1 of 17

Theory of the Source of Life

By

Ian Beardsley

Copyright © 2020 by Ian Beardsley


 2 of 17

In my work in exploring the relationships between biological and artificial intelligence (AI) and in
my effort to describe both as mathematical constructs, the relationship between point plane
and line, I already had that point plane and line are ideas, and therefore nothing, It remained for
me to have that matter is nothing because the explorations consisted of comparing matter
(molar mass, densities, and atomic radii) of biological life to AI, which resulted in the discovery
of mathematical constructs.

To have that matter was nothing, I found the solution in the idea that matter was empty space,
that atoms were merely three dimensional cross-sections of four dimensional space. I
formulated it as such to account for the idea that matter has inertia, resistance to motion. I was
able to compute the inertia due to being a four-dimensional bubble embedded in three
dimensional space by merely using the gravitational consent, G, as the resistance the bubble
feels to motion due to a normal force holding it in three dimensions.

However, in exploring the connection of biological life to AI, I further found biologists don’t
know how all of the animation going on in a living cell, knows what to do when there is nothing
they can find in the cell or its nucleus that could be like a brain, and, since they know our
brains are not orchestrating these things, because there are no nerves running from the brain to
the interior of biological cells.

It was at this point that I suggested that asymmetry gives rise to animation (things out of
balance are not static). I looked at the equations that hold an airplane in the air, and realized
the equation work via pseudo-vectorfields, vortices that don’t exist, but that make the
equations work. I suggested at this point that the source of life comes from what I called the
pseudo-realm.

But, in light of my idea that life is atoms that are made of three dimensional cross-sections of
four dimensional space, I suggest now that the pseudo-realm may be fake in our three
dimensional physical universe, but quite real in the four-dimensional space-time continuum,
and the so-called pseudo-realm, is the source of the pseudo-vector fields that give rise to
minds of biological cells.

The theory I was working on to try to show biological life and AI are mathematical constructs
can be described as is written in my book Mathematical Structure:

“Ultimately I feel we cannot speak of biological life without comparing it to some other
construct like AI. I feel it is a purpose of biological life (C, N, O, H) to discover the properties of
P, B, Si so it can make computing machines ultimately necessary to its survival.”

Here are the two short essays I wrote about matter as nothingness and life source as the
pseudo-realm.

 3 of 17

Life As A Mathematical Construct

By

Ian Beardsley

 4 of 17



 5 of 17

Imagine a person saying that the mathematical equations that govern the relationships
between point, plane, and line in space are God. Then, someone saying to them “No, the
separation between two points is just the separation between two points. To find their
separation in the plane as the square root of the sum of the differences between the respective
components of each point, squared, just follow naturally, it could not be otherwise. God is what
you do with the points, planes and lines in space.”

That is, consider the line with separation 4 between end points. Now consider the line to be in
the plane with coordinates P1(2,4), and P2(6,4). Then, the separation between P1(2,4) and
P2(6,4) is given by

⇀
P1P2 = (6 − 2)2 + (4 − 4)2 = 42 + 0 2

= 16 + 0 = 4

Thus, we have the distance formula

s= (x2 − x1)2 + (y2 − y1)2

Which follows from the pythagorean theorem:

r 2 = x 2 + y 2

This is not God, what you do with the lines in the plane is God. Like…

 6 of 17

That which happened is I was theorizing as to what the connection between artificial
intelligence (AI) was with biological life. Every time I thought if I were God and I was making a
Universe, and this is how I would do it, and, when I plugged in the data, it would turn out to be
how the Universe actually is. For example, I thought if I were God, and was making the
elements used to make transistors in artificial intelligence phosphorus P, boron B, as doping
agents for silicon (Si), I would have that the means between between phosphorus and boron,
geometric, arithmetic, and harmonic, divided by silicon, would be the golden ratio, or, its
conjugate. I took the geometric mean between P and B, and divided it by Si. And, the harmonic
mean between P and B and divided it by Si, then, took the arithmetic mean between these two
results:

