Hi Cristi,
I enjoyed your essay very much. Excellent writing, wonderful concepts and sound conclusions. Using a game was effective to explain isomorphism and it made the reading more fun. It also made your essay more memorable for me because I showed the game to my wife, who is an avid Sudoku player, and challenged her to figure out the numbers that would sum up to 15.
Your discussion of holographic fundamentalness is spot-on. I wish I had learned geometric (Clifford) algebra in school. I tried to pick it up a few years ago after reading a paper by David Hestenes, which I recommend for your reading (if you haven't already - I noticed you referenced Hestenes and G Sobczyk.) "Oersted Medal Lecture 2002: Reforming the Mathematical Language of Physics." Am. J. Phys. 71.2 (2003): 104-121. I've forgotten too much to fully understand what you wrote in your essay, but I remember enough to say I think you are definitely onto something. Especially your suggestion that such a unification result in a single holomorphic field.
My approach to unification is much simpler than yours, and I took a sort of inside-out (or upside-down?) approach to conclude that motion serves to separate this holomorphic field in our percepption as space (S) and time (T), both of which are forms of motion:
In your words, "Our experience unfolds the germ, creating space and time, but the germ always remains enfolded, and we with our experiences, and spacetime itself, are always enfolded inside it."
In mine, "Physical form is the manifestation or perception we observe when motion separates the field into two coherent waves, S and T, one moving outward as a quantum particle wave function and the other moving inward as the collapse of the same wave function modulated with information. The surface boundary then is the holographic interference pattern forming the apparent surface of the volume in space."
I would appreciate it if you would read my essay at "A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness by Theodore St. John" and tell me where I go wrong. I think that the concept you call the germ is what I refer to as simply an event (in the spirit of Alfred Whithead). You said in your notes "If we want to turn the picture upside-down and consider that our choices also determine the germ, then would it be possible that our local actions determine the germ..." I think that each germ is created in each moment, collapsed into events, so our actions are inherently part of the process of making the germ(s).
What little constructive criticism I can offer seems to make your point, as you say in the last sentence of Quantum holism section, about how "mathematics can offer more adequate notions of composability and reducibility than our classical intuition does". So here it is: You threw me off a little when you talked about "shapes", e.g. "If a particle can have two possible shapes, it can also have any superposition or linear combination of these shapes." I have never heard anyone refer to the shape of objects being described by the wave function, except perhaps as it relates to particle (localized) or wave (non-localized - expanded out in all directions), both of which would be spherical, or as the peaks and valleys in the solution that refer to probability amplitudes. I know you were talking about the shape of the wave because the previous sentence was "A single particle is a wave of various possible shapes." But the word "shape" formed a mental image of the object itself. I also had trouble with the "property of the particle" in the sentence "A property of a particle," you said, "like position or momentum, is well defined only for some of the shapes. For example no shape can have well defined position and momentum simultaneously." Position and momentum are not properties of the particle; they are dynamic variables and measurement of one of them changes the state of the wavefunction to the corresponding eigenvector. The state of the particle only changes in the sense that 'measurement of its position at a given instant in time' effectively means that it is stopped in that position, so the function describing it must be one that fits its current state.
Anyway, congratulations on an excellent essay!!
Ted