Examination Of The Informational Nature Of Dimensions

[TheCrazySavant]

This is something quite recent and highly interesting in my opinion.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14eN8Ui2iQdoqsMRmD9g7cS5e_4_7EvVl6Nq2PUwsKyM/edit?usp=docslist_api

 

 

 

 

This is a sort of “live version” of a theory I am working on. I restart it sometimes, always from the top, so the older stuff is at the bottom and can basically be ignored. If it starts to “not make sense” then you are reading the older stuff. The link is shareable so if you know of someone that might be interested to read it then feel free to share.

 

____________________________

 

 

 

I used to think of myself as a highly rational thinker, but over time an irrational aspect of my thinking became apparent. Lately I've been thinking deeply in both rational and irrational terms. These ways of thinking have formed a union which creates my experience. I think mostly about the fundamental nature of reality, playing with it in my mind like an object. I've been doing this in some form or another for as long as I can remember. A few years ago the object in my mind, viewed from a psyche composed of rational and irrational elements, appeared to snap into place. For just a moment it seemed like I could fully comprehend the object, This was not comprehension in the typical sense of the word; it seemed to require a full union of the entire breadth of my mind and environment. It existed not in the form of words, symbols, or anything that I can describe yet it became a sort of absolute knowledge and understanding. As you may have guessed I was delusional; I've been in a psychiatric hospital twice now. But the very idea of the object was so powerful that it grabbed hold in my mind, and even outside of psychosis I spend great lengths of time contemplating its meaning.

 

Even though I couldn't communicate the nature of this object, and my full comprehension lasted for only a moment, I could still utilize the object as tool for thinking. It gave me a deeper understanding of myself and the world, and this understanding manifested as a sort of intuition. In times of psychosis the intuition manifested primarily as unbalanced, irrational behavior and thinking, and outside of psychosis as less balanced, less irrational behavior and thinking. I have come to accept that I will always think in a way which is simultaneously rational and irrational.

 

This paper is my attempt to describe the nature of this object through the use of a type of logical structure. I will suggest that this logical structure is more fundamental than the existing concept of logic and that it can be used to create a unified model of physics. I will refer to the entity I describe as an object, system or process depending on the context, but I will demonstrate the interchangeability of these terms and suggest that the object “transcends labelling”. I suggest that the object is the source of all symmetry, complexity and information. This is far from being an easy read but I will try to break difficult concepts down into bite size pieces in a continuous way as best a I can.

 

Fundamental Analysis of an Information Process

 

Claude E. Shannon (considered to be the father of information theory) characterized information processing as the conversion of latent information into manifest information. Latent information is that which is not yet realized or apparent, and manifest information is obvious or clearly apparent.

 

I will describe a construct which equivalently defines both an information process and the process of reality, demonstrating their fundamental equivalency. I will also suggest that it is impossible even in principle to develop a model of reality which is not an approximation, and that it is always possible to produce a more accurate model than any given existing model. I will produce an approximation which is sufficiently accurate to form the basis of a unified theory of physics and I will provide the conceptual scaffolding for research beyond physics.

 

To do this I will talk about reality in terms of an object which I label O. To introduce O and provide you with some useful conceptual imagery I will describe it verbally, but you should not consider this description to be a definition and rather accept that O is undefinable . O might in one way be seen as the moment of singularity, “before time began”. It exists beyond any concept of space or time, existence or non-existence. It is both indivisible and divisible and can be considered infinitesimal or infinite with equal validity. It can be described as an object, system, process, shape, fractal or go by absolutely any label with equal validity. O is the concept which combines all concepts into a unified framework of absolute symmetry, where no two conceptual entities can be distinguishable; O can be imagined as maximally symmetric. A complete understanding of O can only ever be approached but can never be reached.

 

Let us examine the following statement:

 

O is the act of observation.

 

An act of observation causes awareness in the mind of an observer. Specifically, an informational state which is perceived from a hypothetical “external” world and represented within the mind of the observer. In a purely informational sense we might say that the two states (external system being observed, internal representation) are equivalent. I assert that they are equivalent in every possible sense and that their current distinction is based on a human misconception.

 

Look at an object near you. You can examine the object and say that it is “there”. You consider it to be external. But think about what you can truly say you are observing. Think about what you are aware of. In order for your awareness to include this object, your mind must receive information and then form a representation of the object in your mind. You can’t say that you directly observe the object; you can only ever be aware of some mental representation. I assert that the concept of any external world or object is a misconception and that the worlds we consider external and internal are in fact indistinguishable and exist within a single unified landscape.

