[continued from previous message]

Dave’s thing: although nuclear (nucleus) spintronic chemistry exists, it is possible spin customization of molecules, cytostructures, and possibly lipid rafts and membranes at various areas of the brain could be used to heighten observer effects, at
resolving quantum systems, with the higher resolution produced at an fMRI from a spin effecting contrast agent. Also, seeing if Dave’s “schoedinger’s neurons” thing has experimental support, the rest of the fMRI of the brain, other than a region
previously studied as linked to some ability, feeling or characteristic, would be purposefully scanned at non-quantum resolving digital resolution, so: at a aprticular person, everything but the nucleus accumbens has minimized fMRI data, that observes,
possibly kind of superobserves the nucleus accumbens; does the person feel any diffferent; is there an effect if the human getting the fMRI views and guides the process,or is it quantitatively measurable as equally effective or functional if a researcher
views it; for the non-human observer interpretation of quantum physics doing different scans, at different resolutions could come upwith graphable curves on fMRI resolution and quantitative measurables like the fMRIed human doing math, or new ideas per
minute generated, or even subjective well being measures.

I do not know how it would go; technologically a superobserver, like a computer, that was able to raise human function even without the human being attentive would be easier and likely reach even more people than something where people had to pay
attention to themselves.

The fMRI or particular CNS that is brain, at various regions, with heightened observer effect from the fMRI is distinguishable from the possible spintronic chemical effect of the spintronic contrast agent or other spintronic drug.

Quantum superobserver could also be a nootropic effect, superobserver observes the hippocampus optimally and that affects memory ability, if as Dave thinks, there is a “schroedingers neuron” thing going on.

GRAS chemicals and all FDA drugs screened for existing nuclear spintronic character; molecules that favor or have a particular spin more than others could be listed out then math correlated with shared physiological effects; correlate spin at various
physiostructures like lipid membranes with physiological wellness; feed the GRAS/FDA drugs that have spintronic preferentialization of concentration of a particular spin; find out if spintronic effects at c elegans at automatic process multiwell plates
to see if some kind of spin effect affects physiological wellness, and longevity;

MRI fields are published as effecting biochemistry, so big magnets might be causing spin polarization at the physiological body causing effects, some of these effects could be beneficial.

[[Are there any naturally occuring physiological things that have a spintronic component? Noting that things like two photon things like chlorophyll exist, and that lipids might be customizable to be spintronically having of different characteristics,
and noting that lipid membranes and lipid rafts could be spin-durable because they make their own insulation from aqueous fluids which might stochisticize spin; are there spintronic lipids that benefit humans?
]] (brackets because electron spin is free radicals and sometimes lasts half an hour, nuclear spin is responsive to big magnets)

Dave’s “schoedinger’s neurons” idea; previously described is a person, possibly other than (or and) the person being fMRI-ed observes brain and neuron things, as well as version where the person observes their own fMRI, as well as versions where
a plurality of observers observe the fMRI (noting that human vision jumps around, there would be wider simultaneous coverage of an entire graphic if twenty people were watching it. (note wigner’s friend thing and DQCE to my perception, make a human
observer a functional quantum resolver from superposition) The humans or human is observing the fMRI output at each of more than 30 neurotransmitters while the person indicates how much consciousness or isness they have, possibly some receptors fMRI
observation effects being, and possibly also receptor activateability from a fixed dose of a receptor stimulating drug (perhaps observing a receptor modfies its chemistry activity); improving this, particularly as consciouness research has value, is,
even complementing other continual improvements at imaging, is a fMRI machine that is 4 or 10 times higher resolution, I perceive that a bigger magnet, as well as possibly an annular scan tube that fits around the head that is narrower diameter than one
that would do shoulder width and the entire body would increase resolution. Also, I read online that when you use a thoughtfully engineered magnet and sensors that less than millimeter MRI is possible, I perceive it might have been less than a tenth of
a millimeter resolution, so a fMRI machine customized to brain and consciousness research could be much higher resolution. one tenth of a millimeter resolution with quantum resoloving observation would create a detailed map of what area of the CNS, when
quantum resolved, does what.

