Essay Abstract

I claim that 'information' is the sum total of geometric objects present here in our universe, & as particular entities are eminently observable they can be observed even as they are being used as the means with which we ourselves think - which observational exercise enables the ontological identities of all of the directly information-related phenomena such as thought, mind & consciousness to be well & properly established; further that this observational exercise allows for the establishment of matter's quintessential nature also.

Author Bio

I am an aging, amateur, Antipodean widow who is an avid & passionate searcher for truth; I have insatiable curiousity about everything. I have never written a paper - nor an essay - before & I am glad that the FQXi Community has provided this opportunity to persons such as myself. Thankyou !

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Margriet,

Welcome to FQXi and thanks for submitting your essay. Unlike those focused on entanglement, you've recognized that information implicitly includes a "role in all information related phenomena such as thought, mind, intelligence and consciousness." Moreover, you have intuited that the nature of (and experience of) subjectivity leads to a pan-psychic conception, as the idea that subjective awareness (as we experience it) could evolve from or in any way be derived from "the proper arrangement of Lego blocks" is absurd.

You are then led, via astute introspection (I suppose) to the realization that this implies a 'field' quality for conscious awareness. That is, awareness is distributed over a volume, not located in a network node or an atomic entity. From this realization you appear to conclude that the "volume filling" element is the "interstitial fluid" or water. But water is just complex dynamic relationships between atomic entities, and I do not see these as capable of delivering the goods. I see a real field as accomplishing this result.

You discuss the discovery of analog "objects" or "billboards" in our neural networks, and impute geometrical character to them. I agree with this, assuming that you include 3-D geometry in this characterization. It is not difficult to see that the 3-D volume of our brain, consisting of trillions upon trillions of neural interconnections, guided by organized arrays of sensor cell outputs, retinal or rat's whiskers or what have you, can reconstruct an essentially geometric 'model' of the sensed scene or object.

The question is how this "model object", consisting of active gates in 3-D dynamic arrangement couples to our subjective awareness of an object. After all, most physicists view this as millions (or more) local firings in axons and across synaptic gaps. I don't believe water can accomplish this necessary result.

You then proceed to define thinking, intelligence, and mind in a way that closely parallels my definitions, from an earlier FQXi essay, Fundamental Physics of Consciousness, and elsewhere. Our words differ somewhat, but I see essentially the same meaning.

And I fully agree with you as to the "existential status of both consciousness and matter".

Your discussion of geometry is fascinating, but, unless I am missing something, does not describe the coupling of the physical geometry to subjective awareness. In other words you start with examples of 'objective' geometric objects and establish (I believe) a 'copy' or 'model' in our brain. But the model is distributed over billions of atoms, gaps, positions, neurons, etc. How do we become subjectively aware of the integral geometric form?

Yes, geometry is "unchanged" from objective source to copy in our brain. How is this integrated by our mind? The geometry is relatively static, but there is a dynamic aspect to the models in the brain; that is the flow of ions in axons and vesicles across synaptic gaps. Both flowing ions and vesicles have mass, and I view this as that which couples to awareness. I describe this in my essay, which I hope you will read and enjoy as much as I enjoyed yours. I think that you have focused on an aspect of geometry and its relevance to subjective awareness that is easily overlooked.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Thanks Margriet!

    I found it to be a refreshing look at our world. You might find the idea of Causal Dynamical Triangulations to your liking, in that CDT supposes that the world is made up of triangles, governed by certain rules and produces a very respectable result that may one day replace other theories. I would warn that it contains some fearsome mathematical devices though, and it is hard to find an article or book on it that one might at all call approachable, in my opinion.

    The question remains - where did all this geometric structure come from? For that you might find my essay interesting.

    Best wishes

    Stephen Anastasi.

      Ms. O'Regan,

      Your essay would have been a fine reading experience had you admitted to being a professional scientific journalist. I find the fact that this was your first entry into the FQXi.org competition truly exceptional.

      I wish you the best of luck.

      Joe

      Hello Margriet,

      Your Bio underestimates the intellectual content of your essay, perhaps you do so deliberately.

      As to your proposals that geometric objects carry information on their back, I agree entirely. I believe as I also portray in my essay that the answer to David Deutsch "information's ontological identity" are geometric objects!!

