Dear Carolyn -
I think your concept of a quantum BIT of fluctuating space-time probably provides a unit that will be of use to mathematicians.
The essay in general was a fine exposition of the essential nature of space-time and the emergence of particles. You begin with both space and energy, but I wonder if this doesn't 'wire in' certain assumptions about both (and later, about space invariance, space lag, inertia causing mass, etc)?
I think the most basic starting point is pure energy - and we should ask: 'What is a field of pure energy like before it even becomes associated with motion or space?' I say Energy must perform the necessary permutations, or self-organization, that aligns positive and negative charges in such a way as to produce the proton and electron, before space and motion can exist.
Your thoughts on harmonic oscillations and resonances as underlying matter and the Cosmos are very interesting to me - I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that remain distinct but interact in a correlated manner with the 'un-aligned' charges of the primordial energy field.
If 'gravity is an entropic force that is created from the synchronisation of the space-time quanta' as you propose, the underlying resonances would be caused by this primordial field - as would 'the stable overall wavefunction.'
In your conclusion you state that 'Wheeler's "IT from BIT" refers to information defining the Universe; that by using information we are in some way creating the Universe. This assumes that we have a unique place in the Universe and that without us the Universe does not exist - an idealist viewpoint.'
I think this view is actually quite realistic if we factor evolution into the Cosmos - as we must. Ultimately, even 'matter' is simply very ancient information, supported by the appropriate biological configurations. And because evolution involves constant change, the field of our reality is also continually shifting.
Rather than an idealist/realist divide, I think there is a 'greater cosmos' - independent of our 'Species Cosmos' - and that it is because the two cosmae are essentially in some type of superposition, or close proximity in the primordial field of energy, that they are interacting with that field in a similar manner. Thus they too are correlated - and this explains why, in spite of our 'subjective' condition, our outcomes yield - within a certain field of parameters - 'objective' results: Our species Cosmos is the mirror of the 'greater Cosmos'.
I was thoroughly engrossed by your essay, and if I have spoken at such length about my own paper, it is simply because I believe this to be the most useful thing to do on this platform; we should be comparative in our critiques.
I have rated your essay, of course, and hope you will express your views about mine soon. I also wish you the very best in the competition -
John.