Knowing One from the Other by Jonathan J. Dickau

Dear Jonathan,

Pardon my starting another thread as this matter is unrelated to your essay.

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

NOTE THAT in no other frame can circular motion between the bodies be described in this circumstance except in the 'observing' sub-atomic particle.

Regards,

Akinbo

*I will come back here for answer.

Hello Jonathan,

Thanks for the reference to Arthur Young - I am working out the details of the correlation between Mind and Cosmos at this time, and I will definitely read Young a little later. I think you'll find that I've cleared the ground for this next phase in my essay. I very much look forward to hearing your comments soon!

Best Regards,

John.

Hi Jonathan,

I enjoyed reading your essay, it is nicely written and well reasonned.

Also, thank you for posting the extract from Feynman's lecture above.

"I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature"

I can't agree more and I boldly propose that Time=(Length)2 and

Mass=(Length)2/Time=Dimensionless

and therefore Energy = 1/(Length)2.

Cheers,

Patrick

Dear Jonathan,

Congratulations for your excellent essay. I enjoyed reading it.

Your statement on p. 9: "Physics should admit the possibility for unobserved realities that serve to generate what is observed" puts a link to my essay.

Indeed; I bypass the question "It from Bit or Bit from It?" by treating matter ("mass") and information ("g-information") as interrelated constituent elements of nature. I show how the introduction of the quantity "g-information" in physics can explain the gravito-electromagnetic description of gravitation.

I postulate that any material object manifests itself in space by emitting - at a rate proportional to its rest mass - "informatons": entities that run away with the speed of light carrying information about the position and the state of movement of the emitter. I identify the expanding cloud of informatons generated by a material object as its gravitational field, and I explain the gravitational force as a reaction of an object on the disturbance of the characteristic symmetry of its "own" field by the flux of informatons generated by other objects.

May I invite you to go through my essay?

I wish you all the best in the contest.

All the best,

Antoine.

Jonathan,

"While it is quite clear that information of some nature does give rise to the universe of form, thus fulfilling Wheeler's vision of "It from Bit," this does not prevent "Bit from It" modalities from unfolding at the same time. So indeed they are both true outlooks, but the meaning of the story can only be seen by considering the interplay of the two - a Cosmic Dance."

I think your essay is sort of a Cosmic Dance, perhaps a waltz that smoothly glides us through the mysterious question we encounter.

I deal with the same issues but with more of a two-step, for example, saying consciousness is not possible -- without religion, sorcery or metaphysics -- at the time of the BB and not until 1 billion years later, being without a body.

There is poetry to your ancient tale and meaning in your words. I hope that "It's Great to be the King" does as well in your eyes.

Jim

Dear Jonathan,

I haven't heard from you regarding your comments on my essay in my thread. So, please, do the same and inform me in order to rate your elegantly written essay.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your kind recommandation on Goodband's page. I rated your essay on July 9. Did you do the same because I have no track of you at me essay location?

Good luck,

Michel

Dear Jonathan,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for a lovely essay. You wrote:

> Does life descend to play in or with form, bestowing consciousness and creativity? Or does form rise and evolve to acquire these attributes, so it may play in the heavens? Science favors the latter view, and relegates the former to Religion, but because "It from Bit" makes information more primal than form, this changes things profoundly.

In my essay Software Cosmos I describe the simulation paradigm and construct a model for a computable cosmos. Taking the view that the material cosmos we observe is the result of software allows us to ask questions about the software architecture, and its layers. Defining the properties of these layers has the potential to answer your question.

> Perhaps to catch the universe as form and information at play, we need to see reality as a play. Information as author, forces as director, and objects as actors may be the metaphor we seek.... While we can identify the script as 'Bit' with the author as its generator, and the character as 'It' with the actor as its generator, there is a third personage who helps to guide the process to its completion, called the director.

I have been using the term "animator" for the agents at one level that make possible the operation of a higher level of reality. In the software model of the cosmos you can have a multi-level architecture. Each level "animates", or implements the foundational constructs, of the level above. Agents at each level do not know how they are implemented, as from their perspective, each primitive operation "just happens". It is the lower levels that know more what is going on.

> As I stated earlier; possibilities lead to actualities, in general, but any specific condition or environment leads to new possibilities... General information and open possibilities lead to actualities, then specific conditions engender new possibilities - and this cycle repeats - without end.

Joseph Brenner (who is also an essayist here) has prevoisly written a paper entitled "The philosophical logic of Stéphane Lupasco (1900-1988)" that describes Lupasco's alternate "Logic of the Included Middle" and argues that it better applies to reality. You may find Lupasco's view consonant with your own.

> The key observation here is that information is more real or fundamental than substance, which is much like saying that things are comprised of mind-stuff - on a deeper level than the physical... In fact; it demands we tackle what David Chalmers refers to as the 'hard problem' of consciousness, defining what constitutes conscious perceptual experience.

If we can build only on top of the material world, then what we get when we try to create consciousness is a "zombie", not a consciousness as we experience it. But a computational cosmos does not have to start at the material level. It could be composed of several levels, only the most obvious top level one being material. In the sense defined above, the cosmos may consist of Mind animating Life and Life animating Matter. This, I think, more closely models what we actually know of the world.

Hugh