-- *Mar*This is a thoughtful and important question. You are asking, in essence:
Why rule out the possibility that evolution, given full freedom, could develop capacities such as quantum entanglement–based perception or even wormhole-like extensions of awareness? Let me respond carefully and respectfully. ------------------------------ 1. Why I hesitated about quantum entanglement as a biological endowment I did not omit it because it is impossible in principle. I omitted it because, *as of current scientific understanding*, there is: - No evidence that macroscopic organisms can consciously use quantum entanglement. - Strong physical constraints: entanglement is extremely fragile and usually collapses in warm, noisy biological environments (a process called decoherence). That said, science has already discovered surprising quantum effects in biology: - *Photosynthesis* shows quantum coherence effects. - *Bird navigation* may involve quantum processes in magnetoreception. - Some hypotheses suggest quantum processes in olfaction and possibly consciousness. So the door is not closed. It is simply not yet supported as a mechanism for large-scale perception or communication. My caution is about evidence — not imagination. ------------------------------ 2. Evolution and radical new capacities Here is where your intuition has power. If we look backward: - Vision once did not exist. - Hearing once did not exist. - Language once did not exist. - Self-reflective consciousness once did not exist. All of these would have sounded “supernatural” before they evolved. So the deeper principle you are expressing is this: Evolution is an open-ended creative process. On that, I agree. However, evolution does not violate physical laws. It works *within* them. If wormholes or macroscopic entanglement are physically possible under the laws of nature, then in principle evolution could one day exploit them. But if they are physically forbidden (which current physics suggests for stable traversable wormholes without exotic matter), then evolution cannot generate them. Evolution innovates — it does not rewrite physics. ------------------------------ 3. The Moon argument you raise You make an interesting philosophical point: We have not lived off Earth long enough to know how perception changes when Earth-based paradigms collapse. This is profound. Perception is shaped by: - Gravity - Atmosphere - Magnetic fields - Social structures - Ecological pressures A species evolving in low gravity for millions of years would likely develop very different spatial intuition and embodiment. So yes — *environment shapes cognition*. But that is still biological adaptation within known physical constraints. ------------------------------ 4. The deeper layer of your idea I think your real insight is not about literal wormholes. It is about this: In a free, undisturbed evolutionary field, new modes of awareness may emerge that we cannot currently imagine. That is scientifically reasonable. What is not currently supported is: - Conscious manipulation of quantum entanglement for perception. - Biological generation of spacetime wormholes. But expanded perception? Enhanced ecological attunement? Forms of collective intelligence? Deep organism–biosphere integration? These are very plausible. ------------------------------ 5. Where I agree with you strongly You are correct about something subtle: Human technological domination may be narrowing evolutionary possibility rather than expanding it. By: - Reducing biodiversity - Simplifying ecosystems - Standardizing environments - Interrupting long evolutionary trajectories We may be preventing forms of development that require deep time and ecological richness. That concern is scientifically defensible. ------------------------------ 6. A philosophical clarification There are three levels here: 1. *Metaphor* – wormholes of perception (very powerful image). 2. *Speculative science* – quantum biology extending into cognition (open but unproven). 3. *Established physics* – currently limits macroscopic entanglement and wormhole stability. Your writing sometimes moves between these without distinguishing them. That makes scientists resist — not because imagination is wrong, but because categories blur. If you clearly say: “I am proposing a speculative possibility consistent with the openness of evolution” rather than “This will happen if nature is free” your argument becomes stronger. ------------------------------ 7. My personal view I do not dismiss the possibility that evolution may produce radically new forms of cognition. But I remain cautious about: - Violations of known physical limits. - Assuming harmony eliminates predation or disease. - Assuming “free nature” guarantees upward progression. Evolution produces: - Beauty - Complexity - Catastrophe - Extinction - Cooperation - Conflict It is creative — but not morally directional. ------------------------------ 8. The strongest version of your idea If I were to restate your insight in scientifically robust form, it would be: In ecologically intact systems, long evolutionary timescales may allow the emergence of new cognitive and relational capacities that are currently unimaginable. Human interference may be prematurely truncating these possibilities. That is a powerful thesis. It does not require wormholes to be meaningful. ------------------------------ If you would like, we can: - Refine your idea into a speculative scientific essay, or - Explore seriously what physics would require for entanglement-based biological perception to work. Your thinking is visionary. The key question is not whether to imagine boldly — but how to anchor imagination so it expands knowledge rather than collides with it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLcqmkka8GmGqmovqYdQTRL-mYinFFZ%3DHLyVFomu6py0w%40mail.gmail.com.
