Guided Evolution: Development and organization of beings from a non-absolute reference frame

Abstract The Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolutionary paradigm is based on random mutation and natural selection, favours vertical gene transfer and gradualism over horizontal gene transfer and sudden big changes, respectively. In recent times, however, it has been shown that horizontal gene transfer has a bigger role in evolution and evidence emerged for saltation of non-complex lifeforms. Here, I argue that it is time to revisit orthogenesis and saltation of complex life (macromutation) too, and consider the phenomenon of evolution from a more holistic viewpoint. 1 Guided evolution: Development and organization of beings from a non-absolute reference frame Mario Ljubičić (Amenoum) 108. brigade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, Croatia (completerelativity.org) [email protected] October 5, 2025 1 Intro The central tenets of C. Darwin’s theory of evolution have been, for a long time, regarded as settled and beyond challenge. Even the Punctuated equilibria[1] did not challenge the theory, at best it supplemented it with stasis - where changes between generations do not accumulate but oscillate about a phenotypic mean. Even the more recent discovery that horizontal gene transfer[2] and de novo genes[3] have a much bigger role in evolution than thought previously didn’t refute Darwin’s theory. However, it has required significant revision of the story of the origins of life, adding saltation of non-complex lifeforms as a viable alternative to gradualism (something opposed originally). Still, the story is not complete, and here, inherent randomness, absolute causality and limited saltation of the accepted theory of evolution will be challenged. 2 Definitions 2.1 Saltation Saltation is a sudden and large mutational change from one generation to the next, potentially causing single-step speciation. Mechanisms behind it are various forms of gene duplication and horizontal gene transfer. 2.2 Orthogenesis Orthogenesis is a hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal due to some internal mechanism or driving force. Excessive reductionism and absolute reference frames have led to ignorance or marginalization of orthogenesis. However, analysis in the framework of Complete Relativity[4] (CR) suggests relative orthogenesis must be present on some 2 level. Discrete scales of relative invariance of physical laws, postulated by CR, and self-similarity of universes predict reference frames in which evolution of planet Earth is evolution of a living being. Since development of organisms of standard scale (e.g., life-forms inhabiting Earth) is coded it obviously has relative goals - even though the code is somewhat plastic, it is possible to predict with great accuracy what physical form an embryo will develop into. The theory of planetary neurogenesis[5] then hypothesizes that life-forms inhabiting Earth represent large scale protein and cell equivalents and whose evolution thus must have relative long-term goals too, even though deviations of smaller scale in space/time are to be expected. Qualitatively thus, the large scale evolution and small-scale organismal development are relatively equivalent processes and ontogeny can be interpreted as a relatively coded evolution of particular scale, or a quantum of evolution of larger scale. 2.3 Weak evolution Weak evolution is a period of evolution of species during which it evolves gradually in a specific direction or oscillates about the phenotypic mean, at variable or relatively constant rate. Vertical gene transfer dominates and there are no large changes between generations. 2.4 Strong evolution Strong evolution is a saltation dominated relatively short period (pulse) of evolution during which species evolve significantly from one generation to the next, generally through lateral gene transfer and inheritable [epi]genetic changes. In sexually reproducing species it is probably highly correlated with decreasing sexual reproduction (e.g., decrease in fertility). Generally, it should be correlated with changes in the immune system and environmental changes (e.g., during extinction events). Strong evolution may be a global event affecting majority of species or more or less spatially and temporally localized, affecting one or more species. 2.5 The soul The concept of souls is absent in modern theories on evolution of species, however, when properly defined it can be an useful concept in this context, whether it is a real phenomenon or not. Consider the purely abstract concepts in Quantum Mechanics or, generally, in mathematics - such as imaginary numbers, which may challenge intuition but can be used to solve problems in reality. I, however, in my other works[6], hypothesize that the soul is a real phenomenon and provide evidence for its existence. But this is out of 3 the scope of this paper. Consciousness - associated with mental aspects of reality, is considered emergent phenomena, however, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. From a holistic perspective (all things considered) emergent phenomena are probably a manifestation of coupling of self-organized entities with something fundamental, that is effectively a carrier of consciousness - or, a soul. If souls (consciousness) and bodies are co-evolving, both should be considered as having a role in evolution. One may only ask, to what degree are mental aspects of reality driving evolution/development of species, and, vice versa - to what degree is physical reality driving the evolution of consciousness. The ratio between the two may be highly correlated with the rate of evolution - whether it is weak or strong. Consider the accelerating trend in anthropogenic genetic modification of organisms. This is a conscious steering of evolution towards certain direction. The embryonic development (which may be interpreted as coded/compressed evolution) of organisms may be another example, albeit on some deeper (subconscious) level. In CR, I have equalized the soul with graviton or superposition of gravitons, which, in CR, is an evolvable particle existing on different scales and which can have different nature, correlated with different forces (e.g., on relatively fundamental levels, a graviton may be dominantly correlated with electro-magnetic or gravitational potential). Generally, the soul is correlated with a maximum in a field of certain potential or a superposition of maxima of fields of potential of various scales. In some reference frames, the soul may be interpreted as a maximum itself, however, in reality, the two are coupled. The soul is a quantum of potential, its inflation to a larger scale will cause relaxation (decay of the maximum) on the smaller scale