 

I therefore assert that the act of observation cannot be defined as an action according to our current conception of the word action. I state that observation and time are indistinguishable concepts, both part of a unified whole the nature of which is currently inconceivable but might be said to demonstrate “change without cause” or more accurately that some more general sense of change exists without the distinction between cause and effect.

 

These assertions and others will act as a sort of mental scaffolding that I will utilize. They will be combined with a single approximation, that O is the act of observation, to create some sense of the structure of O.

 

Since O is not definable and transcends even the act of labelling let us define a new entity O’ and say that O’ might be interpreted as the act of observation, but in a sense of the word observation which allows for cause and effect to exist simultaneously. We can say that the word observation is attributed to some sense of change, but that this change is simultaneously also a cause and an effect; more specifically it is simultaneously it’s own cause and the result of that cause. Imagine that the concepts of change, cause and effect are combined into a single concept of “oneness”.

 

What can we say about oneness? First one might infer that change is more fundamental than either cause or effect because change does not contain an inherent element of polarity. Cause and effect cannot exist independently of each other in a conceptual sense and form a duality which we cannot introduce to the “single” entity of O’. Secondly we can say that if something exists in a state of oneness then something exist which is separate from it, because oneness does not include things like “not nothing”. We can say that all the things not included in this oneness must be unified with oneness in the original O and that it is therefore only an approximation of O.

 

We have moved out thinking from O over to O’. One might represent this visually as O > O’. I suggest the following visual representation which I will explain, and I imply that it does not fundamentally require more information to represent than what is contained in O’.

 

[undefinable] :> O’

 

I have used the symbol :> and I approximate it as “some sense of movement or change void of any polarity and that exists in a state of symmetry with itself and is therefore not relatable”. In other words what we have one the left of this logical structure cannot be relatable to O’ in any way, and using any polar mathematical relation is nonsensical. Let us instead say this:

 

:> O’

 

We still have “two elements” in this statement and I suggested that the statement cannot contain more information than what is in O’. I now suggest that :> and O’ are indistinguishable and represent the samee underlying concept of oneness which can be represented as either term.

 

How can we picture this oneness? There are infinite ways in which to do so. I suggest starting with the following. Imagine a static point particle in space. Imagine that it is infinitesimal in indivisible. We could say that for this conceptual object there is no “inside” because the space that it is in does not include anything inside the point. Now imagine the infinite expanse of space itself. Imagine that it represents a state of perfect uniformity with nothing discernible existing within it. We cannot say that anything exists “outside” of this space because the space includes everything associated with it’s own existence. Can you imagine either of these entities as actually existing in any real sense? We don’t tend to think of space as a “something” but rather a framework in which “somethings” exist. We also don’t tend to think of infinitesimal points as being real physical objects, and they are impossible to even imagine as being separate from some notion of space or time or dimension. I suggest that oneness is a concept which encapsulates both views.

 

Picture an infinitesimal point in your mind again, and label it O’. Now imagine that there is another point which exists near it and that the two are identical in an informational sense. The only difference between them is the difference in location that we have imagined. We can therefore say that, in a purely informational sense, the difference between the two entities is imaginary. Let us denote this imaginary change as ΔO’. We now define ΔO’ as the imaginary change between two identical entities. Remember that earlier I used the symbol :> and defined it as ““some sense of movement or change void of any polarity and that exists in a state of symmetry with itself and is therefore not relatable” and is equivalent to O’. I now state that this definition meets the criteria of not just O’ but ΔO’. I suggest that these two symbols can be seen as representing the same underlying concept, but that within our current (less fundamental) concept of logic they can be used separately if this use takes on a certain form.

 

I would like to describe a pattern which meets meets the definitions of both O’ and ΔO’ and can be used to derive logic and physics. I give the pattern the following approximate definition: “a fractal pattern made up of both discrete and continuous entities. The entities are each contained within the other and the entire pattern is contained within any element. The pattern can only ever be viewed in the context of a defined order of infinity and so no distinction between any two orders can be observed, defining the impossibility of separating discrete entities from a continuum”

 

