Hi Sreenath,
(It appears that the FQXI database has been reset, and my comment disappeared; so I will add it again.)
You wrote:
> This is also the conclusion reached by me in my essay when I say "Bit comes from It but mind can know of It only through Bit". So interpretation of Bit by mind itself is explicate.
We might have somewhat different interpretations, but it could depend on what we understand by It and Bit. I think of "It" as representing measurable physical objects, and "Bit" could be any kind of information. In my simulated computational cosmos, Bit can appear in many guises. The way mind enters the picture I will describe below.
> Representation of relationship between implicate and explicate on the basis of digital physics constitutes the next task of your article.
Yes, I would like to construct digital algorithms that perform this transformation, in order to make the simulation idea more compelling. Several of the other essays have given me ideas for this.
> 7 sphere may be mathematically true but not so physically as long as it is made visualizable in the same way as S3 sphere.
If you are comfortable imagining the S3 sphere, here is a way to construct an S7 sphere: Consider a "mother" S3 sphere, where each point is the center of a "daughter" S3 sphere (i.e. daughters initially have radius 0). Now let the radius of the mother sphere decrease, and have the radius of each daughter sphere increase to compensate, so the sum of mother's radius daughters' radius is constant.
> Your final conclusion, It from Bit comes as no surprise when you say "the explicate world of It arises from the implicate world of Bit" and you have given, like me, primary importance to mind when you say, "the content of that implicate information world comes from consciousness".
Yes, my idea is that we can describe Mind as a layer of the software architecture below the material layer. The important insight (not included in the essay) is that lower layers of an architecture are in some ways more aware of what is happening than upper layers. This is because each layer is constrained by the layer interface contract and cannot observe what the implementing layers are doing, only their effects (which seem automatic within the layer).
In software terms, the physical laws are an interface contract for an architectural layer. So material objects are constrained to obey physical laws without having any way to examine how or why the laws work.
The conventional materialist view is that Mind is somehow emergent from Matter, which is taken as the "ground of being", i.e. Mind is layered above Matter. But if you construct a "mind" above the material layer you create a philosophical zombie, whereas if you locate Mind below the material physical layer you find that a mind has attributes that we associate with conscious awareness. I hope to clarify the distinction between these different conceptions of Mind by reference to software architecture. I believe it is possible philosophically to give an account of Mind once you have a story of how the physical world might arise from a software simulation, which is what the essay tries to provide.
> Thanks for presenting such an interesting essay in an elegant and consistent manner.
You are most welcome!
Hugh