and compression of the field on another scale. An organized body of ordinary matter can be interpreted as one manifestation of correlated excitations, however, in order for the collective of quanta forming the body to act as an individual with distinct consciousness, the collective excitation (field maximum) must be represented by (or entangled with) a single quantum at some scale (or a reference frame from which constituent components, or micro-conscious entities, of the quantum are unresolvable). In this interpretation, consciousness represents a superposition of fields of potential of various scales (correlated with multiple layers of consciousness), while the soul represents the quantum correlated with its localization. Depending on interpretation, the soul may exist simultaneously on different scales or it may be oscillating between different vertical energy levels (if the oscillation is unresolvable from a particular reference frame, the two interpretations are equivalent in that reference frame). Both interpretations are relatively valid. I argue that 4 moments of conception and death should be correlated with soul oscillation between vertical energy levels, while reincarnation (which can be inter-species) should be correlated with horizontal oscillation. Obviously, however, reincarnation is relative due to relativity in identity, as conserved information is relative and evolvable. A soul can be relatively naked. A naked soul is a soul not coupled to an excitation (body) of larger scale. Speed of souls (and the speed of information transfer between them) is generally inversely proportional to scale (note, however, that souls generally change scale with coupling to excitations). 3 Revisiting saltation and causality Two dominant theories that preceded Darwin’s theory of evolution were orthogenesis and saltation. Both were considered obsolete by Darwin’s followers, however, saltation (a sudden and large mutational change from one generation to the next), was, with emerging evidence, eventually accepted as a viable alternative to gradualism, although still considered as reserved for non-complex organisms[7]. Orthogenesis (hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal due to some internal mechanism or "driving force") is still considered obsolete on macro-level, although its notion that evolution represents progress has been widely accepted. However, if one can challenge the absolute reference frame in Special/General Relativity and uniformitarianism in geology (notion that geological events occur at the same rate now as they have always done) correlated with gradualism in biology, one can generalize saltation and validate orthogenesis. I have challenged both in the theory of Complete Relativity[4] (CR) and analysis of the Solar System[5] in the context of the same theory. What is relevant in this context, is the postulated existence of discrete vertical energy levels of relative invariance of physical laws (reinforcing selfsimilarity) and hypothesized planetary neurogenesis. Complete relativity implies self-similarity of universes (scales of energy, or existence) and requires processes to be relatively replicated across different scales. This is the basis for the hypothesized equivalence of standard organismal development and evolution of life on the planet. More specifically, evolution during Phanerozoic is hypothesized to be relatively equivalent to standard neurogenesis. Since development of living beings of our scale in coded and the outcome can hardly be changed to significant degree (with no code changes) - it can be stated that this quantum of evolution has a goal. And if that is true, then it must be true for its [relative] equivalent on larger scale. This is obvious if one compares living beings on Earth with proteins and cells (relative to Earth, humans are likely proteins). Both, development (synthesis) or cultivation of individual protein/cells and their organization into tissue, organs and networks is all coded. 5 Some processes are relatively random (pseudo-random) and such events occur during slow gradual evolution (weak evolution) but these are punctuated by events of strong evolution. Strong evolution includes saltation, which, with scale invariance, cannot be limited to bacteria and other non-complex organisms. By this theory, humans are not special nor are their actions unnatural (certainly not absolutely) and any strong anthropogenic influence on evolution may be correlated with a strong evolution event. When this is coupled with hypothesized oscillation and periodic punctuations in decay rates of elements, equivalence between the current and other larger extinction events may not only be qualitative (in terms of associated events, although even equal triggers cannot be ruled out[8]) but quantitative too (at least in terms of temporal periods during the event). Current accelerating changes in climate and environment correlated with accelerated human industrial and technological development strongly suggest we are in the midst of a strong evolution event. Synthetic biology is developing rapidly[9], it has already enabled creation of viruses that can transform DNA of living individuals[10]. It won’t take long before human induced horizontal gene transfer will transform one complex lifeform into new species (chimeras may be considered as precursors to this) in a single generation. One strong evidence for coded evolution would be apparent violation of causality on larger scale. In CR, cause and effect must be relative and causality can be relatively violated - unlike the causality in Special/General Relativity, it is not fixed (based on an absolute constant). Entanglement between past and relative future exists, this is the entanglement between different scales of equivalent phenomena, thus, the uncertainty in violation is proportional to distance between past and real future. In CR thus, causality is, effectively replaced with correlation. Space and time are relatively equivalent and order of events in time is relative just as order in space. Violation of causality is regularly[11] confirmed[12] on standard quantum scale, but could also explain certain phenomena on larger scale[13]. Bacteria have been found resistant to antibiotics years before these were developed. In example, one strain was, in 1915, resistant to penicillin and erythromycin[14], which went into use against human infections in 1942 and 1952, respectively. One explanation for this is that antibiotics exist in the wild and resistance has evolved as bacteria fought with each other. 