Hello Marcoen,
These are very good points. Thanks for your comments.
Points 1 and 2 can be answered together.
The fundamental part comes from two places. Te first is that we begin at a singularity or 0 in the sequence. Also that we balance out the sequence conserving numbers, by using the negative part of the sequence.
Indeed the part of the sequence used isn't as small as just 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, but also includes -3, 2, -1, 1, before the 0.
We can extend in both positive and negative directions to fit the conservation, so indeed in some respects we can use the whole sequence. But we are using 9 points of the sequence for a valid reason.
Te negative numbers do denote information exchange, but moving away from the singularity. In other words the potential to move away isn't real, but virtual. But this is using to explain why nothing escapes - usually. Obviously I explained that Hawking Radiation can occur, and that the smaller the Black Hole, the greater the rate of radiation.
The empirical aspect that the Universe is spatially 3-dimensional also is matched, not only by the conservation at -3 to balance the inside and outside of the Black Hole, but also for the reasons in point 3 that you make.
The negative simplex is indeed strange. As soon as we consider the "decay" products of 0 or beyond, we have to consider these negative sets. I'm glad you raised this point, as I too found these strange.
If we imagine them as inverted real geometries, we give them a negative number. We also take the positive and take the mean of the two numbers. So this is zero. Then we increase by plus 1 for entropy going right down the sequence, but have to stop at 2 in the negative part of the sequence because the decay product breaks the +1 rule for the entropy. Shown in red in table 1.
As you say, a negative simple sounds crazy. But then this is what makes the whole idea MORE fundamental. We are dealing with black holes where the quantum world is expected to meet general relativity.
Also pre-Big Bang singularity for instance, we had to create a Universe from nothing. The -1, 1, 0 part of the sequence alone allows for this, but more comprehensively, I have a broader theory where we get geometries from simplexes that partly unify the four forces of nature and resolved the three paradoxes of Cosmogony.
So what I am saying is that these negative dimensionalities and simplex representations are part of the way space-time curves to conserve nothingness overall.
Perhaps they exist as real structures with a Black Hole, but I'd suggest that all particles with mass actually consist of these as well as positive geometry. Further we don't see them for the same reason I suggested an Arrow of Time, because a natural asymmetry arises, which the entropy table hints at.
Sorry if I've not been too clear - rambling is easy around these points, because they are so important.
Please let me know and I can be be more thorough and/or more concise about these excellent questions.
I'll try to also read over your paper again once I've finished the few I haven't looked at yet.
Best wishes,
Antony