Dear Charles,
What a wonderful essay!
I like these passages: "When faced with the question "What is information?" both Wheeler and von Weizsäcker straddle the Cartesian divide. Firstly, they both characterize information as a substance: For Wheeler, his elementary quantum phenomenon is the "primordial building 'substance'" [1] of physical law, the "ultimate building unit of existence."[10] For von Weizsäcker, "The abstract reconstruction of quantum theory suggests treating information as fundamental, and thus the substance." Information "forms the foundation of the conceptual structure [of quantum theory]" [6] "Substance" in the context of the thought of both men must be understood in the most basic etymological sense as "that which stands below." Secondly, for neither man is the substance of information either exclusively cognitive or physical: For Wheeler, information is "an immaterial source and explanation" of "every item of the physical world." [11] "Information may not be just what we learn about the world. It may be what makes the world."
May I invite you to comment on my essay Child of Qbit in time. I do believe KQID has done what Wheeler and Weizsäcker are looking for. Of course, I can be wrong but I don't think so. I am a practical person, I do not like to be boastful bu I do need to advocate KQID.
You gave a beautiful answer to Joe's question. I like it very much and I believe that the more beautiful view has arrived that is KQID but subject to falsification and verification process.
"We know that, historically, conceptual discontinuities do provoke strong, sometimes even violent reactions from individuals whose views of reality are threatened simply by the contemplation of the possibilities of the discontinuities. Consider as examples in mathematics, the discovery of the incommensurability of the side and diagonal of a square by the Pythagoreans (irrational numbers), the possibility and potency of negative square roots (imaginary numbers),and in physics, the departures from Newtonian common sense and outright paradoxes brought forth by special and general relativity and quantum physics. In each case, a beautiful vision of the world is destroyed, but we have reason to hope, again as we have learned from historical examples, that if we persist, an even more beautiful view of the world will eventually arise in its place. "
Also your comment: "In my paper, I outlined Susan Carey's assertion that a 'conceptual leap' is often required in the construction of a new scientific theory. Perhaps moving from a 'linearized' perspective of the structure of a scientific theory to one that is 'circularized' is just one further example of this kind of conceptual change." We all can agree that a new paradigm must be a leap of "conceptual change" and imagination.
Good Luck!
Please let me know what you think if KQID is the new paradigm that we have been looking for.
Best wishes,
Leo KoGuan