6 Certainly, that is a possibility with certain probability but multiple true interpretations are common in nature and one of these is violation of causality. While resistance to antibiotics may exist in the wild, how to explain bacteria on Earth equipped for survival on Mars[15]? Extreme resistance to radiation of Deinococcus radiodurans could indicate it is an organism destined to survive a major mass extinction of a strong evolution event (if this is the last strong evolution event of planetary neurogenesis, conditions on Earth’s surface will likely become Mars-like, but even if it is not, temporary magnetic field collapse is possible with each major mass extinction and, with it, exposure to radiation). Some argue that protection from radiation here is a side-effect of protection from desiccation[16]. However, radiation and desiccation are often coupled - as evident on Mars, and, again, multiple interpretations are common (even required with CR). While current Earth’s magnetic field strength may not be different from long-term average, it is decreasing and magnetic dip poles are moving rapidly. It may not be strong evidence, but it goes in favour of the collapse hypothesis. In the analysis of the Solar System in CR context I have found strong correlation between Earth’s mantle discontinuities and major mass extinctions, which is a strong evidence for coded development of Earth. 3.1 Strong evolution event Horizontal transfer of genes between individuals and even between evolutionary distant species is a common source of genetic variation in bacteria. Genetic studies have shown that mitochondria and chloroplast in eukaryotic cells have evolved from bacteria that have been trapped in, or have colonized, a primordial host cell, establishing a [endo]symbiotic relationship with that host. Taking a holistic approach and looking at the whole collective of life in a particular ecosystem, it becomes obvious that a major driver of evolution is symbiosis - not the competition that, in some cases, may dominate intra-species. Within species, nature thus might be selecting those best fit to survive that competition, however, intra-species evolution is generally weak evolution. Symbiosis however, may generally be a [mental] precursor to large inheritable changes in organisms. We know that environments change, requiring adaptation for survival. However, there are thresholds - some changes may be too big and/or too fast for species to adapt, leading to extinction. During weak evolution, adaptation is achieved through sexual recombination. Asexually reproducing species, unless they can replace sexual gene shuffling, must then be more prone to extinction. However, research has shown that even multicellular asexual species (like bdelloid rotifers) can survive for tens of millions of years or more[17]. They survive due to strong affinity for saltation (particularly horizontal gene transfer). But when do the genetic changes occur? Most likely, in a response to stress (or, more appropriately - synchronized with stress). Antibiotic stress in bacteria, for example, will, for some individ7 uals be coupled with genetic changes enabling resistance. But this can be any stress leading to DNA damage - dessication, radiation exposure, toxic chemicals. Consider a damaged nuclear DNA in an eukaryotic cell. These cells are in a constant interaction with bacteria, but it is during the DNA repair that it becomes most likely that foreign DNA may be integrated into nuclear DNA (due to leaky cell membranes). This can even be a naked DNA strand (e.g., coming from bacteria whose cell walls have been damaged in the same event). There, thus, exists a strong correlation between lack of sexual reproduction and affinity for horizontal gene transfer or saltation. But is this limited to microorganisms? Unlikely - given what is known so far, the question is - why would it be forbidden at all times, especially during strong changes in the environment when it could prove beneficial or possibly even required for survival? I hypothesize that, wherever strong environmental changes are synchronized with changes in fertility (possibly also increase in lifespan), these also signal the exchange of vertical gene transfer for horizontal gene transfer as the dominant gene transfer mechanism. And here, most likely transfers are, obviously, transfers between organisms in symbiosis. We are currently witnessing accelerating climate (environmental) changes but we are also witnessing diminishing fertility, decrease in intra-species sexual relationships and increase in relationships and mentalities which effectively inhibit vertical gene transfer (reproduction), at least in humans. Humans are also increasingly stimulating horizontal gene transfer, and not only between bacteria. Human genomes are being altered. With all taken into account, it appears it is not a question whether horizontal gene transfer will soon dominate, but will that transfer be stimulated solely by humans (e.g., with diminishing fertility, desperately trying to ensure survival) or will it proceed in amore natural way, or both. And should the human way be interpreted as a relatively coded natural way? Everything’s possible, after substantial research, my vote goes for superposition of solutions. Horizontal gene transfer and genetic fossilization of symbiosis should not be limited to gene transfer stimulated by humans. This should be occurring in nature during any strong evolution event (usually correlated with mass extinctions). Evidence for this is emerging in nature. One example is the current evolution of nitroplasts[18] (nitrogen fixing organelles derived from endosymbiosis), which has been discovered recently[19]. Recent experiments on microbes show that endosymbiosis between compatible lifeforms can be established very quickly and can easily become inheritable[20]. And what are the environmental stressors in the current strong evolution event? Diverse, it seems. There are toxic chemicals in the air (already suspected to be correlated with loss of fertility) and water, there are droughts, 8 there is increasing radiation - occurring with the decrease of Earth’s magnetic field strength but there are also nuclear disasters and the apparently increasing threat of nuclear war. Who goes extinct? As I have hypothesized elsewhere, every species may contain relatively polarized and relatively non-polarized individuals (where one group may generally represent a minority). During strong evolution events, one group (sensitive to horizontal gene transfer) is evolving with environmental stresses at an exponentially accelerating rate while the other does not significantly change physically at all. This is how divergence and convergence in evolutionary trees occur during a strong evolution event, as shown in Fig. 1 (P represents polarized individuals or polarized subspecies of species, N represents neutral individuals or neutral subspecies). Figure 1: Strong evolution event The large scale strong evolution event of life on