John,

To be more precise ... you state "The causal process can be modeled in terms of scalars; temperature, pressure, weight, speed." In the scope of geometric algebra, these are the scalar, vector, bivector, trivector and pseudoscalar information structures - information structure - the Clifford algebra elements. Everything measurable can be reduced to elements and combination thereof of these elements.... right to the general relativistic principles ... from the quantum combinations of space/spin eigenstates through the expansion rate of the universe ... and visa versa ie., information flows in both directions and is equivalent information once the limit of each outer bound is reached (ADS/CFT).

Also, you state "What is causal is energy transfer. Me tapping on these keys requires some form of energy transfer for the words to appear on the screen. The sun shining on a rotating planet is the sources of energy which create the sequence of events called days." OK, You are simply stating that we collect data in the moment, and, we control the information within the moment physically (measure) from one event to the next. It is your "will" applied to create action to stroke the key. Your mind geared up in Feynminian thoughts to do the miraculous event of stroking each key ... and in a coherent, deliberate fashion such to create information that has deep context (which I may add is rather brilliant).

Your comment "Much as economic statistics are a measure of the cumulative human activity of lots of people traveling their particular vectors." Yes, our measures are measures of the thermodynamic average, however, each molecule, at any moment, can partake in an event that is a once in a lifetime event ... and possibly tunnel out from the thermodynamic enclosure (like a hot electron in Peltier ... STM, etc.) It is "WE the individual" that controls the knob to the tunneling, for, energetically, geometrically, everything had to be physically correct to achieve the classically impossible event ... and yes... doing this in the midst of the ever changing pull of the thermodynamic average make it a rather rare event..... similar to giving up one's ego and allowing one to become the central element in all that he or she measures... which implies taking the bull by the horns and accepting we are responsible for our own lives .. and the information has always been there but we lost the proper context that allows us to tunnel!

Also, a quick FYI on your comment "I think the left, linear side of the brain is a form of clock, the vector of time, counting out sequence, while the right, intuitive side is more of a scale, weighing all the possibilities and seeing what emerges/rises to the top."

A few years back, my dad had a stroke that destroyed the RHS of his brain. He remembers all past events, BUT, had no clue on the time the event occurred (this information came soon thereafter the stroke event). He speaks of things 60 years ago as if they were yesterday, if a computer, a time stamp was scrambled or lost in his FAT ("event" file allocation table). I therefore would not rule out that time (event ordering) plays a big part in the RHS of the brain. What I also observed was that in a full, center page news paper article the two words "Banana Republic" were written - that's it. Banana was on the left most page and Republic on the right. When asked to read this article, my dad simply stated ... with utmost confidence ... "Republic" .... there was NO mention of Banana ... this, and many more LHS optical information losses places the brain RHS as controlling optical image information from the images physical LHS - no doubt here.

Anyway, it's been a pleasure to converse w/ you. Thank you!

Tony

Tony,

I do think current cosmology is on the wrong track. Expansion is matched by gravitational contraction. What seems to be overlooked is that galaxies are not inert points of measurement, but "space sinks," such that they balance the "expansion" between them. It just so happens the light from those distant sources can only travel through the "expanded" areas to reach us. So I think its more of a cosmic convection cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass.

In the time factor, energy is constantly expanding, thus either growing what it is entering, or radiating out from what is losing it. Thus energy is constantly moving onto what is new and next. On the other hand, mass/structure is at its most defined when it is at peak energy accumulation. So it will lose energy from that point and thus fade into the past, like mass falling into the core of a galaxy. With a clock, the hand, signifying the present, is constantly moving onto future units of time, while these units, signifying events and structure, are receding into the past. Tomorrow becoming yesterday, as the earth spins and the energy goes onto the next day.

So this cycle of expanding energy and collapsing mass is manifesting the process of time.

As for temperature, keep in mind all those molecules are trading energy around, which results in a localized entropic medium, so it's not just a statistical average, but a real physical effect.

As for our individuality, yes, we can "tunnel out" from the larger crowd, but at the expense of not being part of that crowd. We can create little waves, but we can only ride the big ones. The issue then gets to be; Where do we want to tunnel to? Is it simply to our own personal space and equilibrium(which is not a bad thing, being one who seeks it out), or do we want to find a larger wave to ride? Currently there are quite a few waves, economic, political, religious, physical theory, which appear more foam and bubbles, than upward momentum. So as structure, they appear to be losing energy and thus be imminently on the downside. Having been clocking this situation from the wilderness for the last few decades, I think some interesting new waves will be building and we will all be along for the ride, willingly or not.

