Hi Chidi,
You asked about what I had written:
> "The software cosmos picture answers the contest question in this way: "It from Bit and Bit from Us"... This picture hints that physics will find the ancients were right and that the cosmos is inherently virtual [THE IT?], holographic [THE BIT?], and fractal [THE US?]."
Here is how I think of these terms: The essay describes how the physical world [the "It"] might arise from information in a computational simulation [the "Bit"]. As part of this picture, which is analogous to a multi-user video game, we have the game players [the "Us"] each sitting at their screens, viewing and interacting with the simulated world (which they take to be real).
The term "virtual" refers to the software cosmos being a simulated world, the term "holographic" to the projection mechanism involved when observing it, and the term "fractal" to the idea that the simulation is accomplished by a hierarchy of processes.
> This is in so far as we MUST decide whether the "us" is in essence an "it" or "bit" or "both" or "neither".
We can take the term "us" to denote our consciousness, or Mind in general. A very interesting question concerns how to understand our experience of being conscious. I think the model of a software cosmos can be helpful in that philosophical effort.
This is because the software can be divided into layers with different operational rules. In particular, the rules of the physical world do not have to limit the rules of layers beneath the physical. I see the physical world as the upper layer of software, with lower layers the domain of life, mind, and spirit. Agents in each layer "animate" objects in the ones above it in the same way that video game players "animate" their avatars on screen. This closely corresponds to what we feel we are doing when we are consciously moving our physical bodies.
> I take it that the "us" is by definition a SCALE (i.e. fractal) of your implicate/explicate.
In the essay, I mentioned the fractals that we can observe in the physical world. I think that these self-similar structures arise from structures and processes in lower layers of the simulation (not just at the top physical layer). For example, Life has a great many fractal properties (in both space and time).
Mind might also be thought of as a fractal, if we consider that groups of people can act as one. Our usual way of thinking, however, seems to be at a specific level: we identify with our individual consciousness and are aware of it animating our individual physical body.
> That being the case I think yours is altogether a mighty useful picture worth my humble high rating.
Thank you!
> Now you may try again and see how it fits with my own model, especially that part you quoted in my blog, then you will begin to see what I mean. I'll like you to leave a comment (and rating!)
OK I will check to see what you have over there.
Hugh