Dear John
Thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Please find my comment below.
You: To pursue your thought, I'd say that we are progressively getting lost in abstraction, and that in a sense physics is painting itself into a corner where no-one can figure out the meaning of the phenomena that are being expressed.
This scenario is starting to change, abstraction is not giving the expected results. The FQXi project is the result of it.
You: ... This, I think you'll agree, ...and probably not very usefully either.
Yeah, I agree, that proposal is just a vogue in physics, soon it will lose interest.
You: In what way is the Cosmos an imprint?
I think that computers are computers. I don't think the universe is a computer, so it doesn't imprint.
You: Does this not tie in with the concept of a field of Cosmae, all of which are interacting within a field of energy?
Like I said, space is not empty and we can conceive it as a pervading material field and ocean of energy so to speak. The idea is to see particles not as independent objects from this field but as excitations of it. This is very much aligned with quantum field theory in which particles are created from the field.
From what you told me I'm curious about your essay. You mention: ...and sub-divides them into the three groups that define our Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive entities.
Well, in physics we don't make distinctions such as organic or inorganic these are chemical concepts and not fundamental.
You: Both the Cosmos and the Observer are similarly affected by this Force, so that it maintains them in Correlation over billions of years.
Indeed, everything is correlated but there is a point in which one can assume, for the sake of simplicity in the theory, that those quantities or objects are not correlated.
You: Since you essentially conclude, I believe, that we cannot truly choose between 'Bit to It', or 'It to Bit' - is there not then simply a correlation between information and the physical universe?
From my view, the it from bit and bit from it is a matter of semantics or perhaps of taste. So it is irrelevant which one we chose, however, the first case implies a reformulation of our reality in terms of computer language. So, I wouldn't chose to switch to a different approach. Of course, there is more than just matter out there and I'm not sure what would be the right answer to your question. I'm sorry, I couldn't help with that.
You: And in searching for a Unified Field, are we not simply searching for this correlation - not only as it applies to space and time, but also to the Inorganic, Organic, and Sensory-Cognitive realms?
Yes, that is the final goal, to simplify the physics proposing a fundamental field, but, in my view, the field here plays the role of space itself. This is the connection. As I conceive time is nothing but change, but nobody understand change and what physical thing is changing.
You: I hope you will let me know... ...these to be explored empirically?
I'll put your essay in my list and leave you some comments asap. Thanks for commenting on my essay. I do agree that there should be a balance between math and common sense.
Best Regards
Israel