John,

At each moment in life you can either choose to ride a wave, or, to make one. My employment requires me to originate the wave that usually starts off in a most non-linear, abrupt fashion simply by my supplying measured data from a correlating chain of physical events and gluing these events together with a quite measurable physical process path (semiconductor processing). Getting others on board as the wave crest builds is not an easy task, because other folks follow other waves (which isn't bad, it just is, and, information they collect usually also supports the process path I deduced). It is the time from conception to the time of administering process fixes that takes the most patience, lip biting, however ..... cream always rises to the top when you stop shaking the milk jug - and slowly each shaker conforms. That's life, science ... everything.

Regards,

Tony

Tony,

I have to admit I'm somewhat the opposite. For various reasons of personality, perception and circumstance, I find myself trying to be as still as possible and let the waves wash over and crash around me. In most situations this would simply be passive, yet I find it very educational. Safe to say, I've no luck getting many, if any, on my program. To far into it to change now, not that I have any desire to. What I find most aggravating is simply waiting for the next piece to fall into place. Very non-linear.

John,

Don't wait for things to fall in place ... MAKE them fall in place! It is our innate living gift to make things happen rather then simply live as a bug on the back wall, or a floating bobber in the ocean, etc. The smart bug eventually gets squashed by someone in a frenzy and bobber eventually washes ashore.

You state:

"If conceptual errors become incorporated into the framework, they become part of the lens through which further information is viewed and the resulting distortions become natural, ie. intuitive to that mindset."

You speak of the word "framework" as if it is the tower of Babel in science. I believe that what you fail to say is that we each have two stereographic image lenses that differ from ALL others. How we wire these up to focus information, gathered in the moment, that forms our thoughts can steer FAR from the accepted "framework." There is NO logical framework at the moment so you accept a non-existent thing? I believe the only reason why folks hang on to this "framework" is because they lack the proper context to apply their thoughts.... "context" implying the real, physical framework that governs ALL that we physically measure which supplies real physical data to our calculated thoughts (Feynmanian decisions using physical sense input). You have total control of this context .... and to give it to others is to give away the one part of ourselves that exists beyond ourself. "Ourself" implying that what physically exists at each moment, while that other part in us exists beyond the individually stacked moments and has a presence at ALL moments!

Anyway, been nice for chatting w/ you John. I'll stop commenting here.

Best regards,

Tony

Tony,

Thanks for the conversation.

As I see it, when you want to change the system and those running it are busily destroying it, simply studying the situation is not a bad plan. Personally, being an only parent and partner in a family business, I'm not lacking in things to do.

Here is, I think, a rather interesting crack in the facade. When the science journalists start sounding this skeptical, the tide is starting to turn.

10 days later
10 days later

John,

"So we have the classic reality that somehow seems separate from the quantum

foundations on which it rests. Obviously the connection must exist, yet there seems to be a missing link."

Wouldn't modern-day scientists, especially advocates of the Anthropic Principle, say consciousness is the link?

Jim

    James,

    No. I would say they are both models or prisms by which consciousness views reality. We all have to frame our view of what we need to know and use whatever tools and insights are most useful. What is useful for someone studying the microscopic may not be quite commonplace for some with another field and frame of knowledge. My argument in this essay is to this inherently subjective nature of knowledge.

    While the anthropic principle is completely valid, in the sense observers have to exist in order for it to be observed, I think it is somewhat overused. Just as with any field, there is a tendency to fall into mental ruts and I think one particular rut is this idea that reality is fundamentally information, as opposed to information being how we process our knowledge of it. Belief systems naturally tend to be self referential and this is a good example of the tendency to assume one's subjectivity is objective. When we met people who "live in their own world," we sense their delusion. Why accept it as a scientific principle?

    Hi John,

    just to let you know it was a pleasure reading your essay. You've packed in a lot of beautifully communicated ideas, set out in an easily digestible form that carries the reader effortlessly through to the end. Your topical biography made me smile.Good to see the positive discussion here too.

    All the best Georgina

      Thanks, John,

      A lot of concepts that are accessible but not sure where you are going and if there is no answer to the "It from bit" question.

      "As living organisms, we are the result of billions of years of evolution. The

      consequence of this process is two fairly distinct systems. One is the central nervous system, to absorb, organize and act on information. The other, the respiratory, digestive and circulatory systems, serve to consume and process energy. It is preserving the flow of this energy that the central nervous system is most concerned. So we exist as manifestations of this dichotomy of energy and information, as medium and message."

