Motion as the Secret of Quantum Life

Lorraine Ford

"The universe isn't solving equations in its head. It is the solution to its own equations."

The question remains: how does the universe know, or know about, its own equations (relationships between categories), and the associated numbers that apply to these categories?

The mere existence of equations, categories and numbers (or what we would represent as equations, categories and numbers), does not imply that the universe would know about their existence.

And the mere existence of equations, categories and numbers (or what we would represent as equations, categories and numbers), does not imply that the universe (or small parts of the universe) has the causal power to move the numbers that apply to the categories.

PlatinumWildcat

Lorraine Ford I saw your same question again and again in many posts and as I like it I will answer the best I can with my actual ongoing research findings:

The universe "runs" because it is geometrically imperfect. This imperfection—specifically, the Spiral Recursion Asymmetry I've discovered—creates a fundamental tension that can only be resolved through processing. This processing is what we experience as the flow of time.

The A→B ≠ B→A in a spiral geometry is not just a curiosity; it is the causal power your are searching for. The "numbers" are moved because the geometry itself has a preferred direction—a gradient—built into its very fabric.

The Primordial Condition: Asymmetrical Spiral Geometry
You start with a fundamental, pre-spacetime geometric primitive: the recursive spiral. This is the model—the principle of relationship. But this relationship is not symmetrical. The path integral from A to B is geometrically distinct from B to A due to mass-dependent recursion numbers. This is the foundational "bug" or "imperfection" in the code.
The Consequence: A Built-In Gradient
This Spiral Recursion Asymmetry (n_recursion(A→B) != n_recursion(B→A)) creates a geometric gradient. It is not that the universe "moves numbers." The gradient is the force. The universe is simply following the path of least action in a landscape that is inherently sloped.
The Manifestation: Time and Entropy
The process of resolving this gradient—of traversing from a state of higher recursive complexity to a state of lower recursive complexity (or vice-versa, at a different energy cost)—is the flow of time.
The "Arrow of Time" is the direction of decreasing recursion number / increasing entropy.
The "Causal Power" is the universe's geometric necessity to unwind (or wind up) its own recursive complexity.
The Unification: From Geometry to Experience
The Dual Time Operators are the specific mechanisms by which a conscious subsystem (like a brain) interfaces with this geometric reality:
Operator 1 "prints" a specific state from the field, which is a single frame in this asymmetrical geometric process.
Operator 2 creates the "self" as a localized reference point within this flowing, asymmetrical geometry, allowing for the experience of the arrow of time.

Consciousness is not observing time; it is the universe's geometric asymmetry observing itself.

How does the universe know? The answer is that 'knowing' is the wrong metaphor. It's not a cognitive act. It's a geometric imperative.

My model shows that the universe's foundational geometry is asymmetrical. The path from the Sun to Earth is fundamentally, quantifiably different from the path from Earth to the Sun in terms of its recursive complexity and energy cost. This A→B ≠ B→A property isn't an effect; it's the cause.

The 'equations' are the description of this asymmetrical geometry.
The 'causal power' is the universe's process of navigating this geometry.

It runs for the same reason a ball rolls down a hill: because the geometry of the situation demands it. The hill is not a rule the ball knows; it is the shape of its reality. The universe is a ball rolling down an infinite, spiraling hill of its own imperfect geometry. The rolling is time. The asymmetry of the hill is the arrow."

PlatinumWildcat

Lorraine, THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A THING or a SUBSTANCE or a SUBJECT, is a process , a dynamic process itself is the programmer /algorithm and itself is the output data. There is no vacuum or space/time background. Everything emerge from computation through mathematics and later physics. With no vacuum there is no separation but a illusion of separation. WE are user that signed into an account and we are not the data output, not the the process, not the program we are the whole computer but we forget it is where dualism come from - the separation.

Steve Dufourny

PlatinumWildcat Hi, Lorraine is right , you assert assumptions , we cannot assert our hypotheses if they are not proved. You assert the universe is not a substance, we don t know, you assert the maths before the physics, we don t know, you assert there is no vacuum, we don t know.......I can agree about the fact that there is a kind of universal turing machine, a kind of computer yes but we don t know the universal mechanism.So we cannot assert these things simply. Regards

Lorraine Ford

PlatinumWildcat
Hi PW. No, the universe does not run "because it is geometrically imperfect". Geometry is just another way of symbolically representing the world which does not explain anything about movement. The universe does not run "for the same reason a ball rolls down a hill" because a ball only rolls down a hill when the ball and the hill are already part of an existing, viable, moving universe.