Imagine “infinity”. There are many ways to picture this but a point particle certainly doesn’t suffice. You could imagine an infinite row of separate particles, but this conception is inaccurate because you can’t imagine the “ends” of this row. Keeping such a row in mind imagine reducing your level of zoom so that the points come closer together. Since there are an infinite number of them they will always continue getting closer until they form a line. The infinite limit of this process of imagining can be recognized as a continuum: a continuous “flow” of points forming a line. Imagining the image as a line or as separated points depends entirely on your level of mental “zoom” and no level of zoom less than “infinite zoom” will produce an actual line, so we can say that this can only be an imaginary process and it is logically impossible create a truly continuous line. To imagine a line which is continuous in the real sense is to make a leap which defies logic and is therefore logically impossible in the real sense, and only possible in your imagination. Make this leap and imagine that the line exists with an infinite number of other lines which are all parallel. Now zoom out and imagine them coming closer. Taking this process to the infinite limit produces a two-dimensional plane, but again a leap which defies logic is required. We can see that a continuation of this process can be used to picture the nature of dimensions (a zero-dimensional point changing to a one-dimensional line changing to a two-dimensional surface and so on), but we say that it would be impossible in a logical sense to “jump” from one dimension to another. It is impossible to imagine a point as being a line or a line as being a surface so they are necessarily distinguishable, and you can instead only imagine a point on a line or a line on a surface. To imagine two dimensions interacting would require imagining them on the same scale, which you cannot do; you can only imagine a point on a line or a line on a surface. Without a distinction even in the concept of number, we can only say that they do not “cause any effect or have any cause, but exist in a state of codependency” where I use that description loosely. You cannot imagine a line even as a concept if you do not first possess in your mind the concept of a point, yet you can still imagine a point independently of a line. They are both independent and codependent and the “reality of the situation” is that their true nature transcends both of these concepts, and an understanding of them would require a sort of “conceptual transcendence to a point where the distinction between independence and codependence slips away”. I suggest that this first relies on transcendence of other concepts such as “self”.

 

I am still describing the fractal entity mentioned earlier. Now I will try to explain its nature in a different way; from the point of view. Let us assign “line” to the label O’ and “continuum” to the label ΔO’ while accepting that they are ultimately unified in a deeper concept. Go back to imagining parallel lines like before and imagine that, squeezed within the separation of the lines, is an infinite continuum (which is ultimately also made of lines, but you don’t have access to that in your imagination and don’t need to consider it). Note that if you were to “zoom out” then the lines would converge and squeeze the continuums out of existence. We can think of the continuums as being the “cause of change” which separates each line. No continuum is distinguishable from another, so you can put them all under the same heading of ΔO’ and say that it is a constant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you like you can select one of the lines and declare “this line is equal to zero” but the choice is arbitrary. However to have any conception at all of separation it is first necessary to distinguish between lines, which defines them from one another in your mind, and in doing so also allows for the existence of “one continuum per line”. To produce additional continuums would be to “squeeze them into” existing spaces and produce additional lines and breaking the continuity of symmetry in our mental image. So let’s assign “zero” to some line in your mental image and add positive and negative numbers running away from zero, one number per line. This creates asymmetry, but we can say that the “cause” of this asymmetry is the existence of the continuums/ΔO’, and that their true nature represents some deeper concept of order. In order to talk in any meaningful way about how any of this relates to the experience of an observer, we need to place ourselves “in the shoes” of the observer, look at the environment we have created, and describe what we see. We cannot distinguish any entity from an observer Let’s see how much information we can gather from this perspective. First I suggest that we set a logical rule: we can only change our view continuously, and can’t zoom in to the level of breaking a continuum or zoom out to a level of forcing the existing continuums out of existence. If you think about it then the only meaningful change we can make is to zoom between two lines to see only a continuum

 

 

Let’s define the concept of ΔO’ as “an engine of change producing separation between consecutive moments”. Let us define the moments as “moments of time”. Now you need to perform a mental trick: change your perspective. It’s impossible for you to literally do that so I mean do it in your mind. Let’s ask the question “if I were a line, what would I see?”. Imagine that you “drop yourself” into the mental picture and becoming a line by zooming in. The lines in your vision separate, stretching some arbitrary (because they are all identical) continuum so that it fills your view. This continuum is associated with change so picture it changing gradient of colour or intensity. This is one “level” below where we were before, and we might describe it as an experience with the terms “changing continuously” and “running from an infinite past to an infinite future”. Keep in your mind that the continuum fundamentally includes a complex structure, which I posit takes fractal form, but we do not have access to it in our imagination. We can’t seem to say much more from this viewpoint, so let’s jump back out to our old perspective. Zoom out and squeeze the continuum to bring back the lines separated by continuums. Remember that they are numbered. Notice that if we zoom out we would squeeze the continuums out of existence