likely a thing on laboratory mammals, or humans if its harmlessness is well researched and documented, could be immunolocalization of fMRI contrast agents ( I perceive one is gadolinium) to specific neurons. fMRI of say just that population of kind of
neuron throughout the brain could also be measured (quantum resolved) as to effect on presence of being or isness. So an imitation dopamine like PEA could have a gadolinium attached to it, and it would activate pretty much just Trace amino acid
receptors; a larger molecule would be an aptamer or antibody to say GABA neurons, and something like gadolinium phenibut or a gadolinium benzodiazepene would just concentrate there.

To create higher resolution quantum observability: the receptor active drug could also be localized: antibodies, or less immunoalerting, is aptamer localization, to particular neuron types, where the antibody or aptamer is linked to the activator drug.
So if it was PEA, you could attach a gadolinium to it, and localize it to just one kind of aptamer-findable neuron. That way the observed fMRI, although the human viewed screen resolution (quantum observation mechanism) would be like it is like it is,
would be making fMRI observations of some really specific things “point” things, rather than swathes of entire brain responding to a neurotransmitter receptor activbating drug. the fMRI would be looking at something like a splayed fiber optic lamp
instead of whole room ambient lighting. This is to figure out if Dave’s idea that human tissue, like the CNS, is quantum superposed, and that, slightly different than his idea, resolving the quantum superposition, could cause effects.

Also, from reading Dave’s material on Quora I perceives he entertains the concept that quantum superposition at tissue like the CNS might, to his thought, last “femtoseconds” That suggests making a list of body things, possibly those with less
aqueous stochastic neighborness, which if superposed would last longer, up to seconds, minutes or days. I read about somewhat macroscopic vibrating wires, that lasted minutes, possibly hours as quantum unresolved matter. It is possible that the
comparatively less water at the area areas like bone could have filamentous structures that would have longer quantum superposition durability. Also, the durability of what are called hydrations shells, when water next to a molecule takes its shapes, or
controus around its shape; I perceive there are even layers of hydration shells surrounding the contoured first hydration shapes. So, what is the quantum superposition durability of a hydration shell? (it could be that water lasts a long time around
some molecules or cytostructures)

Another listable quantum durable: crystalloid bodies at cytes exist, although I might not know what they are called, I have viewed images of these as circle (presumably round 3d blobs or spheres) of protein so homogenous and tightly arrayed as to form
what looks like a blob of crystal at images of cytes. Non-lipids, the interior of these is nonaqueous, and could have particularly durable quantum superposition, also noting they might be at the interior of almost all cytes, the effects of their quantum
resolution or the durability of their superposition could directly affect the cytosol, proteins, their effects, and other cytosol things. So at neurons these crystal blobs, if resolved might have different chemistry, and groups of them might even form a
distribution of the “amount” that each cyte, like a neuron, is quantum resolved or superposed (this neuron has 90% superposed, 10% resolved, that neuron has 90% resolved, 10% superposed; these amounts of superposition or resolution contribute to the
actual chemistry that occurs at the cytosol. Quantum resolution would effect spintronic chemistry. Supporting the idea that quantum resolution would affect chemistry differently than quantum superposition is that systems with electron spin, when the
spins are synchronized (all up) have different spintronic effects (spintronic chemical catalysts are published). Also although it would be proton/nucleus emphasized, nuclear spin, which differs from electron spin, also changes chemical activity (MRI is
published as effecting biochemistry). So, resolved or superposed molecules could, among numerous possible quantum resolvables, have spin that converts to a particular form, which is chemically differently active than a superposed molecule (say it goes to
spin up, from spin unresolved that might be like “both chemical versions simultaneously” The unresolved molecule is still doing something, but on observation it does the spin-specific version of its chemistry.