      But I suggest that this will have more to do with their positional property rather than their shape which you suggest.

      Again, you talk of 'infinitely thin'. This is not zero. Euclid did not talk of lines having length and infinitely thin breadths, but zero breadth! Read my essay and let me know if you agree with Euclid. Rate me low, if you do!

      Certainly, your essay is not an amateur essay and this is remarkable, if as you say you have never written a paper or essay before.

      Best of luck.

      Akinbo

      Hello Margriet!

      welcome to the contest and never mind the 1 you got off the bat. This year everyone suffered the same fate; do not take it personally (boys behaving badly).

      Very few women are participating this year and I am sure to read them all. I enjoyed your essay, especially its upbeat tone and sunny analogies. It is clear you had fun writing it and it was fun to read.

      I hope you will enjoy reading my essay 'The Play of Mind in Emptiness' and will share your impressions with me in my thread http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1869

      -Marina

        Dear Margriet,

        Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

        I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

        I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

        Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

        Best

        =snp

        snp.gupta@gmail.com

        http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

        Pdf download:

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

        Part of abstract:

        - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

        Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

        A

        Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

        ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

        Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

        . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

        B.

        Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

        Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

        C

        Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

        "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

        Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

        1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

        2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

        3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

        4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

        D

        Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

        It from bit - where are bit come from?

        Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

        ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

        Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

        E

        Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

        .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

        I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

        ===============

        Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.

        later try changing values of masses and initial values of velocities....

        Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.

        I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....

        Best

        =snp

        Dear Margriet,

        For a first timer that was excellent and very original. I must confess I did have a little trouble following some of the points, but I'm sure if you read my essay you'll find it much trickier! Even some PhD's struggle to understand it!, (but that may be as it's written in plainer English than they're used to, as yours). Do give it a go.

        My favourite bit was;

        "Intelligence' is 'using the available information in an existentially efficacious manner; intelligence increases as the kind & amount of available information increases & also as to the efficacy with which that information is utilised."

        There seem to be a few in science who may do better following that methodology!

        Congratulations, and very best wishes.

        Peter

        Hi Stephen and Margriet,

        Firstly Margriet, Congratulations on a refreshingly insightful essay. As Stephen points out CDT is of great interest but complex.

        I formed a theory 6 years ago that is similar (I've since found), but much more simple.

        It basically is a theory of everything that solves the three paradoxes of cosmogony.

        As an offshoot for this contest a colleague suggested entering, by applying my theory to Black Holes.

        Anyway best of luck both of you in the contest - Stephen I'll try to get back to your essay soon! Still a few to read. Here's my essay.

        Best wishes,

        Antony

        Hello Margriet,

        I see you are not a frequent blogger...

        As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

        "If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

        1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

        2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

        3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

        Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

        4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

        Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

        Best regards,

        Akinbo

        6 days later

        Dear All,

        It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

        iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

        One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

        Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

        the second sub series is always defined by the equation

        Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

        Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

        Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

        Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

        Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

        Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

        Examples

        starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

        where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

        -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

        Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

        Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

        Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

        The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

        As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

        d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

        d-super.pdf)

        Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

        I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

        I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

        All this started with a simple question, who am I?

        I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

        I super positioned my self or I to be me.

        I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

        I am phi, zero = I = infinity

        I am human and I is GOD.

        Love,

        Sridattadev.

        Hello Margriet - I'm going to be re-reading your essay in the days to come. I see that you're a very expressive writer, and being a science writer myself, I think you'll be interested by my essay, too.

        I look forward to hearing your views.

        John.

        • [deleted]

        Dear Edwin

        Phew !! - Lot's of brow wiping here !!! All this is so new to me - not that I haven't actually spent a life time working up to the day when I could get 'my stuff' 'out there' !!! & once again I am so glad for this FQXi forum in which to do so.

        And thank you for your supportive comments. I'm actually quite blown away by the fact that you - & others - seemed to understand almost all of my essay - wow ! & yes I've waited this long before presenting 'my stuff' because I wanted to be satisfied that I could present it in a way that it could be, er, reasonably well understood within its own context - that I could outline my basic assumptions with some certain clarity & then further maintain some real logical consistency throughout.

        'Via astute introspection' ? Your words !

