4) “The following two papers deal with hydrological processes on land. Zehe et al. (2010) evaluate the effect of preferential flow associated with biogenic soil structures on hydrological fluxes using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. They show that these structures act to maximize dissipation of chemical potential gradients within the soil.” (Axel Kleidon et al. Maximum entropy production in environmental and ecological systems Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2010) 365, 1297–1302)

I have already commented on theories such as these, Kleidon et al. The premise is that one might obtain data in this case, on “hydrological fluxes” such that there is some base line state. Then, presumably, over some period of time there would be another state, one in which there is a shift towards some other stable state. But one can see that in this experiment, the assumption has to be made that the system will progress from where it was in an initial condition to some other state, presumably a measurable rate of flux, etc. in another condition. That presumes that there is some other physical reason for this change in state to occur, which further assumes, as I’ve already argued, that it is some OTHER condition or state that the system is not already in.* In other words, why is the MEP not already realized in Condition I or the initial state? As a function of it set up as a physical system, BEFORE it was set up to be measured? These are the experimental questions for the theory of MEP and other so called optimization theory.

In reality, nature never gets to equilibrium. Because even the apparent calm is the calm before the storm. And these are 2nd causalities in a chain of the type “2...” which have no definite beginning or end. I have to think that even if the sun went out this afternoon, the earth still produces massive amounts of geothermal heat. There would be equilibrium for billions of years, but somewhere along that time, probably a reformation of the solar system, or even a collision of galaxies, which would be violently alter the conditions once more.

We also see in the quote I have provided, the rather disturbing realization that it resembles very much maximal flow theory, with its ‘preferential flow’ maximizing energy dissipation in ‘biogenic soils’.

We further note that in fact “figure 1a” of this paper (Kleidon’s 2010 ‘MEP..’) apparently deals with a phenomenon described as “temporal evolution into steady state” which depicts a change in a system (not specified). What is also interesting, is the use of figure 1b, which depicts two resistors in a circuit. Are we to imagine that the resistors are now looked at chemically? Since the actual resistance of the wires is a function of their chemical composition, the type of metal etc., and we might also see such a system simply as a chemical one, subject to rust and degradation, but we can see also, that there is no preferred view of such systems. What is it physically that makes the circuit a physically distinct system from its molecular parts? Entropy could, in theory, be considered for just the wires, or just the chemical composition of the atoms in those wires, there is no justification here for any particular view.

Kleidon et al, in the paper, (page 1) also offer this working definition of the second law but also what they mean by an example of the maximum entropy principal (MEP): “The second law states that for isolated systems that do not exchange energy or mass with their surroundings, the entropy of that system can only increase. Over time, this law translates into an evolutionary direction by which a system evolves to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which is characterized by the absence of gradients in temperature or chemical species.”

Our “restatement” or correction of the Second Law in this book, would be under the specific case that Entropy increases in Open systems, even with the exchange of energy. This divergence of the Second law applies specially to Inside OUT causality.

It would appear that they are simply stating, or restating that the “entropy of the system can only increase” thus reach a maximum. Again, whereas I don't disagree that a system of molecules will diffuse until that diffusion stops, this doesn’t appear to really be a “maximum”. Can we not now examine THIS system, the one in equilibrium? In reality there are no examples of systems in perfect equilibrium on this planet. Every known mechanical contraption, every system we invent, must degrade, none are safe. So the so called equilibrium of molecules in a container, are not really in an equilibrium if one simply changes the time frame, in that context such a theory simply doesn’t add up to finer scrutiny. And the same causal analysis I apply to the non-equilibrium of a container, also applies to natural systems, since after all, that is really the main purpose of MEP, to discuss natural systems of the earth, convection, winds, storms, and others. It would be highly untenable to examine a river or vortex, and state that such a system is now in some sort of equilibrium. Based on what observation? Or law? We could just as easily state, as Clausius did, that heat is lost from a system over time until it reaches equilibrium with the surroundings. But we can also see such a view is relative. What are the surroundings? The kettle cools to the temperature of the room, but the room is still maintained at a higher temperature than the outdoors. It is a relative concept and we would not really state that the temperature of the kettle has reached some sort of minimum, not in a generalized sense as this simply wouldn’t be verifiable. Without any relative specifications we don’t have a system to speculate upon. As I’ve already stated, there is no difference between the arbitrary states of I,II and III.. But this statement is not physically differentiable from “the ball has now come to rest on the table.” That is just as true as the beaker has reached equilibrium. But neither of these facts by themselves, provides a theory that predicts a future state. We find that such relative states, though possibly useful in applied situations, are not useful in our causal analysis of virtual closed systems and implications to the Second Law.