 

[this is the particle’s perspective so you are a particle ^]

 

[“humans” already exist in many dimensions]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. continuous line being created through this process is to accept a logical impossibility; to make a leap only possible in imaginationPicture that this line exists with an infinite number of parallel lines. Now imagine zooming out again so that the lines come closer together. If you again take this process to the infinite limit then you end up with another continuum; now a two-dimensional surface. We can see how this process can be used to create some conception of dimensions; using points to create a line and lines to create a surface and so on. Note that each “level” or dimension here represents an infinite process which cannot in theory be completed within any length of time

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine O as a point particle in space and then imagine an exact copy of it existing somewhere nearby. In a purely informational sense they are identical and equal in every way. How is it then possible to imagine them a copy of O existing near the original point, and then imagine a row of such points spaced evenly from each other. We assume that each point is an exact copy of all others and so they are identical purely in informational terms. How are they not identical? We can say that the only difference between them is in relation to their position, and that this difference can only exist in an imaginary sense.

 

(sense of change is equivalent to the change association with the change in position or time of any concept imagined separately from itself)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have artificially imposed an act of definition upon O and in doing so we have necessarily changed it. With this assumption we can make statements like “something exists”. Saying “something exists” is equivalent to saying that “not nothing” exists. O must include both concepts of “not nothing” and “nothing” (as well as all other concepts) and must therefore remain distinguishable from “not nothing”. If O is distinguishable from “not nothing” then our assumption is logically impossible according to the constraints of our system. Furthermore the concept of “include” implies a notion of “exclude”; a duality that we can not say applies to O.

 

In order to move forward we must remove the parts of the assumption which are not logically congruent. The relation between O and observer should be removed entirely because O can not be said to relate to anything. What if we say O is an observer? This assigns a state of being with O which is distinct from the state of doing which is associated with an observer. The definition of an observer requires action, and any state of doing is distinguishable from a state of being. We therefore cannot use both the words “is” and “observer” in our definition.

 

Now let me simply write down “to observe”. Imagine the very idea of the action. The result of the act is to make the observer aware. We could be more specific and say that this awareness is created in the mind of the observer, so the result of an observation is to create a mental representation of a state. In a scenario with no mind/not-mind distinction there would be no way to distinguish between a mental state and any other state. I suggest that “to observe” be given a new definition as a state which both invokes change and reproduces the same state. An observation produces a change which is apparent only to the observer. In the more general case where no mind/body distinction exists, , and in the more general case where no internal/external or observer/not observerdistinction can be made we say that the observation produces change without changing state

 

If O represents some concept of observationIf O were an observer then there would be no distinction between the awareness existing in mind or in not-mind. If O represents some form of observation which does not distinguish being and doing, but that would invoke the concept of mind, which does not necessarily exist to O. If mind and not-mind are indistinguishable in O then any awareness of an observer

 

 

 

I would like for the essence of that action to be associated with O. I suggest that if we infer that concepts of self and other are indistinguishable in O then the act of observation can represent O in a way which is logically congruent. Observe does not necessarily require self, because it is p

 

 

The concepts I suggest that there exists some true essence of the word, stripped of information to some hypothetical minimum amount of information, which can be represented by a binary digit which does not exist in relation to any counterpart. We can think of it as a 0 in the binary 0/1 but it does not actually represent the number 0, any other number, or the concept of information; it a piece of unrealized and undefined information which can not be assumed to exist as part of an information process.

 

I suggest that the core concept in “observe” meets the criteria for this definition because an act of observation does not require the existence of other concepts such as a concept of

 

 

 

Instead I will invoke a new entity O’ and say that it is an observer

 

This requires the existence

 

 

 

because any distinction would imply that the concept of “not nothing” has an existence which does not depend on O. so O must always be distinguishable from “not nothing”. To distinguish any concept from O is to imply From this we infer that O must be distinguishable from the statement “something exists” and our interpretation of the assumption cannot be correct because it would add information to our conceptual system. We must come up with an interpretation of the assumption which is consistent with O. I suggest that to do this we strip all of the informational content away from the assumption except for a single underlying concept which I will claim is equivalent to O and then justify.

 

I claim that the single concept which encapsulates the assumption is the concept of “from”. We would normally associate that word with its counterpart “to” in order to form a duality which makes sense, but I suggest that “from” still holds informational content without any counterpart. We associate “from” with direction, as in an action directed from something, but we cannot rely on the existence of “something” to act upon or any effect of an action. “From” might then best be described as a cause which does not necessarily have an associated effect and is not necessarily associated with any change.

