[deleted]
Peter,
Thank you for the reply. I would first have to agree we are on opposite sides of a significant fence and I can understand why you might see my side as lacking necessary detail to be informative. My position is that while your side of the fence might be finely structured, it is still emergent from the underlaying dynamic. Which is to say I don't see the need for a platonic realm of fundamental laws governing nature. I see laws as patterns which emerge with the actions and relationships they define. Bottom up and top down are complementary functions that emerge as one. Yes, nature is exponentially complex, but the principles describing it are interactive and complementary. Knowledge and information must be static in order to maintain the very details of which they consist, but that doesn't mean reality is so fundamentally frozen. If reality were frozen, it would be a complete lack of thermodynamic activity and nothing would happen, or exist. A non-fluctuating vacuum. No factors, or functions.
So for me, it's a matter of how to get from nothing to something. I would start with space as the aphysical infinite equilibrium. In this void, there is a cycle of expanding energy and contracting structure. Now if were to relate that dichotomy to sentience and knowledge, the energy is the element of awareness and knowledge is the structure it conceives. Much as in my essay I point out that while our awareness is constantly moving onto new thoughts, these thoughts coalesce out of received information and then are replaced. So as awareness goes from past to future thoughts, the thoughts go from future to past. Just as energy is constantly inhabiting structure, then breaking it down and moving onto other forms.
Now consider in your essay, the conceptual process which is going on. Much like a puzzle, modern physics consists of many static components that seem like they should fit together, but however it is done, there seem to be gaps and the solutions often create new problems, as they solve current ones. They are all obviously parts of some larger whole, but not a singular whole. So you find a connection that is "worthwhile," but not "ultimately correct." Possibly it is because there is no "ultimately correct model?" As I point out in the last line of my essay, "Neither academic or religious authority can turn an ideal into an absolute." There is no more a universal model than there is a universal god. Both models and perspective are inherently subjective. Oneness and one/unity and unit are not the same thing.
I know this sounds philosophical, but if your ivory tower is built on sand, would you want to know, or would you prefer not to know?