      Not sure this is true for most of us who do not find everyday a struggle for survival unless you suggest that intuition is intrinsically built on its on ancestors' survival need.

      Jim

        Jim,

        I suspect that should your sustenance run low, your mind would become rather focused on acquiring more. While we happen to live in an age which has learned to exploit a billion years worth of stored fossil fuels, we shouldn't completely loose sight of the physics of our situation.

        As for it and bit, they are particular concepts which pertain to a particular mindset. To the extent I answer the question, it is that energy and information are two sides of the same coin. If you have energy, it will manifest some form, ie, information. In order to have information, you need some medium/energy to convey it.

        Dear Mr. Merryman,

        Your view that evolution defines the nature of information is one that I pick up in my essay as well.

        You say: 'If conceptual errors become incorporated into the framework, they become part of the lens through which further information is viewed and the resulting distortions become natural, ie. intuitive to that mindset.'

        Thus, we are defined by evolution, and I follow this train of thought and define what I call a 'Species Cosmos.'

        Your description of time tells me you are inherently describing a vortex, as I am: I'm sure we can both agree that the binary relationship is identical to the relationship between the two halves of any vortex.

        As you'll see - with interest, I hope - I re-visit physics' assumptions in a way that results in the description of the field of observation as consisting of three Principal Vortices - Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory Cognitive - that have no direct interactions but are minutely correlated over the course of Evolution.

        We set down borders, and evolution is such that we perpetually have to correct the location of these borders - with the result that, as you say, 'Generalized perspective does blur the fine detail and loses some information, just as a detailed view limits the broad perspective.'

        Thus, we are perpetually involved in a Cosmos with blurred edges - or, as I put it, Zones of varying dimensionality.

        Since you sense that the distinction between classic reality and its quantum foundations must contain a missing link, I think you will agree with me that my paradigm incorporates organisms and cognition into the field of observation in a well-defined structure that solves the problem.

        In the correlated Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory Cognitive Vortex System, I show that each vortex exchanges energy with a greater field (a General Field of Cosmae) in a very similar way, thus producing the three Vortices' correlation with each other.

        This distinction and correlation essentially creates three 'mini-universes', in which the inner space of particles is sub-divided into States of varying dimensionality. As these Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive particles then aggregate into their distinct and corresponding Vortices, their States are expanded into three corresponding and correlated environments.

        Thus, I show that the correlation of the three Vortices produces the perceived Cosmos - a Human Species Cosmos that includes the Observer, and incorporates the same Zones of dimensionality found in the three types of distinct Particles.

        The missing link, then, is the simple aggregation of particles in three distinct Vortices that are in perpetual Correlation within a General Field of Energy.

        Of course, this is very brief - but I believe you will find the fuller account to be quite logically deduced and useful.

        I enjoyed reading your essay, and have rated it accordingly. I look forward to hearing your views in due course.

        Best of luck!

          Hello John,

          I enjoyed your essay, for the most part. I agreed with almost everything but the ending, ..abruptly. That is; it seemed to end too soon, without coming to a distinct climax or making your point. At about the point where the reader wants to hear what you have to say next, it stops. Otherwise; it was rather good.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

            Hello John,

            I like that you say energy and information are two sides of the same coin. Also that we need a medium such as energy to convey information. I too reach the conclusion that Bit and It are just as fundamental. Great essay - clear and concise. Pleasure to read.

            If you find the time, please read mine. I'm still trying to get through them all, but enjoying the process.

            Best wishes,

            Antony

              john,

              I did read your entry earlier and while it makes some interesting points, I didn't find the particular hook that would make me respond. One of the points I make here is how knowledge is inherently confined to a frame and I appreciate the extreme variety of perspectives possible, so given my own lack of time, I do need a compelling reason to get involved with starting a conversation. I will try to get back to it though.

              Jonathan,

              Besides my own time and inclination reasons for writing a short essay, I considered the actual entry as more the price of admission to the conversation than a complete piece. I find in debates, it is best to make a basic argument and then let people respond. Those who don't like my views have fewer pieces to pull at, if they don't like the central theme but don't want to attack it directly and those who do see some value will hopefully feel compelled to ask more questions.

              I could have potentially taken the concluding point, that our physical makeup reflects this dichotomy of information and energy, to break down how the two sides of the brain also reflect a scalar(right) and vector(left), that are reflective of the effects of time and temperature, ie. sequence and thermodynamics, but at the time I wrote it, I thought that would divert from the central point of how information must be manifested and doesn't exist in some platonic realm, devoid of medium.