 

No image that we can imagine could encapsulate the meaning of from.

 

 

O is observing. (1)

 

I will set the constraint that I cannot describe any object in terms which cannot be conceptualized according to the definition of that object, and I cannot add information to or subtract information from an object, which means that I cannot perform any measurement (to extract information) on an object to learn more about it. I will use the words object and system interchangeably.

 

The word is in the statement above implies a state of being which we associate with O, and we use this combined association to to form a new association upon a state of doing. One might suggest that a state of being is equivalent to a state of doing if it is instead considered a state of becoming, and I imply that states of being and doing exist in a unified state similar to the idea of becoming. The nature of the word observation suggests an action without interaction: a seemingly passive process which does not require anything to be acted upon but still has the implication of an action being carried out. With no way to relate these concepts into a unified whole I now define a new object, O’, which I define as follows: [feel free to copy this text freely in part or as a whole either edited or unedited. The author gives permission to freely share, manipulate or even take credit for this text. I also give permission for you to reinterpret this information or find a deeper underlying concept and present it without giving credit the the author]

 

O’ is performing self-observation. (2)

 

O’ can be seen as a special case of O in which this assumption is true. Note that (2) does not conflict with (1)

 

 

 

 

and I assert that this implication is approximately accurate for O. The state of being exists as a relation between O’ and a state of doing (observing). An approximation which I will try to justify is that states of being and doing are indistinguishable and can be organised into a unified framework to describe O’, and I suggest that the more fundamental source of this duality is the “from” flavour present in the action. Without being able to make any subject/object distinction we have no way to conceptualize an action or change actually being carried out by O’ but I argue that the its “from”

 

Talking about a state of being and a state of doing implies the existence of a duality. I suggest that this duality can be described in a unified way in terms of the more fundamental duality implied by the word “from”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To say that O is something is to associate a state of being with O, and since this state of being is defined as a state of doing we can infer that being and doing are equivalent and their relation exists as part of a unified framework within O. . is associated with an action (observation) we can say that the state of being is a state of doing and the concepts of being and doing exist within a combined framework within O which we cannot describe.

 

This seems to be somehow less than a definition and will require explanation. I could define O as being an observer but this would immediately create a paradox because “to be” is an action and we are requiring O to perform this action and thus be defined by this actionconflict with the undefinable nature of O. In order to remain sufficiently general I would rather associate concepts; we can see the concept of observation as being both included and/or excluded in relation to O because no concept of included/excluded exists for O. The only information that I would like to utilize from the approximation for now is the “from” nature of observation. In other words I am not assuming “an observer exists” or “something is observing” or anything that specific; I am purely interested in whatever element of observation is

 

 

, it is a mere association. It is like saying that “there exists some hypothetical description from any hypothetical perspective which includes the concept of “observer”.

 

Not nothing might be interpreted as “something”

 

I would like to explain the raw concept represented by what is written above.

 

 

 

 

and I make the following approximation:

 

O O’

 

where O’ is defined as an act of observation, but without specifying whether this act is discrete or continuous.

 

What can we infer using this definition? First, we can infer that something exists. If there was not a something, then there would be no symbols to represent the entities

 

I will accept that any act of defining this object statement made about the object is an approximation and that it is fundamentally unobservable in it’s not meet the criteria of it’s true nature I will describe an object and demonstrate that it is an approximation of this definition as well as the definition of reality. I will create this conceptual object using the following assumption:

 

Reality = Observation

 

I will use the symbol O to represent this definition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I define the act of observation as an act which leads only to awareness of state. I do not define whether observation is a discrete or continuous act and I leave open the possibility that doing is ultimately indistinguishable from being

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fundamental Analysis of an Information Process

 

Observe.

 

Using only the information represented by that word it is possible to derive a deeper fundamental nature of information itself and produce a model of physical reality. I will now begin to justify this statement.

 

I would like you to imagine a special object. Imagine a universe at t=0, in a state of singularity. No concept of space or time exists for this object. Whether we consider it to be infinitesimal or infinite is merely a case of the mental construct that we choose to imagine it with, and has no bearing on the nature of the object. It does not exist in relation to other objects or external influences because, with no space or time, it cannot be said to have an environment. I suggest that an equally valid (and equally insufficient) perspective is that it contains it's own environment or that it is it's environment. One could even say that it is all of these things and none of them because the concept of environment simply does not apply to the object, so relating this concept to the object is like relating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with the taste of an apple (totally nonsensical and untranslatable). In fact if this line of thinking is continued then it seems impossible even in principle for you to make any description of the object, and one could never make a direct observation of the singularity because this would require a universe which contains both the singularity and measuring equipment, which isn’t the case. With no way to measure it or even think about it what can we possibly say about this object? Perhaps just that it is “beyond all comprehension”.