18. Pascal R, Pross A: The nature and mathematical basis for material stability in the chemical and biological worlds, J Syst Chem 2014, 5:3

19. Isabelle Weissbuch et al., “Racemic β-Sheets as Templates of Relevance to the Origin of Homochirality of Peptides: Lessons from Crystal Chemistry”Acc. Chem. Res., 2009, 42 (8), pp 1128–1140 DOI: 10.1021/ar900033k

20. James Attwater “In-ice evolution of RNA polymerase ribozyme activity” Nature Chemistry, 2013. DOI: 10.1038/NCHEM.1781 Note: Their conclusion regarding RNA replication (2013) in an associated press release of the paper was the following: "It's great progress, but the result still comes far short of a molecule that can copy itself. For one thing, the ribozyme tended to stop short of the end of the molecule it was copying, mostly because the two fell out of contact."

21. Strother, 2007, “Lectures” Boston College site: https://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/14.html “The second law, therefore seems to violate what we see happening with in biological systems that appear to create more ordered systems over time. And the chemistry of the evolutionary process involves the exchange of energy in a system, so it is subject to the second law. We get around this problem by defining the "system" that is subject to the second law as including the Sun and Earth - thus, the energy arriving from the sun and its interaction with Earth's (biological) surface results in an overall entropy increase, even though, locally, on the Earth's surface, biology causes an apparent decrease in entropy.” (10.12.16 I further note that the belief in the 2nd Law as its interpreted here, supports a Single Universe model, in which life’s actions are balanced elsewhere.)

23. This paper makes testable assertions, a primary one being that the construction of constructs, i.e. in nature, via absorption of external energy, the sun or geothermal, might result in products but these products are not of the sufficient entropy to lead to other products. As the model shows, the entropy is always higher outside the horizon, than inside, which is measurable [entropy must drop externally, (the net entropy i.e. the sun or of space) before molecules can propagate outwardly or heat can flow]. The difference is that this “Virtual Closed System” Fig 1 is occurring within an OPEN system, with copious energy (sunlight) entering from the outside. [No one ever observes that the chemicals on their shelves “improve” with age. Nor do the products they generate. The downhill tendencies, the entropy of these bench chemistries are already well known. One would expect even more accelerated entropy production in nature.] They have excessive entropy contained within these systems, and the reason for this it is hypothesized, is the lack of a normal force, FN.

24. Regarding the self-assembly from inanimate, there have already been attempts made over 100 years ago by for example, Traube in “La biologie Synthetique” (1912) in bizarre experiments with manganese. So other researchers have been attempting and failing in this for over 100 years.

25. The consequence of the presence of this normalization force is that the passive flow of heat would then do work, and further, that it would generate a different form of heat, heat which has even less capacity (a net capacity) to do less work on the system than before, or perhaps none at all. The passive flow of heat from the sun, and the earth’s convective belts, should in principal do no useful work, against the surrounding system. Thus it would generate no quantity of this ‘heat’ a lower capacity for work. This ‘normalizing force’, FL would also have with it a proportional unit of heat, QL, generated at a specific rate of heat production QL per unit change in time. We might view the “test subject” or test matter or structure inside the entropy horizon (either conforming to its outer surface, or surrounding it as the sphere diagramed) as a hypothetical ‘structure’ composed of essentially force vectors in motion presumably from the convective forces set in motion by the sun’s energy. If we then imagine that the convective forces are essentially Brownian macroscopic turbulence and massive vortex, and that some small quantity of this can be envisioned that is moving through a space, then we might imagine any one of these as having a potential to form order but also a potential to decrease it. The probability would be equal for both states. We also note that the (imaginary) ‘test subject’ does no work against its surroundings, since the Fn this vector, is a resultant of surrounding vectors, much like a stream of energy

flowing. The appearance of order of crystallization in such a conveyor system, can be calculated to be of higher order but this is an imaginary, non relevant value (as we’ve defined earlier), as its reference is virtual (to a hypothetical system in which it is not formed). In reality, the crystal formation is simply lower order, ‘in flow’ or ‘in stream’ vectorally, with its surroundings. Based on this diagrammatic experiment, we would not expect that such massive crystalline formations would in any way generate FL against its surroundings. Rather, we’d expect that any quantity of order set up by these vectors, or artificially added to the system and placed within the entropy horizon, to exhibit some loss of order, irreversibly over time, such that the energy it radiates is of lower capacity to do work on the surroundings. But we note also, that in this case, no FL is present.

26. Heylighen, F. (1970) "The Science of Self-Organization and Adaptivity." I reference despite largely incorrect ideas relating to self ordering crystals etc..and attempts to support the notion that convection is an "emergent" vectorial behavior..in inanimate systems. It is a reference review, see cyberntecician" reverences and science..

27. David Lindley. Boltzmann's Atom: The Great Debate That Launched A Revolution In Physics" www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/boltzmannsatom.htm

Causal Distinctions

Sunday, August 7, 2022

THE CRISIS EQUATION- A NEW THEORY OF LIFE AND PHYSICS

No comments:

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Sunday, August 7, 2022

THE CRISIS EQUATION- A NEW THEORY OF LIFE AND PHYSICS

No comments:

Post a Comment

Institute For Independent Inquiry

Popular Posts