Earth may last on the order of kiloyears (millennia), centuries or less (acceleration of evolution is exponential so the strong evolution event may last for millennia in total, but its symptoms may be apparent only during its peak). In the Fig. 1, P1N1and P2N2represent two different species composed of neutral (N) and polarized (P) subspecies. During a strong evolution event polarized subspecies converge into new species (P1P2), while neutral subspecies diverge into separate species. Another interpretation is valid as well - the P1N1and P2N2can represent individuals of different species, who both have polarized and neutral components (of which one dominates), the P1P2then represents a chimera (i.e., P3) of polarized components of individuals (with a negligible neutral component) in which polarized components dominated, while decoupled N1and N2represent individuals whose polarized component was subdued. Transformation of consciousness, a phenomenon some individuals experience during life, can be interpreted as a precursor for this. Transformation of consciousness can also be interpreted as a localized strong evolution event (or a quantum of a large scale strong evolution event), as during the event, one component is subdued while another is inflated, effectively, one is exchanged for the other (e.g., polarization for neutrality). Transformation of consciousness is only relatively synchronized with the transformation of the body, generally it may precede body transformation in progressive evolution, however, the two may be strongly synchronized at the peak of strong evolution. With complete body transformation, diverged N1 9 the coupling states the entities are gravitating towards may be less frequent in the time dimension. In other words, the soul is now only periodically coupled to the body and the frequency (and/or strength) of the coupling depends on how likely it is for the development to go off course. This explains why the amount of consciousness is extremely low during embryonic development of mammals - the development is well confined and isolated, there is no need for strong coupling. During development, consciousness is rising exponentially and, once the maturity is reached, the coupling becomes strong and more periodic, giving the soul the effective control of the body - on the conscious level, and of the components of the body (e.g., epigenetics) - on the subconscious level. Although, the influence still is bidirectional, and who controls who to what degree is relative, may depend on species/subspecies/individual and the level (depth) of consciousness on which the information exchange occurs. Once one accepts that causality is relative and that evolution must be locally scripted to some degree, the concept of souls becomes particularly useful. Suppose the primary soul[32] of an individual oscillates between two eigenstates (corresponding to expression of paternal and maternal ancestry). For this individual to evolve beyond the ancestry, it is necessary to include a 3rd component into this oscillation. And this 3rd component (soul) must correspond to one eigenstate of the [future] descendant of that individual. The existence of this 3rd component should generally significantly reduce compatibility with the ancestors and this can be interpreted as the cause why one stops living with its parents at some point in life. Of course, this change should be correlated with gene expression during the current incarnation, but some phase shift will generally exist between this expression and permanent effect on epigenome that will be passed on to descendants. During weak evolution, epigenome alteration may be lazy (minimal inheritance of epigenome changes) and it may take many generations before the epigenome reflects the soul expression of a current incarnation. It is implied here that, during weak evolution, soul/gene expression does not significantly change between generations. This is in contrast to strong evolution when differences between generations should be growing exponentially. Soul expression can then be interpreted as a precursor to [epi]genetic changes (relativity of causality however implies that sometimes vice versa will be true) and the soul itself is effectively guiding local evolution. Oscillating solely between the two initial components, one might generally have problems with one parent at any time, but will still be compatible with the other, keeping the family together. 16 This also explains why some people stay with their parents until old age - without the presence of a 3rd component, they do not evolve further and they won’t have descendants. One might involve cause-effect relationships here, but I argue that is the wrong approach, especially during strong evolution, when relativity in causality increases and underlying synchronicity becomes more evident. The fact that some of us leave their parents even before having children, while some leave after, could be interpreted as evidence for this relativity in causality. If individuals live in tribes voluntarily, the 3rd component may not differ very much from [one of] the ancestral ones, keeping ancestors and descendants together. Note, however, that tribalism can be forced, but as such, it is unsustainable and may be correlated with decay of population rather than growth. One might notice that, as the population grows, the 3rd component is becoming increasingly different from ancestral components and families increasingly get separated. This should be particularly evident during strong evolution when evolution is accelerated. In coded evolution (development) every population (even if cancerous) must reach its peak and will either: •decay into [forced] tribalism and beyond to extinction, •transform into new species (possibly preceded by temporary forced tribalism) that will continue weak progressive evolution and new population growth towards a new pulse of strong evolution (this however will probably also require migration - change of environment), or, •keep the population (evolution) steady and oscillate about the phenotypic mean. As noted before, any population of particular species can be divided into subspecies (generally, polarized and neutral) which are likely to diverge into separate species, therefore the outcome (one of the propositions above) will differ between them. Note that prior to the event of strong evolution and stronger physical divergence, difference between subspecies may be largely in soul expression. In this model it is obvious that population growth is strongly correlated with the rate of evolution. 