(from reading about the researchers looking at the DQCE the next day DQCE quantum adjustability lasts many hours, it could last decades if the optical system goes unobserved, but I am absent knowledge of a published “longest interval” to change or
resolve (DQCE: re-resolve) a quantum event, so, notably at crystalloids and bone, quantum unresolved things could be clustered, arranged, “domino effected” and insulated to produce quantum unresolved structures that had composite durability of
greater length than any one molecule’s quantum durability. If we domino effect a trillion hydroxyapatite molecules in bone at a structure or even a distribution, then Dave’s “femtosecond” might be a 1 second durability of superposition, long
enough to so something with his “schoedinger’s neurons” idea. Also, along with arrangements of molecules, previously described is another way to build chronological lengths and physical spans (like length and breadth) of quantum superposedness or
resolvedness as positioned things, that retain their shape or form, through the generation of standing waves (just make a mirror out of atoms, and next to it occurs a concentration; two mirrors you have an etalon with standing waves, possibly regularly
spaced as blobs, also some wave cavities and shapes of source-pushes, create solitons (a shape of wave with 100 or more times the durability and non-spead dissolution of a sine wave) Interestingly these can be treated as groupings of superposition, like
superposition near other superposition, to produce things like solitons of superposedness; these as a slightly different kind of wave would have more than 100 times the non-spread and possibly durability compared with a one atom or one elctron sytem, So,
to Cheer dave, Ithink there are possible human physiological quantum superpositions that last much longer than femtoseconds, and, if they have value, can be engineered and optimized to provide benefit to humans.

Also, for Dave, there is the possibility of looking at Hom much of a system, like a system with an eigenvalue, is both superposed and resolved, like the potentially possible 90% superposed, 10% resolved crysalloids making up a “kind of quantum resolved,
still quantum superposition flexible” body cyte or neuron. It is my perception he is absent requiring the whole neuron be superposed (I think he thinks that if it were all resolved people would be p-zombies; just the “mechanicals” of chemistry
and physics)

Noting a mix of reolved and superposed at an actual cyte or tissue, finding things at the body, where there are a group of them, where the proportions or, utilzing better math:distributions of some resolved and some unresolved could cause

eigenvalue math and a slightly substrate-independent consciousness source possibility: Note that electron or nucleus spin sort of just makes out the quantum states of an atom or molecule at a neurotransmitter receptor to have kind of have a chemical
druglike effect, and drugs are already well known to have effects on consciousness, presence of being and isness;

I should reread what Dave has written, I think he is thinking of why people are not p-zombies and from what experienced consciousness arises from, rather than saying “quantum state can function like a drug” (as an aside, quantum things could be
affecting the felt mind, but perhaps some unglamourous 3% heightening or lessening of some chemical system)

noting though that quantum superposition has nonfinite probability distances (the electron could appear a light year away, it is just statistically unlikely to) quantum superposition might have math representation with nonfinite elements at a math matrix;
That matrix could have different eigenvalues; my perception of an eigenvalue is that it is what remians when you change everything out at a matrix, there is a colloquial thing, where if you swap out every part of a car, and it still drives, is it the
same car? The carness persists, the things it is made of are swapped out. So an eigenvalue can be thought of that which persists. There could be content here, but I have no idea what it is. being seems, from some perspectives, to be a persistent
chracteristic even thought

The things is that eigenvalues have math definitions, so there are logical “unfoldements” and rigorous pathways (operations) that can be performed on the matrices that generate the eigenvalues.
So, they could search to see if consciousness has any math-of-eigenvalue predictabilities (hypothesizables) then the more things at consciousness that do, or fit, the eigenvalue math easily, or perhaps even sructurally; that is eigenvalue math
transformations and axioms which eigenvalue math is based on, can be found at consciousness, and then benefically perhaps even physically searched for at the brain. If consciousness has eigenvalue confirming math sourcings and predictable equational
effects then huamns could find eentsy changes that change he eigenvalue of a marix tremendously and test them on nonhuman mammals and if harmless or beneficial, could do them at humans. Perhaps there is an equational unfoldement of math that can be
translated to tissue, massively modifying the eigenvalue based, predictive model of consciousness form of being, isness and consciousness. One temporary adjustment could create voluntarily-modified duration of heightened isness, another math operation/
equation/function could cause temporary P-zombie form.

