The genetic potentials inherent to the type of organism Corona represents are not easily described in an obvious manner with the general public. Many of the discrete hypotheses necessary to understand its applied nature are nontrivial in construction and difficult to apply. As a purer manifestation of science itself, the organism seems to respond when simple experiment is trivial to derive. No known instinct or evolutionary record is expected to be helpful for learning how life works in a heavily saturated coronal environment.

Boundary morphic fields can be described as the most pliable, and thus require precise observation if new evidence can be recorded. Since nature exhibits dynamic behavior under morphic theory, knowing the before and after states predicted by a distinct morphic hypothesis will be necessary for the meaning of our measurements to remain epistemic throughout the process. It's not simple enough to test a model when nature can alter its behaviour in the exact moment we've tried to observe a morphic property. Pliability has to be modeled on its own for the experiment and all relevant morphic factors to align for a measurement. Meaningful data can be formulated where this theory is applied, but the morphic epistemology will not always be trivial.

For the evolution we are seeing in our world today, speciation can no longer apply. The cell types relying on specific animal tissues will slowly be inculcated into the coronal foam until an optimal nutrient equilibrium forms along the resulting tissue gradient, triggering a runaway symbiotic reaction we expect per organ type. All possible life forms has a much higher precedence than a single instance of sapient life, so the environment necessarily favors Corona over the entire history of evolution on our planet.


Prior thread: >>12409532

Discussion may be a contributing factor since anon survival welcome.