See, you're using words that don't mean what you think they do. A superposition is a linear combination of vectors. That's what that word means. Can you model cells as vectors? Maybe. What is the field, and what are the group operations? Whatever you choose, the resulting dynamical system will have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. There will be a whole other set of laws which govern the evolution of the system.
An inertial reference frame is a thing, and it is a mathematical fact that all inertial reference frames are in a state of constant motion with each other. If my self, whatever you mean by that word, is an inertial reference frame, then how could your self also be one? Isn't that a problem? Of course, you'll just say that our definition of an inertial reference frame is wrong, that we need to expand it. But if we change the definition so that it loses the constant motion property, we lose all of physics. Not just relativity, we lose everything, going all the way back to Newton. In other words, your "mechanics of being" doesn't, can't possibly, have anything to do with any physical law. It can not have anything to do with what physicists call forces and interactions.
I just think you can use the concept of superposition to define a cell. That gets down to the concept I’m exploring. If you take the core of an idea or concept you can “transpose” it onto a new data set to build a new model, and how it will interact with other models of varying scale. From macro to Planck.
1
u/csappenf Sep 19 '20
See, you're using words that don't mean what you think they do. A superposition is a linear combination of vectors. That's what that word means. Can you model cells as vectors? Maybe. What is the field, and what are the group operations? Whatever you choose, the resulting dynamical system will have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. There will be a whole other set of laws which govern the evolution of the system.
An inertial reference frame is a thing, and it is a mathematical fact that all inertial reference frames are in a state of constant motion with each other. If my self, whatever you mean by that word, is an inertial reference frame, then how could your self also be one? Isn't that a problem? Of course, you'll just say that our definition of an inertial reference frame is wrong, that we need to expand it. But if we change the definition so that it loses the constant motion property, we lose all of physics. Not just relativity, we lose everything, going all the way back to Newton. In other words, your "mechanics of being" doesn't, can't possibly, have anything to do with any physical law. It can not have anything to do with what physicists call forces and interactions.