Happy this could help, and sorry if my response was dismissive. Frankly I have seen variation of what you are saying many times, and most of the times by people that are not willing to do anything but rave about it.

> I'm willing to work for it too because I am convinced this is not nonsense. [...] I am convinced this link can be proven experimentally.

If that motivates you, good, and as you want others to keep an open mind, consider keeping an open mind yourself: maybe it IS nonsense!

There are links between entropy and life, yes, and you can formally describe them, using mathematics and physics. I advise Rob Philips excellent book "Physical biology of the cell" on the topic, as a much gentler introduction than what I cited above.

> [...] from predictions that tumbled out of the theories.

Once you write down a formal (mathematical) description of what your theory looks like, and what you can expect it to show, then you can have a conversation about it. No idea how you are going to put conciousness in there, to be honest.

As an aside, don't know if you heard of Jeremy England, but I get the impression you would enjoy reading on his research.

Look, I am not trying to insult you. But if you are actually interested in this topic, you have to realise that you are mixing things up in a way that truly makes no sense. Decoherence happens very quickly, and very reliably, at even the meso scale.

The codepens you have shared are nice, but this is just a particle simulation, you may call it life emergent behaviour, but consider that you will observe similar behaviour with dust particles, or crystal formation in solution, for example. Highly interesting behaviour, I agree, but I would not call it life emergent.

You see to be genuinely interested in this topic, and in running simulations, so I would suggest you do that! You can create a (limited) QM simulation of a few particles in a box (say in a crystal phase, and prepared in a state that you find interesting), and a few more gas-like particles bumping on them. What you will see, if you do that, is that the gas-like particles interacting with the solid will disturb its behaviour. This has also been observed experimentally, this is part of why experimental setups requiring entanglement are tough to set up, the system is easily disturbed; any textbook discussing this will provide a much better explanation than I can on this topic.

Edit: adding some references for anyone looking for formal material, see for example McQuarrie's statistical mechanics, chapter 10-7, for some formal descriptions of how you go from a QM statistical ensemble, to classical. For some simulation of systems that can exhibit both classical and "QM" behaviour, see: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.180403 and https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.150403

This is not even wrong, this is just straight up nonsense.

If anyone reads this and wonder why this is nonsense, and wonder how you reconcile QM with classical observations, find a QM 101 book, then read up on the thermodynamic limit, and decoherence, and it should become clear enough.