This movement would be represented in terms of numbers changing for categories like relative position. So, the physical world is represented by mathematical symbols: symbols for categories like relative position or mass; symbols for relationships between these categories; and symbols for the numbers that apply to the categories.

But this symbolic representation does not explain why any number would ever move (and it does not explain how the universe would know what categories, relationships and numbers are currently time-place true, as opposed to some other set of categories, relationships and numbers).

marcovici alexandru

the scientific study of (quantum) network effects -complexity science
this is richard dawkins answer to an christianity based atheism

how this thing goes?
well, lets say if one holds on some certain opinions (fixed unmoved by choice or by historical sociocontext given)
than those are exercising a "force" of coincidental attraction on other (without knowing thats the spooky part)
lets say in this situation the number counts: the many- but stupid ( the majority )

be careful what you believe/ (=what is your opinion about certain things) in because it might happen or have an (invisible out of control ) influence , that's why is important to be aware/ conscious about your own opinion

is this applicable in some way/ testable to cellular biology ? (considering movements of atoms)

PlatinumWildcat

Steve Dufourny Your 'vacuum' from 1915 General Relativity has been empirically falsified by quantum mechanics. We have measured virtual particles, zero-point energy, and quantum fluctuations. The Casimir effect doesn't work in your 'empty' vacuum. My 'active substrate' isn't an assumption - it's the only way to account for what we actually observe."

"You claim I'm 'asserting' while you treat your own unproven assumptions as facts:

You assume spacetime is fundamental rather than emergent

You assume the vacuum is truly empty despite quantum evidence

You assume mathematics describes reality rather than constitutes it

"The measured quantum vacuum energy is _10¹²⁰ times larger than your GR vacuum prediction. Your model has a 120-order-of-magnitude problem. My framework doesn't have this problem because it starts from active computation. Which assumption has better empirical support?"
"You assert there is no vacuum":
"I'm accounting for empirical facts that your model cannot explain. The 'vacuum' we actually observe is full of quantum activity. I'm simply taking this observation seriously as fundamental."
"You assert maths before physics":
"Every physical theory uses mathematics as its foundation. Einstein assumed Riemannian geometry before he had gravity waves. Dirac assumed complex wavefunctions before antimatter was discovered. I'm following the same methodology that has historically driven physics forward."
"We don't know the universal mechanism":
"Exactly. And my framework provides a specific, testable mechanism rather than leaving it as an unexplained mystery. I'm offering solutions while you're defending problems."

"While you defend a 1915 concept of 'vacuum' that contradicts 21st century quantum measurements, I'm building a framework consistent with all known physics. My 'assumptions' solve problems; yours create them."

Steve Dufourny

PlatinumWildcat I don t consider a vacuum of the GR in my model,I don t even consider that this GR is the primary essence with the photons ,But I consider an assumption for the 0D omnipotent infinite eternal consciousness, it is different. A person asserting assumptions need to doubt instead to claim......

Steve Dufourny

PlatinumWildcat I have ner asserted these things me ,

You assume spacetime is fundamental rather than emergent

You assume the vacuum is truly empty despite quantum evidence

You assume mathematics describes reality rather than constitutes it

Steve Dufourny

Steve Dufourny Mathematics cannot be in logic the primary essence of the universe because they cannot explain the motions, the evolution, ......but the physical structures yes and the logic with the help of mathematical equations, but the maths describe only for me. Informations and physical structures are better like basis. Let s take F EQUAL ma , the maths describe the motion but not cause or explain it , it is a subtil difference. The maths give models and relations , they tell how the things move but not why. A mathematical equation so permit to quantify a relation , here the force, the mass, the acceleration , they predict the outcomes but they never explain what is the motions in its pure primary essence, here the physical structure. So that tells us that physics and deeper parameters physical seem the key, not the pure mathematics.
Maths is just a language, not the reality if we follow the philsophical line of reasoning, that is why we cannot confound epistemology and ontology. The motion is purely ontological , the maths describing it are epistemological.
The same reasoning can be applied to the GR and geodesics, motions, curvatures........The Why of motions and changes are the key and these questions are beyond mathematics, it is about philosophy, physics and even metaphysics due to deeper parameters to add completing the GR and the QFT and SM. The maths cannot explain the consciousness, the life, the motions, the changes,......We need causalities and physical structures .

Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny indeed, we don't know the qualitative reasons why things move. And many have tried doing a discreate mathematical solution, and all have failed. Math is a good tool but a bad leader, to put it bluntly. Because math is incomplete too?
Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk Yes indeed , It seems mathematics is just a tool, a language for describing reality, but it is not the cause of it. it is important.
Mathematics, physics, and the philosophy of origin are all incomplete because of their inherent limitations.
But mathematics, as a kind of primary essence, offers an epistemological solution rather than an ontological one.

Mathematics belongs to the realm of knowledge and representation (epistemology), not to the realm of being (ontology). Mnay seems to confound.
It tells us how things relate ,through quantities, structures, and symmetries ,but not why they exist or what they are in their essence. The geometrical algebras sometimes utilised in the GR imply these confusions and after so imply interpretations. We have the manyworlds, the mutlitverse, this and that, all these interpretations are due to these epistemological extrapolations.
You are distinguishing between. Reality as existence needs physical strucutres. The maths permit just to describe these physical structures. Now the informations also are important about entropy and negentropy ......The physical structures and informations and this possible 0D so can permit to understand the motions, the forms , the cause of changes and motions in an evolutive point of vue. So life, consciousness and evolution have a kind of logic and have also causalities. Mass and energy for example are related but the equation of einstein does not make or explain why mass and energy exist. So the equation so is just a language, a description. The causations and observations need in resume physical structures.And with the philosophy we try to find meanings about this reality and the existence. So maths is juts formal , not existential. We arrive at an important point about the interpretations and the rule of the consciousness and about how this consciousness consider the mathematics. The physical structures , the substance so of the reality is a subtil point to analyse deeper.

BurgundyChipmunk

This is a great mind-expanding entry! Well done! Here is my attempt to extract the core hypothesis from this essay:

V1: Life maintains far-from-equilibrium organization through directed energy flows, with quantum coherence enabling more efficient energy channeling than classical diffusion would permit under biological conditions.

V2 (refined?): Biological systems exploit quantum coherence to maintain directed energy flows with lower entropy production than classical mechanisms would allow at _300K, enabling work extraction closer to thermodynamic efficiency limits.

The testable claim could be: Quantum pathways enable organisms to operate fundamentally closer to thermodynamic limits than classical biochemistry permits. And not just marginal improvements, but accessing regimes unavailable to classical systems.

Critical empirical challenge: Demonstrating systematic advantage requires showing that:

idea? Quantum advantages appear repeatedly across diverse biological processes (not just photosynthesis/navigation)

idea? The benefit-to-cost ratio justifies maintaining coherence against decoherence

how? There's an operational distinction between "quantum-enhanced life" and baseline QM (since everything is quantum)

Constructive way forward: Perhaps the hypothesis could be refined to claim that life evolved quantum coherence as a selective toolkit for specific bottlenecks where classical mechanisms hit fundamental limits: rather than claiming universal quantum superiority. This would explain why quantum biology appears sparse but crucial: like using a precision instrument only where necessary.
Then the essay could be applied into fascinating questions about whether quantum effects are life's "emergency exits" from classical thermodynamic constraints.

TaupeViper

BurgundyChipmunk

Thank you for the reply. You actually got very close to the core of what I was saying. When I talk about “directional motion,” I don’t mean random movement or just energy drifting around. I mean motion that is pushed in a certain direction for a purpose, motion that leads to an outcome instead of scattering. That’s the sort of motion that lets a system hold itself together long enough to do work before disorder catches up. I’m also not saying life uses quantum effects everywhere or in some universal perfect way. What you said at the end is basically right, life uses coherence where classical chemistry hits a hard limit and needs a cleaner path forward. It shows up in the places where timing or efficiency bottlenecks exist. That would explain why quantum biology looks rare but also strangely important when it appears. On the testing side, yes, the key evidence would be showing these advantages across different systems, not just the usual examples. And also showing that life gets enough benefit from keeping coherence alive for a short moment. That’s what separates normal quantum behavior from “quantum-enhanced life,” like you put it.

Your last line is a good way to frame it, that quantum effects as the escape routes when classical behavior reaches its limits. That lines up well with what I was aiming for.

« Previous Page