Lorraine Ford I am going to develop on Information, dimensionality, and the Possible Role of Geometry in a Self-Knowing Universe
In discussions about the foundations of physics, it seems important to clearly distinguish between what is empirically established, what is mathematically modeled, and what remains ontologically open.Our current frameworks,General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, and the Standard Model are extraordinarily successful in predicting observations, yet they remain largely silent on deeper questions concerning why these structures exist, how information is fundamentally instantiated, and how consciousness arises. It is there I find your analyses very important and relevant about the knowledges.
One persistent difficulty concerns the relationship between information, dimensionality, and knowing. If one allows the possibility that the universe knows itself in some sense , so it is a kind of pantheistic interpretation , then the central challenge is to understand how such knowing could be grounded in physical reality. One speculative but potentially fruitful perspective is to consider a non-spatial, non-dimensional (0D) aspect of reality that is not itself physical and is omnipotent , this 0D is ontologically prior to physical structures. This does not assert a theological position, but rather acknowledges that physical laws alone may not fully explain initiation, continuity, and informational coherence.
From this perspective, three-dimensional physical structures may be necessary for information to become stable, local, and evolvable. Information would not merely exist abstractly but would be embodied in physical geometry, topology, and dynamics. The diversity of particles, fields, and interactions could then be understood as emerging from structured informational constraints instantiated in space, where exactly and how I don t know but we need this. Biological consciousness might represent a highly organized, localized expression of such informational embodiment, while intelligence and consciousness remain conceptually distinct: intelligence as functional processing, consciousness as experiential or intrinsic knowing.Thaqt is why the physical strucutres coulkd express a finite consciousness from this 0D infinite eternal consciousness omnipotent outside and inside the physicality.Ontologically it is interesting .
This line of reasoning naturally raises the possibility that consciousness is not exclusive to biological systems but may be present, in varying degrees, throughout physical reality.I dont assert I just explain how I see, Such a view does not deny standard physics, but instead asks whether physicality itself might carry intrinsic informational or proto-experiential aspects.
Within this exploratory context, spherical geometric and topological algebras may offer a useful mathematical language. If physical reality is fundamentally volumetric rather than point-like or one-dimensional, then spherical structures could provide a natural framework for encoding information through resonances,motions, oscillations, and symmetry-breakings..... Fields and particles might be better described as dynamic, structured volumes rather than abstract entities defined solely on background spacetime. It is totally differenbt than the strings in 1D or points and the waves particles duality can be better understood even.
Dark energy and dark matter remain especially intriguing in this regard. If dark energy is antigravitational and plays a role not only in cosmic expansion but also in large-scale informational organization, it may act as a mediator between geometry, dynamics, and information. Dark matter, interacting gravitationally but not electromagnetically, could participate in structuring physical reality in ways not yet fully understood, possibly influencing how photons, fields, and matter cohere into stable forms.
The most difficult and unresolved question remains how a non-dimensional source, the 0D,if such a concept is even meaningful,could give rise to knowledge encoded within three-dimensional physical structures. At present, this question lies beyond empirical reach, but articulating it clearly may help expose hidden assumptions in our models and suggest new directions for both mathematics and physics.
This post does not propose answers, only a framework for asking questions while respecting the limits of current theories. Accepting ontological uncertainty may be essential if we are to move beyond purely descriptive models toward a deeper understanding of why the universe has the structure, diversity, and apparent self-referential qualities that it does.