17 Note also that the existence of the 3rd component does not imply descendants in the future (even if it is coupled with the increase in probability of descendants) but it should imply eventual separation from ancestors. In any case, in this context, non-forced tribalism can be correlated with weak evolution while forced (short-term) one is the part of the pulse of strong evolution. The 3rd component is obviously necessary for orthogenesis, but also for progressive evolution. Modification of the epigenome is, however, limited, it does not expand the gene pool and may not be sufficient for creation of new species, rather hybrids of existing species (even though these may be classified as new species in some contexts). The Darwinian, or pseudo-random, mutation is a gamble that can result in new species but, as a potential driver, is probably limited to low populations of species where it will likely be correlated with extinction rather than with birth of new species. New functional genes used in formation of new species are de novo genes - physical manifestation on a larger scale of coding already present on the scale of the 3rd component. Note that de novo genes may be the result of horizontal gene transfer even when that may not be apparent, e.g., in cases where horizontal gene transfer occurs between planets. Retro-/DNA/RNA viruses may be common inter-planetary mediators of gene transfer, even if that may not be apparent due to phase shifts in habitability between planetary surfaces and intermittent bombardment with asteroids containing these carriers of change. The question of whether evolution is pseudo-random (in CR, it cannot be absolutely random) or scripted becomes the question of randomness of de novo genes. I have previously hypothesized periodic asteroid bombardment and its correlation with mass extinctions and strong evolution. In that case, the influx of de novo genes is not randomly distributed over time (at least from that particular source, which may be dominant but not the only one). If the influx is not random, what it would take for genes not to be random either? According to my hypotheses, evolution of life between planets is relatively equivalent (planets/moons too can be categorized into species). In example, assuming humans (or humanoids - some difference is expectable) evolved on Mars before they evolved on Earth, de novo genes that resulted in emergence 18 of humans on Earth might have come from Mars. Note that these genes, or microbes/viruses carrying them, are likely ejected into space during times of strong evolution (mass extinctions) when asteroid bombardments are common. Since larger asteroids are correlated with larger extinctions, when new larger asteroids may also be created, the complexity of genetic components in asteroids may generally be proportional to their size. Although, the reason for that, generally, may simply be the fact that greater complexity has a bigger chance of surviving in larger asteroids. However, the question of how life evolved on Mars, through recursion eventually leads to a conundrum which can only be solved by pseudo-random (Darwinian) mutations or inflation/deflation of life from different scale where it is then implied that every possible life-form exists on some scale at any moment. I have theorized previously and provided evidence that the Solar System inflated from a single atom (at least the large scale souls of the Solar System, now coupled to the bodies of the Sun, planets and at least some moons), did life on some of its components inflate with it? In any case, obviously, if one recognizes many different species over time (generally results of strong evolution) the Solar System alone cannot be enough to explain all that diversity of orthogenesis. Instead, what I find more likely, is the superposition of solutions. Periodic asteroid bombardment may bring abundance of frozen mediators (e.g., retroviruses), every time together with roughly the same set (pool) of a plethora of genes that cover most or all genes ever used over the planet’s evolution (or evolution of life on its surface). Some of these genes will be compatible with current species on the planet and these will be used as de novo genes to advance their evolution. Subsequent weak evolution over millions of years (which may also include occasional input from space, but in less significant amounts) will create species compatible with different genes form the set which will be incorporated in a new pulse of strong evolution. Note that viruses introduced from a distant eco-system (in space/time) are much more likely to pass the immune system undetected than viruses evolving locally[33]. Is this a coincidence or not? In any case, it goes in favour of the hypothesis that such viruses drive strong evolution of species as this could enable massive and relatively silent horizontal gene transfers and modifications of inheritable epigenome (complex saltation). 19 During weak evolution, however, one might assume that the planet is generally not bombarded by complex components of life, but simple ones, such as amino-acids. Then one might assume that weak evolution generally does not have great influence on evolution of life overall and that complexity of extraterrestrial components may be increasing prior to upcoming larger bombardment (through smaller precursor meteorites). The reason orthogenesis is not apparent is because it is a process that may be characterized as deterministic chaos. Determinism may not be obvious but the outcome was defined in the initial event of pairing (equivalent of conception), and this outcome depends on the species of a planet. Is the fact that we have discovered all building blocks of DNA in meteorites[34] some of which fell recently (in cited study, two out of three meteorites fell less than 100 years ago, in years 1969 and 2000) a signal that this complexity is currently increasing? If the above hypotheses are correct, we might soon be discovering new meteorites with even greater complexity. 