        Yes Edwin ! Exactly ! , it's all introspection - all intuition - all subjectivity !! "We are all forever trapped beneath the event horizon of our own subjectivity" (Me quoting me!) Another way of saying this is: For each of us our own subjectivity (our own feelings, qualia, intuitions, imaginings, thoughts, introspections, reasonings, knowings (however 'rational' or not they may be !!) IS ALL THAT WE CAN BE & KNOW'.

        In a pan-psychic universe it could be no other way !!! Everything is intuition . . Everything is knowingness . . . I am therefore I think ..... Thought & 'material being' are 'just' properties of 'knowingness'.

        >> By tracing geometric objects through our own thinking-machinery (our brains are not just computers - they perform computation - lots of it - but all of its operations including its computational ops are 'merely' part of its true function which is THINKING - & recall that 'thinking' is 'using information (geom objts) to guide action), by tracing geometrical objects through the brain no great difficulty attends the task of recognising WHERE - after astronomical amounts & different kinds of processing & collating - THEY GET POSTED in order to do the one & only job they are there to do - which is trigger off our motor machinery in the existentially best possible mobilisation/activation that can be so activated at the time.

        AND the only bit of matter which feels/experiences EVERYTNING that gets fired over to our Reading/Triggereing Panels (the trillions of neuronal trigger heads thereon) is the small amount of (neurotransmitter-filled) interstitial fluid.

        One of the all too many phenomena maintstream science/physics has NOT identified & defined to date (so busy is it with qunatum phenemenon) is what a (macro-) EXISTENT IS - the existential status of what we ourselves have chosen to call simple, everyday, common, ordinary, garden variety discrete bits of matter. (Quick !! - what is this phenomenon's definition.)

        My own conclusions as to the defining characteristic of all 'free-standing' bits of 'ordinary matter' such as are you & I & all of the other single, individual, separate, discrecte free-standing atoms, molecules, elements, minerals, chemicals, crystals & all known life forms, is the fact that they are all "self-assemblers" & further that each is also a "self-contained" entity - that is to say, not only does each of these 'proper existents' (my name for them/us) assemble itself all by itself without any external assistance - doing so strictly via self-generated forces, mechanisms & capacities, not only continues on during its lifetime here in our universe (however long or short) maintaining its own self-given integrity of being via the self-same self-generated forces, mechanisms & capacities, but each also, er, grows - well generates - its own 'skin' which is of course, the repulsive electrpstatic force field which verily indeed does so surround each & every existent here - including some of the non-self-assemblers, not to omit all of the specially-manufactured objects here too.

        One of the identifying/defining features/properties of any such proper existent is that it both exists as whatever it is & ACTS as a UNITY.

        One of our all too many mistaken views of 'inanimate' matter is that it is 'cold, lumpen & hard' indeed, completely insensate, passive, inert & pawn-like.

        What we have failed to recall is that even rocks & stones ACTIVELY KICK BACK anytime they feel their integrity of being threatened. And rocks & stones aren't even proper existents. Now compare the 'kick back' punch any atom or molecule will deliver if you really seriously try to compromise its integrity of being.

        'Resisting disintegration' AS A UNITED WHOLE is an identifying/defining capaciy of 'a proper existent' - & even many 'improper' ones - existents that have been assembled by non-self-arising outside forces.

        Proper existents use their self-generated 'skin' as that with which they literally defend themselves against any external threats to their own personal integrity of being. As already noted, each & every free-standing solid body here in our universe is enveloped in a repulsive all-surrounding electro-static force field. It is precisely this phenomenon by which each literally defends itself - each delivers whatever kick-back blow it possibly can.

        NOW THEN. A drop of water is a proper existent; each body of water now matter how small is a properly self-assembled, self-maintained, self-contained entity. Even though any drop of water's self-containing 'skin' is relatively weak in comparison to, say, your fingertip or the pane of water down which it might be sliding, nevertheless ANY body of water quite demonstably CONTAINS itself via its own self-generated skin; all bodies of water no matter how small or large have 'surface tension' - indeed, have one unbroken 'skin' of surface tension surrounding them. Including the small amount of interstitial fluid trapped between our consciousness-generating panels. (As well as the Pacific Ocean - actually come to think of it as all of our oceans are joined together at some point there is only one skin of electrostatic force field surrounding them . .