So, if there are supported hypothesis that eigenvalue math
could be found to accurately, equationally-predictively, model and predict isness, or consciousness, that could be another source of consciousness, linkable to physiology, that is different than quantum things, that Dave might like.

and hey, I donot know if quantum superposition has some eigenvalue persistence thing although putting quantum states into an array, calling it a matrix, and calulating an eigenvalue would make one. Dave might like reading up on eigenvalues, and see if
even a bubbly “femtosecond” or, as described above second or multiminute ar multiday, quantum effects when viewed as a math array can have a persisting eigenvalue, noting that eigenvalue is a way of mathematically naming something that arises and
persists even as all the parts bubble into different forms.

There are things online where they do eigenvalue calculations with actual, or possibly models or emulators of quantum computers; these might have group-effect-swapout-persistence derived values arising from quantum systems. I
I am absent a basis to think that quantum effects are

There could be a a lot of things look like this at the human body snag: a turing machine can do matrices and support eigenvalues, so finding eigenvalue-compatible parts of human consciousness might require sifting out many easy-to-misimportancize
eigenvalue generating systems at the human being. Even just syte/tissue/neuron feed-forward and feedback (Norbert Weiner:cybernetic) loops could be making turing machines all over the place at humans I appreciate that there is possible actual science
value to finding eigenvalue generators and sustainers at human tissues, and what things they cause to persist, but is there any cause to think that just because consciousness might be one of them, that it is?

a mathematician might figure out what a matrix with nondecided array elements does. “nondecided elements” would, noting Dave’s idea, be Quantum states like superposition. I have read they make matrices of functions, and of course quantum
superposition is likely writable as an equation to be placed in a location at a matrix. And hey, why use a 2d grid matrice; it seems likely that mathematicians have figured out calculations, solutions, and unique characteristics of 3D matrices,
spherical matrices, and matrices with and without “edge wrap”, So, there are some mentally groovy variations on predicting eigenvalues, generating eigenvalues of superpositioned quantum things, persisting effects, and specific math forms together.

“Duck!” or the anthropic principle: Then there is also the possibility at the MWI, as well as unitary MWI with adjustability came up with a source branch with consciousness, and that consciousness then propagated at its further branches, and just
possibly figured out how to traverse to other previously unvisited branches. This is a little like the anthropic principle being used as a generator and screen, this time of conscious being, but so what? It has entertainment value.

(I have no Idea how I could have thought of a way to make unitary MWI adjustable, but I thought it)

Naming seems to kind of do things at human comprehension. I am confused as to why Dave thinks naming a thing “quantum unresolved neurons” (or some other cytes or tissues at a human) (schoedingers neurons) has a basis for producing something like the
ability to be.
I perceive from his writings that he ponders the idea that all things are actually quantum superposed and unresolved, including the observer, like a human, and that then (Dave) noting we are actually running sketches or simulations of what folks together
call reality, and noting the least fancied up or elaborate interpretation of the schroedinger equations, could be all superposition all the time, Dave might be looking for consciousness in quantum effects, possibly because at the least elaborate
interpretation (MWI, and/or all superposed everything) consciousness would seem to be psudo-invetiably made up of quantum stuff. The thing is, I think there can be non-quantum stuff. So it might be valid to find testable hypothesis about presence of
being, isness, consciousness in that stuff which is non-quantum, just as much as hypothesizing sources of isness at quantum things.
So far I mentioned eigenvalue math, another one might be those things about the observed universe that are nonfinite and analog (spherical coordinate photon emission direction)

The thing is that ging for the most parsimonious statement of quantum mechanics and its way of structuralizing and hypothesizing about what it would do, and then testing those hypothesis goes with occams razor, “simplest supported explanation”

Occams razor and parsimony might only describe some systems, particularly systems with fewer parts: But do statistics math actually support occams razor? It is possible that humans note, and can mathematically find, things, systems, and explanations-
likely to be right, that is true, outside of occams razor. Occams razor makes sense as a basis for doing science, but might be improvable with math, even giving the ability to assist in generating strengthened hypotheses that treat data and gather data
in a way that causes occams razor to have greater applicability and productivity.