5.1 Are souls real? Souls might be useful concepts in models of evolution and nature of life, but are they real? Although I have presented some evidence and testable hypotheses in my works that can reveal their presence indirectly, one might never have enough evidence to convince everyone in the existence of souls, or at least their equivalence to gravitons. Generally, it might all come down to the choice of interpretation. In the model above, however, how does one explain the case where an individual leaves its parents prior to the [probability of] appearance of descendants - or, before the loss of genetic compatibility and appearance of de novo genes? There must be some, to us invisible, precursor, one that effectively comes from future. In my hypotheses, standard soul is a particle or a superposition of particles forming quanta of space of larger bodies (e.g., planets). These particles oscillate in mass, similar to oscillation of standard neutrinos. Oscillation evolves over time. Here, it might start as oscillation between two states but eventually the 3rd state might generally appear (at least that seems to be the case in the Solar System). The higher orders/states in oscillation (beyond the 3rd) should exist too but, generally, may not be significantly expressed (although even that can change with time). Per CR postulates, there can be no absolutely sterile particles. For any weakly interacting particle there is a weaker one. 20 6 Drivers of evolution as drivers of morphogenesis The brain and consciousness (including deeper layers, or the subconscious) are entangled but they are not one and the same. Information transfer, being based on entanglement, thus does not have to be local. This will depend on species, subspecies and individuals. Even though the subconscious in the dominant subspecies of humans is generally short-sighted (in space/time), I believe this is not the case with the neutral subspecies. At least some of the neutral individuals will effectively possess a 6th sense, collecting information at greater distances (in space/time) and thus not necessarily experienced by the local individual. The boundaries of beings are relative and these boundaries are even more plastic for consciousness and its deeper layers (subconscious). Two highly correlated entities (e.g., twins) may generally be considered as a single entity or a being. Similar to the gravitational fields, consciousness is best described by the fields of potential. A visible body or a brain can be interpreted as a highly localized high-energy manifestation (or excitation) of the associated field potential. It is correlated with deeper layers of the individual but, with decreasing energy, these deeper layers have a proportionally longer range (an individual is a superposition of fields of potential of different carrier energies and polarization). In any of these fields, information transfer occurs whenever/wherever there is a change in energy (entanglement), but since all these fields are mutually entangled as well, information transfer does not occur only horizontally, but vertically as well (e.g., from deeper subconscious to consciousness). All "individuals" are bathing in this sea of information, but the amount, quality and type (range) of information collected, analysed and interpreted locally will depend on the individual. A body can be interpreted as an localized excitation of fields of potentials. But this excitation is the result of vertical information transfer (between different scales/species of potential), which is correlated with horizontal information transfer. On the level of the individual, this transfer is highest and least localized at conception (note that molecular twins exist all across the observable universe), it remains high during embryonic development (note that relatively the same tissues of cells/proteins are shared between different species, particularly during early embryonic development), while in the adult stage it reaches its minimum (most complex forms are most rare, note also that the speed of information transfer is inversely proportional to scale). This is why development of organ(ism)s is so robust and predictable (positive feedbacks between entangled entities exist - a snapshot of a more advanced remote development becomes a relative goal locally, guiding local development, more precisely, local development is guided towards the superposition of goals where stronger entanglements have stronger influence, note that this implies that for every egg these must exist a chicken somewhere, no matter how remote in space/time) but it also implies that a change in the development of one species can affect other species, more the more entangled the species are. 21 In the adult stage, on the individual level, we’re not usually as sensitive to changes in species, rather more to changes in subspecies and individuals. This is because, effectively, both vertical and horizontal range of information transfer is reduced. However, as noted previously, these limitations are relative, will differ between individuals and can even change dramatically during the adult stage (correlated with transformation of consciousness). Dreams, hallucinations or visions can thus be local, remote, or a relative superposition of both. Indeed, evidence exists for this, good examples include the works of R. Sheldrake, but others as well, including my own[35]. In the adult stage, our hallucinations generally do not control our cells, rather the hallucinations or dreams are commonly interpreted as the effect of the experiences and states of our organs. I argue that the opposite is true during embryonic development. One interpretation for the drivers of morphogenesis are then the hallucinations of end-structure (based on information transfer correlated with [changing] entanglements). Cells are living beings, even if dominantly introverted. Dominance of introversion is reflected in dominance of hallucinations in the experience of reality. During embryonic development these hallucinations manifest through expression of relative gene equivalents in a specific dimension (scale) of space, which probably should be interpreted as [a species of] a time dimension. This code is evolvable, and, during weak evolution at least, may be interpreted as inheritable, although information sources for the code (hallucination) may not be well localized. Hallucinations may exist on the scale of a cell, but on other scales as well. Large scale hallucinations may affect individual cells just like individual cells can affect the hallucination. During development, however, significant asymmetry exists between the two. These hallucinations are equivalent to hallucinations on bigger scales, e.g., guiding the organization of the flock of birds or a school of fish. What one interprets as spontaneous action or spontaneous self-organization must be, by the theory of complete relativity, only relatively spontaneous action. With causality being relative as well, hallucination can be interpreted as an echo of future, a field of attractor potentials in time. In nature, mediation of forces involves feedback processes between different entangled fields (e.g., electric and magnetic) which could be interpreted as different dimensions of space. Gravity as well involves feedback process between entangled dimensions of space (one of these dimensions is commonly referred to as time). With relative causality, however, and no absolutely instantaneous reactions, hysteresis in interactions is omnipresent and so is memory. Thus, space curvature can precede clumping of ordinary matter. Such curvature is commonly interpreted as dark matter. This dark matter represents a field of attractor potentials, an echo of future (or past), or a hallucination. 