        This being the case (if it is!! - & I'd stake my life on it) then the "3-D volume" (of which you speak) on which is reconstructed the geometric "model" of "reality" - exists wholly & solely WITHIN the pen-ultimate quintessence of this entity - as to the deep pen-ultimate "VOLUME" of this little bit of water. Sure it is pushed where it exists by 'outside foreces' nevertheless, being a body of water it is containing itself via its own self-generated force field at that location. (And liquids have some pretty good 'kick-back' power when under preseure by which they 'attempt' to maintain their own personal integrity of being, mai non?)

        I have a number of additional 'first principle' reasons for considering - er feeling, intuiting - that this is the case - that is that it is the case that 'we' are the 'voluminous' pen-ultimate quintessence of this otherwise perfectly ordinary bit of H20. That in which the 3d model of reality resonates.

        1) One it is a proper (self-assembled/self-maitiained/self-contained) existent & as such IS A SINGLE UNIFIED ENTITY - which is precisely the way we feel ourselves - our consciousnesses - our knowingnesses - to be; we feel ourselves to be unified wholes (as a general rule - all rule proving exceptions not to the contrary - as when we are asleep - sleep is characterised by a disconnect with our motor machinery, whcih simply means that there are no triggering signals passing through us).

        2) Geometrical objects are strictly surface-dwelling phenomena. This being the case I feel persuaded to conclude that none of them exist inside/below (within some non-surface, 'voluminous' level) any increment of solid matter's surface surface. And therefore no information exists at the deepest quintessential (quantum ?) level of being.

        Contrary to mainstream recieved wisdom I personally feel compelled to conclude that the pen-ultimate quintessence of all 'solid' surface-sporting matter is NOT quantised at all but is, as per your teminology "voluminous" - indeed is continuously voluminous, er, 'solid' !!! & that, yes, when the signals literally charge through 'us' - through that proper aquatic existent trapped between our consciousness-generating panels - they - the signals/the geometric objects - literally carve us up into sets of standing waves of some sort (!??) & with each change of pattern in these standing waves (which undoubtedly last only microseconds) WE feel differently - our KNOWINGNESSES CHANGE to the beats of those drums - we feel a different 'tune' as to each different wave pattern 'standing' in us . . . . .. .. (And don't get all whoo whoo new-agey on me - as I keep saying - trace the geometric objects in our thinking machinery as they get shunted therethrough & you quite unproblematically wind up at this bit of water - as the one place where all final summations thump through . . ..

        Presently we have no INFORMATION as to the pen-ultimate quintessence of matter (despite billions on the LHC). Again as geometric-cum-inforamtional objects are strictly surface-dwelling phenomena, & as there seems to be no 'surfaces' down at matter's deepest level (all that malarky about uncertainty & live/dead cats being excellent evidence as to this supposition) I personally do not expect us to be able to get any 'out' from there.

        But it doesn't matter at all as we are that thing.

        Very best regards

        Margriet.

        6 days later

        Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

        If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

        I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

        There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

        Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

        This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

        Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

        This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

        However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

        Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

        Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

        The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

        Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

        This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

        Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

        You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

        With many thanks and best wishes,

        John

        jselye@gmail.com

        Dear Margriet,

        just to let you know I have read your well written essay. Thank you for sharing your many interesting thoughts with us.

        I have read elsewhere that one of the big challenges for modern physics is how to incorporate the mind. Your essay is dealing with some issues that are very relevant to that.

        As you will have noticed there is a great diversity of entries to the competition and interpretations of the essay question. Do not be discouraged by your essay's ranking, it is having the chance to share ideas that is more important.

        I have enjoyed reading your entry and informative reply to Edwin's post. Kind regards, Georgina

        Hi Margriet,

        I'm glad that our comments have reinforced your efforts. In my opinion you have intuited the basic issues. The fact that you identify an 'interstitial fluid' as significant is key. You think it is water, I think it is the local gravitational field induced by mass flow in the brain. We simply differ over specifics of the mechanism.

