Knowing One from the Other by Jonathan J. Dickau

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

Dear Jonathan,

After reading your essay :

« As I stated in a previous essay;

I think that both discrete and continuous aspects of reality

must be simultaneously accepted as real,

to understand the universe as it is. » by Jonathan J. Dickau

You can take a look also to essay of JOSEPH E. BRENNER

« Finally,

a picture of the universe as fundamentally either continuous or discontinuous

may be usefully replaced by one in which

both continuity and discontinuity are jointly and dynamically instantiated. », by JOSEPH E. BRENNER

You'll be surprised one day to discover how your views are right.

Good Luck!

Dear Jonathan,

After reading your essay :

« As I stated in a previous essay;

I think that both discrete and continuous aspects of reality

must be simultaneously accepted as real,

to understand the universe as it is. » by Jonathan J. Dickau

You can take a look also to essay of JOSEPH E. BRENNER

« Finally,

a picture of the universe as fundamentally either continuous or discontinuous

may be usefully replaced by one in which

both continuity and discontinuity are jointly and dynamically instantiated. », by JOSEPH E. BRENNER

You'll be surprised one day to discover how your views are right.

Good Luck!

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your scintillating dance of ideas!

I very much agree with you that there is an "interplay between information becoming stuff, and stuff becoming information". It is possible frame your idea terms of quantum information theory. The stage and place for the audience arise from the conditional knowledge of the observer, the director is quantum potential and the material objects are the reciprocal action between the two. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

Best wishes,

Richard

Dear Jonathan,

My best acknowledgements for the boost. I appreciate that the technicalities do not discourage you. I hope that the infection will propagate!

You are right that the octonions lurk around the examples I selected. Not all dessins are feature quantum contextuality. The simplest case given here is Mermin's square and can be seen as an archetype (in the language you use in your essay). The next case is Mermin's pentagram, there are 12096 of them with three qubits and 12096 is also the size of the automorphism group of G2(2) (related to the octonions as John Baez explains in his famous note). This is discussed in our recent papers on ArXiv.

My kind regards,

Michel

Dear Jonathan,

I much appreciate your dialectic attitude and your analogies as principles of general value.

Let me tell you what might be worth a scrutiny too:

Variations of temperature in data from Planck telescope are in good agreement with predicted ones for small values of angle but not for large ones. Didn't the spectrum of a black body also fit well to a formula (of Rayleigh and Jeans) for not too high frequencies? In case of Planck's law, I suspect the background in the non-equality of mathematical representation in terms of either an integral or an infinite sum.

Do you agree on that the relationship between Wheeler and Einstein resembles the relationship between Hilbert and G. Cantor? Didn't Hilbert's program possibly fail because of flaws in Cantor's aleph_2?

When I looked as a layman on CMBR I got aware on at least one cold spot. May this spot be the Lockman hole, a window that permits us to more realistically look outside the dust of our galaxy and beyond current models of universe?

Admittedly, I do not quite share your sometimes a bit exaggerated "Hegelei". Nonetheless, I will rate your essay 10 and hope that your higher scores can attract more attention.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Jonathan,

'1' from another '1' is true when information is considered as physical transfer, while '0' is non-physical. Whereas, information in particle scenario is the transfer of energy and it is the transfer of matter with energy in string-matter continuum scenario.

Thus this cause-effect cycle expressed in 'Knowing One from the Other', indicates that the universe is cyclic with nonzero conditions and thus the universe is non-inflationary in entirety; with Homeomorphic Segmental-fluctuations in Cyclic-time in that a top-to-bottom holarchical organisation of string-matter continuum is expressional. Whereas, the basic form is three-dimensional tetrahedral-brane that emerges on eigen-rotation of string-matter segment and transfer of such form is information, in that the realm of observable is the holarchical segment, the observer belongs.

With best wishes,

Jayakar