So the thing that to my perception causes occams razor to be sometimes, possibly predictably, nonapplicable is: If you think of distribution, the likelihood that the distribution will be mathematically identical as its fit of an equational curve, depends
on not just number of samples, it

If you look at 10 or 300 individual distributions, some of them are likely, that is mathematics of probability supported, to have some variance between each other.

Some math shapes amplify, so if at some pile of distributions, there is also a distribution of which of that list of previously measured distributions items gets amplified, then that would generate at least some large, observationally prominent
anisotropies (anomolous assemblages), where if you tried to describe them with the simplest thing (occams razor), that is the equation that fits the aggreagate of the 300 measured separate distributions, you would actually have described it wrong, with
something that has has high prediction value yet misses predicting the giant blobs from the aggregates..

So someone who knows math could take a system with n as measured variable, and K repetitions, and find the quantity of non-identical to model distributions, and then look at the effect of the combined effect of grouping the new distributions together,
perhaps as a simple combinatoric, to mathematically describe a system where Occams razor was only functional say 2/3 of the time; then at actual things at the observable universe, scientists and other researchers and technologists could look for
statistical/distributional features that suggest some particular thing or phenomena might only be 10% likeley (or perhaps 90% likely) to have an occams razor basis, parsimoniousness, for saying how it works.

So is there any physics experiment that would look for anisotropies at what the schroedinger equation predicts, not as a means of finding an exception that produces a new physics thing to explain, but measuring the variance of the shroedinger equation’
s predictions, noting that when you clump variance together large anisotropies predictably arise.These might be really varying as to distributions (noting that arranging the distributions, possibly where they can amplify each other, producing
anisotropies, anisotropies better explained with something less parsimonious than the schroedinger equation)

At some technologically doable experiment, then doing the thing where if there are a million measurements of that variance, a few will be really big, and, at another round of piling up or sorting, will look like, or be, big anisotropies, and then those
anisotropies would have an alternative mathematical statement. That alternative mathematical statement would appear non-parsimonius while still being higher in accuracy.

Note: I thought of an exception: If there are a million pieces of data, one equation that predicts them with precision is just to have each and every number of the million things listed as an array element, or the element of a set, reminds me of FEA…
so it would be fully descriptive yet not predictive.

So the variance at a group of distributions sometimes regularly creating a nonparsimonious explanation from being more predictive structure of thinking about things says: There are predictably occasions where an occams razor apporach is less functional
than another equation.

So is it possible to sift sideways or replace the bottom-up thing follows thing occams razor with a different approach, well occams razor, with its sequetial-seeming thing reminds me of a compare two, favor one, bubble sort. There are other sorts at
computer science. One of them that I do not really comprhend it heap sort, it starts at the middle, and then, perhaps alternates sides, anyway I think I remember it was twice as effective (possibly fast or half the steps) as bubble sort. So, what would
a human or software do with a heap of tested hypothesis that they wanted to come up with an equation to explain? There might be the scientific method equivalent of the heap sort (or some even more advanced computer science sort) And, beneficially if
the human or software knew it was going to come up with a descriptive equation (explanation) using a heap sort scientific method (compared with going linear/bubble sort from axioms), then it could suggest completely new kinds of experiments. If I were
more thoughtful I might be able to think of some versions of these experiments.

There are a bunch of different sorts at computer science, humans, or possibly software and AI could look to see if shared midrange features, rather than axiomatic like bases could generate models that are more predictive. Notably, some sorting
algorithms are parallel, and although humans think widely, I perceive with unenuciated parallelism and wide scope, they might enunciate in their minds and their writings, sequential explanation. It is possible that the existence of a ariety of computer
science sorting algorithms could, to a mathmetically literate mechanisms of science studying person, suggest new ways to do and look at things.