        Your essay does not deserve to be in last place, so I will try to move you off of that spot. By the way, your placement is not totally a function of your essay. With over 180 essays to read, very few can read all of them, so it is important to 'market' your ideas by reading other essays and linking your ideas to their ideas, hoping they might be interested enough to look more closely at yours. It's not ideal, but it's the way the world works.

        Thanks again for sharing your ideas. Your first attempt was excellent, and you chose the right forum.

        Best wishes,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Margriet,

        I just saw your post in Kimmo's blog and was hoping to find you here, replying to all the messages you got. I wanted to tell you that I really appreciated your essay on the next day after I read it. At first it seemed limiting to me to narrow information solely to the shape or geometry of things, but then I realized that you meant it in purely physical science sense -- that's the trouble we face as amateurs in trying to express ourselves, inventing our own terms or presenting things in a fresh, unfamiliar way... people used to certain terminology not always understand us. At least not right away.

        And so the next morning I thought how right you were in finding information's ontological identity in pure geometry of all things. Including space, I think. No? See, in my understanding, everything is ultimately made of the the 'space stuff', starting with space itself of course. And it is the dynamic structure of space -- or its dynamic geometry -- what underlies all of reality.

        Good to see you're here, even though it's kinda late in the contest :)

        -Marina

        I forgot to address 'Triangulations'. Actually they play a very important role in my schema - but not at all in the way that you might think. Furthermore my triangulations are real, indeed, are real-life phenomena.

        In my understanding triangulations are the manner in which human infants & all higher - learning - organisms program their on-board thinking-machines (please note that what we have inside our heads - & bodies - is not just a computer but genuine, bona fide thinking contraption).

        As I understand it, when a child - indeed, any 'higher' (learning) organism - comes into this world, to it our world is a booming, buzzing, thumping, flashing confusion, a chaos of sensations that hopefully include warmth & murmuring, tasty milk, pleasing odours, bowel & bladder relief, etc, etc.

        'Triangulating' all of these sensations WITH ONE ANOTHER - & not by any other method - is the one & only manner in which the new born's 'blank slate' literally gets written on - & which slate then becomes that owner's blueprint for life.

        When you sit down & conscientiously count all of the different modes of sensation - such as balance, & pain, & temperature monitoring, & wetness - & then there are all of the emotions (which are 'just' reports on autonomic states 'fear/love/anger etc - all of which sensations will be plummeting through any 'higher' new born's body & brain, there are probably something like at least 50. And now I'm recalling more - proprioceptors & intereoceptors - thirst & hunger, a body clock, feeling sick or well, breathing, coughing, sneezing - & all of the monitors monitoring each & every movement one makes - heavens there are probably more than 50 - a 100 ?! - categories of sensations which require 'triangulating' together all by way of getting things straight for every 'higher' (learning) new born.

        So 'my triangulations' turn out to be 'fifty-ations' or 'hundredations' !!!!

        Cheers - Margriet

        Dear Margriet,

        Your essay is incredibly deep, it is a pity that it was not discovered before

        (I found your comment on Szangolies blog).

        I will take the time to review it today and rate it highly. It seems that you are putting the geometry of points, lines, circles, spheres at the very bootom and this foundational view always was very successfull in science.

        You should not be afraid of looking at my own essay where geometry is foundational as well but also needs groups (i.e. symmetries) and algebra.

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

        Best regards,

        Michel

        Dear Margriet,

        Your credo is not exactly "Tt from bit" but "It from geometry"

        You write

        "I have discovered 'information's' ontological identity which is :

        'The full set of geometric objects properly present here in our universe'",

        then

        "a little bit of water... specifically the seat of our own conscious knowingness.",

        you cite Deutsch "Information starts as some kind of electrochemical signals in my brain", then

        "Storing geometric objects ?"

        Your view is not organized enough but I keep the best of it. Panpsychism was advocated by great thinkers

        (in combination with panlogism), from Leiniz to Whitehead.

        My essay also claims that geometry plays a leading role in quantum contexts. But there is an underlying machinery

        (the child's drawings) at the origin of the geometries. They are three basic ingredients (the points O,1 and infty

        on a sphere, or a torus, or a surface with more holes), there is a bipartite graph on such a

        topology ... the singularities of an algebraic curve at 0,1 and _inty is what matters.

        Thank you for your worthwhile effect.

        Best regards,

        Michel