PB = (30.97)(10.81) = 18.297

18.297
= 0.65

28.09
0.65 + 0.57
= 0.61

2
The golden ratio conjugate (ϕ) is 0.618 and is the solution to

a b
=

b c
c = a + b

a b
ϕ= =

b c
 7 of 17

I then thought if artificial intelligence were to be connected to biological life, characterized by

carbon (C), Nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), and hydrogen (H), I would have it through the golden ratio,
or its conjugate. It turned out to be so:

C+N+O+H 12.01 + 14.01 + 16.00 + 1.01 43.03

= = = 0.61585 ≈ ϕ

P + B + Si 30.97 + 10.81 + 28.09 69.87

So it was that the connection between artificial intelligence and biological life was

PB(P + B) + 2PB
≈ ϕ

2(P + B)Si
C+N+O+H
≈ ϕ

P + B + Si

PB(P + B) + 2PB
(P + B + Si ) ≈ (C + N + O + H )

2(P + B)Si
Thus, I played devil’s advocate and thought that if everything I discovered that flowered from
the above was indeed God, that I had to, in order to say that the artificial intelligence and
biological life relationships I was discovering were indeed God, to say that life and AI were
mathematical constructs, I had to say that just as the distance between two points was
nothing, that the atoms from which we are made are nothing. If we are to be nothing more than
relationships between point, plane, and line in space. In other words I had to say that matter is
nothing more than relationships between point, plane, and line. In other words that matter is
nothing. How do I do this? It occurs to me now, the day before my birthday.

Atoms are tiny spherical spherical particles; electrons are attracted to protons. We will say
protons are the absence of 4-dimensional space embedded in 3-dimensional space. The only
way to visualize this is to embed a 3-dimensional absence of space in 2-dimensional space;
like a bubble on the surface of water:

We say this is matter in the form of

a proton. Now we say the
electron, which is a smaller
sphere is the PRESENCE of 4-
dimensional space embedded in
three dimensional space: we color
it in to denote PRESENCE,…

Of empty 4-dimensional space.

Now we say the electron is
mutually repulsive with another
electron, but is attracted to the
proton because the proton is the
absence of four dimensional
space and the electron being the
presence of four dimensional
space wants to fill its void:

 8 of 17

Thus, a four dimensional bubble embedded in three dimensional space — matter being a three
dimensional cross section of four dimensional spheres—are inertia (the ability to resist motion)
because they are of higher dimensionality and meet resistance with moving through lower
dimensional space. The degree to which they meet with resistance are measured by ke and G
in:

q1q2
F = ke

r2
mm
F = G 12 2

r
 9 of 17



 10 of 17

Thus, there is translational force TR giving the bubble inertia, the mass M, due to the normal
force n ⃗ , holding it in a higher dimension. It should be proportional to the constant of
gravitation, G, in Newton’s law of gravitation;

Mm
F=G

r2
1
G = 6.67408 × 10−11m 3 ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ 2

s
m
The force, F, is kg

s2
The mass of our bubble is the mass of a proton;

M = 1.6726219 × 10−11kg

1
M ⋅ G = (1.6726219 × 10−27kg)(6.67408 × 10−11m 3 ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ )

s2
But the M is in the plane so the last equation must be multiplied by the cross-sectional area, A,
of a proton;

( )
2 1.0 × 10−15m
A = π R = π 0.833 = 2.1799 × 10−30 m 2

fm

m3
1.116 × 10−37 m
s2
= 5.1195 × 10−8

2.1799 × 10−30m 2 s2
Is the translation acceleration due to the normal acceleration na .⃗ The mass of a proton is
1.6726219 × 10−27kg. The normal force, n ,⃗ holding the cross-section of a proton in a higher
m
dimensional space is (5.1195 × 10−8 )(1.6726219 × 10−27 kg)=8.56 × 10−35 Ne wton s

s 2

Refer to the drawing below…

 11 of 17

Is life produced by a psuedo-realm?

By

Ian Beardsley

Copyright © 2020 by Ian Beardsley


 12 of 17



 13 of 17

My guess is that life is brought about by what I like to call a pseudo-realm.