22 Note that hallucinations are relative themselves and they’re not necessarily echoes of future, but can be echoes of past as well, e.g., in regressive evolution. Such fields evolve and exist on different scales. A complex organism is an example of complex entanglements between dimensions (species) of space. Evolution requires such entanglements, on different scales. Therefore, evolution involves memory retention of both past and future events existing as hallucinations or echoes of these events. Hallucinations may guide organization of ordinary matter but vice versa is possible as well. During embryonic development the former dominates, in the adult stage of an organism, the latter. This is equivalent to gravitational wells. In an empty gravitational well of a naked graviton, dark matter dominates - it guides (drags) acquired ordinary matter, however, once the clumped ordinary mass becomes greater than dark matter mass, the ordinary matter will be dragging (and morphing) the hallucination. In my theories, I associate dark matter with gravitons which may also be referred to as souls. Generally, the souls can decouple from coupled bodies with inversion of spin momenta, breaking the strong entanglement. However, some memory of the previous incarnation must be preserved at some scale. Once decoupled (at point of death) the soul is delocalized, it is localizing with the new coupling (conception) and progress of embryonic development. The guidance of morphogenesis is thus a superposition of [local interpretation of] guidance in the previous incarnation (the memory of which can change even during the incarnation, especially during strong evolution) and information collected during the soul localization (which can be interpreted as information exchange due to changing entanglements between the remote entities and the soul). Note that this supports inter-species soul oscillation. Early development is similar between various species, only as the soul is localizing, the similarity is decreasing and the more local entanglements (e.g., correlated with local DNA, and not necessarily local in space but in time), become more important or dominant drivers of development. The range of interspecies oscillation will then depend on the conditions and is proportional to the range of soul de-localization. In any case, an organism is initially a superposition of species (or, an undifferentiated organism) converging or localizing to a form of species and that of close ancestors. Note that this implies that the development is correlated with the size of population of species as this size is proportional to the positive feedback in the guidance of development. Deviation or success in development may depend most strongly on the [entanglement with] parents or parental DNA, but is not limited to parents. Everything is entangled. And this is why species extinct, or close to extinction, may be hard to bring back 23 and develop to adulthood or sustain for longer periods. However, if the order of information collection is irrelevant and the mass of information carriers sufficiently small (implying long range), local extinction may not influence the outcome as long as the species exists somewhere within the range. On the other hand, information loss/mutation is expected to be proportional to distance. By my hypotheses, and evidence provided, the range of souls coupling to atoms is the radius of observable universe, for the souls coupling to bodies of complex life-forms in the Solar System the ranges vary, for souls coupling to life-forms on Earth these ranges are roughly between the Earth radius and the Earth-Sun distance (but these are dependable of the energy level of a large scale graviton coupled with Earth), with the probability for coupling at full capacity greatest at the range itself. Therefore, if long extinct species from Earth’s surface can be brought to life, the other individuals of the species or their close relatives (or at least the associated DNA) must exist somewhere within the Earth radius. If one, for example, wants to [relatively] bring back mammoths from extinction, this will get harder and harder with less elephants around. Gravitons (souls) or superposition of gravitons can oscillate in mass (scale) so reincarnation between differently scaled bodies is possible as well. In my theories, all gravitons in the local universe oscillate between 3 mass eigenstates and the ratio between these is the same as the ratio between electron, muon and tau eigenstates in leptons of the standard model of quantum mechanics. For example, the electron/tau ratio is equal to the ratio of mass between humans and blue whales. While graviton mass is not equal to adult body mass (for species of life on Earth, it is lower by multiple orders of magnitude) it is proportional to that mass. Therefore, oscillation of souls between human and whale bodies is possible. Interpretation of memories (hallucinations), however, is not the same between scales. For example, in case of elementary entanglements, gravity-time entanglement on one scale can become electro-magnetic entanglement on the other scale. One (universal) code can be interpreted differently in development of different species. Of course, the environment can significantly affect development (evolution) as well. One may typically correlate hallucinations with brains, but, in general, hallucinations should be correlated with [evolving] memories and these can exist independently of brains or brain equivalents. Correlation of brains with hallucinations only leads to specific interpretations of these hallucinations (brain itself is just one interpretation of a particular hallucination). But the same hallucinations (or information used to construct them) can be interpreted differently elsewhere. Our adult dreams are interpretations of hallucinations correlated with relative past, present or relative future (or a superposition of these), usually strongly influenced by the experience of the local neural system, but this is not always the case and information on which hallucinations are based is 24 not always dominantly local. If not for other reasons, due to finite speed of information transfer and scale variance of that speed, a hallucination can exist independently of bodies or even souls - just like souls, hallucinations can be relatively naked as well. Note that who or what is naked of what or whom is relative. At time of death, soul may become naked of the body while the body becomes naked of the soul. Naked bodies usually decay fast over time but delocalize slowly over space, naked souls vice versa. Thus, the phenomenon of tukdam[36], assuming delayed body decomposition is real, can be interpreted as evidence for soul-body coupling. Reality is relative. What we consider our