Dear Antony,
Thank you for your positive comments on my paper. I doubt that many who read my paper will get a true in depth understanding of what is presented because of the limited space available for description. When I talk about internal structural information I am not talking about what we perceive to be particles, but what actually exists that generates our perception of those particles. What we see as a particle is only what that existent structure generates in an interaction with some other existent structure and is limited to the parts of that which is generated by that interaction that we have a way of perceiving by our interaction with what was generated by that existent structure. This means several things.
First, we can never know and completely understand by our observations the true structures that generated the interaction. We can only hope to completely understand the properties of those structures that are expressed through the interaction. The actual existent structures may have parts of their nature that do not interact at all with other structures or if they do interact it may be in a way that does not produce any property effects that we are capable of sensing in any way. In either case we could not know of the existence of such parts or their interactions. People like to think of the actual existent structure as the sum of all of its observed effects. This could be true in some or even all cases, but it could also be false and we do not have any way to determine which is the case in actual reality.
Another problem is that of the lack of understanding of the difference between the actual structure and the observed properties of that structure. To get an idea of what I am talking about let's look at the simplest structure that we can discern, a simple motion. A simple motion expresses itself to us in the form of only a few basic properties in its interactions with the spatial system. First, it continually changes its position in the spatial dimensional structure. Second, these changes always occur in the same directional line within that dimensional structure. Third, each motion contains a certain amount of or amplitude of motion, such that while one motion travels a certain distance in its path another motion may travel twice as far. The actual structure that generates these observed properties could be much different from just the sum of the properties. The motion could be a program on a computer interacting with a dimensional spatial program on the computer in such a way as to produce the observed effects in an output matrix structure. Those programs could also produce outputs that would give other information to some other special observer that has access to that part of the program by interactions with it in some way that we cannot detect. Although we can only know the motion in terms of the effects that we can detect, it is always good to keep in mind that in reality it could be much more or much different than we think it is. It is, therefore, important to not confuse the observed effects as being the structure that generates the effects. As an example, if you could develop a method to observe the conditions within a black hole and you found that the dimensionality changed in accordance to the Fibonacci sequence, it would not mean that the Fibonacci sequence somehow caused the dimensionality change or that it was even an actual part of the black hole's structure. It would only mean that parts of the actual structure interacted with other parts of it in such a way as to generate the effects of appearance of dimensionality change that agree in sequence to the results of the Fibonacci sequence. The actual Fibonacci sequence is just an abstract mathematical concept based on how numbers relate to each other. It is not an actual object, but only a relation between objects (the numbers). Numbers are also abstract concepts and not existent objects in themselves until they are applied to an actual existent object. Then they are properties of that object and may or may not be a part of the objects actual structure. As an example, if we define a specific motion as having a motion amplitude of one unit of motion amplitude, we have applied the number one as a property of that motion. If the actual structure of the motion is that it is a program stored within a computer, it may not actually be moving at all, but only be generating that effect in an output matrix. Moreover, we could have defined a different motion with twice the motion amplitude as having a motion amplitude of one unit. The motion mentioned first would then have a motion amplitude of one half unit of motion amplitude. From this you can see that the number one is not a part of the motion's internal structure, but only a relational property we apply to the motions for comparison purposes. It is the actual differences in the quantities of motion contained in one motion compared to that in another motion that is the true difference in relational effect that tells us that all motions are not exactly the same in all respects. The abstract numbers that we apply to motions only tell us how much different one motion is from some other motion in that effect of position change amount. In short form, it is not the Fibonacci sequence that would cause the black hole to change dimensionality. Instead, it would be the internal structures of the parts of the black hole interacting with one another that would create the observed effect that had a sequence of dimensionality variation that was the same as the Fibonacci sequence. There could be something in the internal structural information in each of the parts that would give that result under the interaction conditions present in the black hole or it could be that the interaction conditions themselves create that sequential result. Of course, one would need to take into consideration not only the structure of the motions that interact with each other, but also the structure of the spatial dimensional system that they also interact with. The reason that I mention this is that I have seen some who seem to believe that math created the universe when in fact it is only an abstract language that shows relationships between (and possibly also within the structure of) the actual entities (structures) that exist in that creation. I am not making a comment here on the existence of black holes or of their true nature of operation if they do exist, but since your paper is predominantly about such things I framed my response to you in those terms. Man has not yet determined such things so it would be useless for me to go into detail about whether your concept agrees with observed reality or not since there are no detailed observational results to base things on that can be given at this time.
Information is also much more than is usually considered when the concept of information conservation it talked about. Because the structure and the information are the same thing, when simple structures like simple motions are combined together into more complex structures (such as matter particles combined together to make atoms, etc.), more hierarchical layers of information are also created. This is because the combination is accomplished by continual cyclical interaction bonds that both contain the information of their structure and can also generate external interactional information when interacting with other structures. So, if your house was to fall into a black hole, in order for there to be true information conservation you would not only need to conserve the structural information that was contained in each matter particle, but all of the other hierarchical information structure that existed at all levels of structure of your house. It should, therefore, be obvious that information is not conserved, since much of the information stored in the structure of your house could be destroyed if it had an explosion and fire due to a gas leak, etc. The same would apply on a smaller scale if you broke an atom down into its constituent matter particles or if you broke a matter particle down into an energy photon and then broke the energy photon down into a simple motion. Where does all of the information stored in a matter particle that tells you what kind of matter particle it is go when you change it into an energy photon?
Thank you again for the positive comments and I hope we agree on the above also.
Sincerely,
Paul B.