MWI testing technology: From Dave’s possible perspective then, what if there is a math computer science basis for finding a nonparsimonious axiom-like origin, yet more predictive thing than the schroedinger equation and its MWI and quantum
superposition products from occams razor? This could be an MWI testing technology.

What happens to MWI if its parsimonious basis is one of many equally explanatory math statements consistent with actual measurments:What if software generates a million alternate, fully explanatory, testable (mid-range of distribution math sort-based
descriptive) explanations, then MWI parsimony thus perceived at 219 AD as being likely, would be one of a million and one predictive eqaution systems. A science person might be able to say if you increase the state space from one equational description
to a million different equational descriptions, does any one particular thing at the state space have highest likelihood of being the actual thing? Going with the alluring and possibly slightly overconvenient idea that there might be a most actual out
of the million and one equations, It could be a different one than schreodinger’s equation

example: muliply everything at schoedinger’s equation with .5 then double it after you plug in the numbers, it is more elaborate, less parsimonius, but it has the same predictive ability.

The thing is though that various instances of the million predictive equations could do testable yet unparsimonious stuff: it ( adiffrent solution) might take a different amount of shannon information to represent, or require the universe to have
integers, or generate a causally specific, thus one result ignorable “two solutions simultaneously, at the actual measured universe just one solution is actually what it is”, yet perhaps the non-descriptive extra solution has some discernable value,
like at N^4 = 32, the version where N is negative or positive, you might learn from the extra solution that the other solution is less than 40 and more than 10, even though the actual accurate measurable thing is N=2 rather than -2.

One of the benefits of going to computer science sorting algorithms compared with: (base to higher development) from axiom elaboration is that stuff from the middle might sometimes be easier to test hypothesis of, that is technology might sometimes be
awesome at testing hypothesis from the middle of the sort algorithm. So there could be entire new branches of experiment creation based around the math of nonparsimonious descriptions generating predictive results that match what is measured.

(two flip branched string)

having ideas about eigenvalues, at an actual matrix, and the metaphor version with the car that moves forwards being the persisting thing that causes people to keep thinking it is car, even though you swap out all the parts,

Also, another eigenvalue thing is the math part where functions having some common feature can swap for each other and have the eigenvalue remain, notably then along with the matrix generation of and math rules that generate eigenvalues; there is an
eigenvalue manipulability of “essence” (you could apply math transformations and equations to platonism), so, at a “swap all the parts, which or where is the car; you still have carness” metaphor that is also describable as a math parsimonious
description as an eigenvalue, then at the “carness” a person can even swap out some of the thingness (platonically or noun/function unique parts) as component systems: “carness” is still a voluntary person visitable thing that moves forward even
if you replace a wankel engine with a straight 8)
So, then an eigenvalue statement of consciousness would have mathematical basis for not just swapping out all the parts, but replacing entire component systems, as long as the

Can you run an eigenvalue backwards, that is describe the eigenvalue of a matrice you think of as ok and something you like, then perhaps have software generate a million different numbers or functions to put in the matrix array that will generate the
same eigenvalue? If so, and if hypothesis and math unfoldements from probing conscious being are tested and predictive, then this could inform people that like creating technology of artificial sentience. So rather than nondistinguishability from a
human, an AI could have persisting eigenvalue as a human, as well as high fidelity to all the eigenvalues math unfoldements. That might be deeper or thicker than just imitating a human really well.

What is the simplest eigenvalue generator: some things. Like literally a set. That’s it. Then you also have to have some sort of thing to run the matrix math on.

engineering, chemistry, computer ic, computer fab, longevity, longevity technology, treon, treon verdery, physics, lasers, laser, emiconductor, dimension, math, IT, IL, pattern resonance, time travel, chronotechnology, circile, eric the circle, cartoon,
healthspan, youthspan, cpi, manufacturing, fiscal, money, software, petroleum, archive at deviantart com user treonsebastia

All technologies, ideas, and inventions of Treon Sebastian Verdery are public domain at JUly 8,2023AD and previously, as well as after that date

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)