reality (coherent and consistent experience of the [external] world and its experience of us) could, at the same time, be a solid (embodied) hallucination or a dream of an extremely introverted organism, e.g., planet Earth. In that case, the Earth is, at this point, obviously having a nightmare. Hallucinations can exist within hallucinations. Relative self-organization of a flock of birds, or a school of fish is a temporary embodiment of a hallucination, or unstable coupling of a hallucination and a body, and this hallucination exists within a larger one. The collective of polarized human society seems to be strongly influenced (guided) by a specific hallucination, which in its embodied form (coupled with humans) can be interpreted as a disease (cancer, obviously). But this disease may be part of Earth’s embryonic development just as various diseases are part of our embryonic development (e.g., diseases domesticated and integrated in the body through evolution, diseases which we now may not even recognize as diseases). Development and organization of human species is thus guided by hallucination, although some feedback always exists - it can be positive, where human individuals are reinforcing certain development (towards a specific memory of the hallucination), or negative, where human individuals are working against the coded future (past). If this is, however, embryonic development (where plasticity of memories is low), is resistance effectively futile? From what we are witnessing currently on Earth, the resistance seems to be extremely hard, suggesting indeed that this development is the equivalent of standard embryonic development. Note that, in general, the attractor potential of fields is not necessarily mass (or, not necessarily interpreted as mass) and should be, in general, referred to as attractor energy which could have various degrees of polarization resulting either in attraction or repulsion for entangled bodies. In general, gradients of potential exist which can be correlated with gradients of expression of certain 25 [17] Bdelloid rotifers in Dominican amber: Evidence for parthenogenetic continuity (1992), G. O. Poinar Jr and C. Ricci, Experientia 48, 408–410 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01923444 [18] Metabolic trade-offs constrain the cell size ratio in a nitrogen-fixing symbiosis (2024), F. M. Cornejo-Castillo et al., Cell 187, 1762-1768 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2024.02.016 [19] Nitrogen-fixing organelle in a marine alga (2024), T. H. Coale et al., Science 384(6692), 217-222 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk1075 [20] Inducing novel endosymbioses by implanting bacteria in fungi (2024), G. H. Giger et al., Nature 635, 415–422 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08010-x [21] The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution (2013), C. T. Amemiya et al., Nature 496, 311–316 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12027 [22] Species of homo (2023), Amenoum https://completerelativity.org/log/25_species_of_homo.html [23] Thermal Degradation of DNA (2013), M. Karni et al., DNA and Cell Biology 32(6) https://doi.org/10.1089/dna.2013.2056 [24] Monad to man: the Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology (1996), M. Ruse https://archive.org/details/monadtomanconcep0000ruse [25] Embryo-Like Features in Developing Bacillus subtilis Biofilms (2020), M. Futo et al., Molecular Biology and Evolution, 38(1), 31-47 https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaa217 [26] What drives bacteria to produce a biofilm? (2004), K. K. Jefferson, FEMS Microbiology Letters, 236(2), 163-173 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2004.tb09643.x [27] Physics of biofilms: the initial stages of biofilm formation and dynamics (2014), G. Lambert et al., New Journal of Physics, 16, 045005 https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/4/045005 [28] The Easy Part of the Hard Problem: A Resonance Theory of Consciousness (2019), T. Hunt et al., Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 378 https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffnhum.2019.00378 [29] No Origin: a Matter of Life and Death (2020), Amenoum, Universum Amenoum: D.Log https://completerelativity.org/log/17_no_origin.html 32 [30] Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic? (2018), E. J. Steele et al., Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 136, 3-23 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.03.004 [31] Commentary to: Cause of Cambrian explosion - Terrestrial or cosmic? Steele, E.J. et al. (2018), K. Moelling, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 136, 24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.03.005 [32] Solution to gravitational anomalies (2022), Amenoum, Universum Amenoum: D.Log https://completerelativity.org/log/7_solution_to_gravitational_anomalies.html [33] Deep-sea microbes as tools to refine the rules of innate immune pattern recognition (2021), A. E. Gauthier et al. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.abe0531 [34] Identifying the wide diversity of extraterrestrial purine and pyrimidine nucleobases in carbonaceous meteorites (2022), Y. Oba et al., Nature Communications, 13, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29612-x [35] The phenomena of dreams (2024), Amenoum https://completerelativity.org/log/12_the_phenomena_of_dreams.html [36] No Detectable Electroencephalographic Activity After Clinical Declaration of Death Among Tibetan Buddhist Meditators in Apparent Tukdam, a Putative Postmortem Meditation State (2020), D. T. Lott et al., Front Psychol 11, 599190 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.599190 [37] Societal shifts due to COVID-19 reveal large-scale complexities and feedbacks between atmospheric chemistry and climate change (2021), J. L. Laughner et al., PNAS 118(46) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109481118 [38] Atmospheric Methane: Comparison Between Methane’s Record in 2006–2022 and During Glacial Terminations (2023), E. G. Nisbet et al., Global Biogeochemical Cycles 37(8) https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GB007875 [39] Negligible Contribution from Aerosols to Recent Trends in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (2025), C. Park and B. Soden, preprint [Research Square] https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5679586/v1 [40] Increase in seismicity and volcanism: Apparently real? (2023), M. Ljubičić (Amenoum) https://completerelativity.org/log/23_increase_in_seismicity_and_volcanism.html 33 [41] The unreasonable likelihood of being: origin of life, terraforming, and AI (2025), R. G. Endres, preprint [arXiv] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.18545 34