In order to make artificial intelligence that we say is alive (has awareness) it has to pass the
Turing test. Alan Turing said if we can make a computer that in a conversation cannot be
distinguished by a human, then it is aware. To make such a computer we have to give it an
enormous amount of data. For example if I program the computer to say hello when someone
says hello to it, then the person when it says hello to it, it will only answer hello, and the person
might suspect that it could be programmed. But if I create a vast data bank of possible
answers like “scuse me, didn’t hear ya”, or “pretty well how bout you”, or on to about a million
possible answers then make a computer routine in its programming that randomly selects one
of these millions of answers, then the computer is more likely to pass the test of being alive.

However, I am not satisfied by the Turing test. For me if the computer has consciousness, it
assesses the persons personality that asked the question, then answers in terms of what it
feels about that person.

The problem with making computers that are aware occurs because we don’t know why or
how, in terms of biology, that humans are alive and conscious. Apparently, we know that the
coding for humans, which is in triplets, sets of three switches that are either on or off
depending on the sequences of adenine, guanine, cytosine, or thymine in the DNA, and that in
computers the coding is in in binary (switches that are either on or off, high voltage or low) are
similar ideas to the programming of artificial intelligence and biological life, respectively, but in
the case of biological life, we know these triplet codons encode for say hair color, or skin tone,
and in computers for say close your browser, or open a new window, but in the case of
biological life the codons can encode but we don’t know how in every cell of say, the human
body, the DNA and various organelles zip and unzip, replicate and do all of these things as if
every cell has a mind of its own. They have not been able to find one; they have looked in the
nucleus of cells and there is nothing there, and they know our brains aren’t orchestrating all of
this activity, because there are no nerves running from the brain to the interiors of the cells that
make us on every level from bones, to organs, to skin,,,

I am beginning to think that the answer may be that we have the various chemical components
that make us up, but that they are animated or come to life by a second outside component
that does not exist, but that acts on another nonexistent component, to bring us to life. I say
this because things come to life when there is an asymmetry. If the weight on both sides of a
teeter-totter is the same (symmetric) it does not move (is static), but add more weight to one
side than is on the other (asymmetry) and it moves (comes alive).

This may be analogous to the equations of vorticity that predict the lift keeping up an airplane:
to make the equations work we have to introduce pseudovorticity, spinning things that don’t
exist to make the equation work. In the same way there may be something from the psuedo-
realm that makes inanimate matter animate. See the illustrations on the next couple of pages…

 14 of 17



 15 of 17

The Activation Function


 16 of 17

I would like to suggest that the prebiotic chemistry might have been passed through an
activation function that disappeared after life was on its way to evolving.

The problem, then, of answering the question of how life began is one of finding the activation
function and its mechanism by which it takes prebiotic chemistry and activates it (makes it alive)
so it can now self-replicate, and evolve. We assume that as this mechanism activates the
molecules, its mechanism depletes as it activates from what is available. In this sense the
mechanism is a limiting reactant, so it determines how much material is activated before it
depletes completely.

Logically, the way to determine what this mechanism is, and how it serves as an activation
function is to look for the by products of the reaction that are left over, and from that, deduce its
nature.

To do this, we have to look for that thing in our knowledge of the Earth’s history that does not
make sense. This would be in the faint young star paradox. We know that five billion years ago,
when the Earth and Sun first formed, that the sun was 0.7 times its present output and so, the
Earth should have been frozen over, yet, we know it was not. That it had water in its liquid
phase. Thus something was there that is not present today. That something must have been the
mechanism for the activation function that “turned on” prebiotic chemistry.

If σ (x) is the activation function, where x is the prebiotic material, and we say r is the residue of
the reaction, and l is the activated substance (life) then,

l + r = σ (x)

We know l. If we can find r in nature, we can deduce σ (x).

I have presented it like this because 1) Life has not been created in the laboratory from scratch
2) New life does not seem to be originating on earth in present times. Therefore, the activation
function is probably not present on Earth today and more than likely disappeared, or depleted
after activating prebiotic chemistry. Life exists, yet we do not know how prebiotic substances
organize into self-replicating systems that evolve. Therefore, we must look for something
concerning the Earth that does not make sense. I suggest that would be the young star
paradox. If the Earth had water in its liquid phase when it should have been frozen over, then
something could have existed then that was a limiting reactant, or something like it, that
activated prebiotic substances, in that it was responsible for warming the earth (perhaps a heat
retaining substance).

 17 of 17

The Author