 

In that case it wouldn’t even make sense to apply any label to it because an annoyingly deep philosopher might claim that the action of assigning, due to it’s nature as an action, imposes information onto the object and therefore changes it. I’m that annoying philosopher and to go even further I assert that the process of assigning or performing any action whatsoever in relation to the object would imply a lack of understanding of the true, deepest possible nature of the object. So for convenience I will create a new, different object and call it O and I will define O with O = O’ where O’ is a still newer object which represents the assumption that any kind of equivalency exists (“somewhere in reality something is equal to something but not necessarily vice versa”). I can now bring into existence an entity which This assumption does not imply with the assumption that some form of equivalency could in principle be used in the description of O.

 

 

of the original object in the case of two assumptions which form the basis of logic and reality. I suggest that the “true” nature of reality represents a state in which the assumptions are equivalent

 

0 = 0

The totality of all existence, in the most absolute and fundamental sense, includes at least one observation.

 

The first assumption allows for a concept of equality and neither assumption can be justified in more fundamental logical terms. What can we infer from these assumptions? Quite a lot it turns out.

 

 

Now let’s talk about O.

 

 

one key assumption being true. The assumption is this: reality includes at least 1 observer. This should be one of the most intuitively acceptable assumptions that one can make but we still cannot assume that it is true in the case of our original object. I will never refer to the original object again; from now on I will only describe O.

 

What observations can I make about O?

 

 

 

This is the part where I add one asymmetry in order to begin a description. The asymmetry that I add is:: the object is either describable or indescribable. This seems like an intuitive assumption because it is impossible to imagine any situation in which neither of these are true, but a deep thinker won't discount additional incomprehensible possibilities. I will refer to the original object as O and the object after this assumption as O'. You can see this as tying the knot on an infinite regression of "unknown unknowns". So we define O' as being equivalent to the state of O in the case that O is describable. Since I can at least type down a symbol for this entI claim that any description must be at least 1 element long. This seems intuitive as a description using no elements cannot be said to exist.

 

I would now like to examine the structure of O' based on the inference just made that a description of it contains at least one element. For convenience I will assume throughout this paper that an object is equivalent to a description of the object, so description and object can be used interchangeably. In other words by my definition the description of the object is the object, and we say that O' contains at least one element.

 

Let us now examine the special case where O' contains exactly 1 element and call our description after this this assumption O'1. I set the restriction that I cannot subtract information from the system. With no way of knowing anything about the element we can only say that if it exists then it is undefined, and if it doesn’t exist then it is defined by non-existence. We could say that in an object which does not exist but contains 1 element, the element represents the concept of non-existence. We can say that O'1 is “either undefined or does not exist” which is equivalent to saying it is “either undefined or equals zero”.

 

Now we examine the case where O’ contains exactly 2 elements and call this description O’2.

 

Now consider O’ with some finite number of elements n. We do not know what n is. In order for me to be aware of n would require that I perform a measurement on it, i.e. “look at it and check”, but I’ve set the constraint that I cannot interfere with the system in any way; all I have to work with is logic. I can therefore say that from my own external perspective n is undefined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For my entire life I have been an atheist. A few years ago I experienced a moment which, when I try to define it, I can only describe as spiritual. It was the moment at which a certain concept entered my mind. It seemed like the most beautiful concept imaginable, but I had no words or other methods of communicating it, even to myself. I've always spent a lot of time thinking, but after this concept entered my mind I began to think for longer periods, to the point where it became an obsession. The amazing thing is that, while I couldn't define this concept, I could still use it to examine other concepts. It seemed to be at the core of both physics and spirituality, and suddenly both sides made more sense. It turns out that I was in psychosis! But nonetheless I took the concept seriously and continued to ponder and research even outside of psychosis.

 

What has made the challenge of communicating the concept more difficult is that when I think about physics I usually think in terms of moving images and concepts, not words or equations, which adds a difficult step of translation. The best way that I could describe the concept was as an image with an associated feeling. Explaining the concept in religious terms seemed to be much easier because it had already been described in many ways across different cultures, such as Tau in traditional Chinese culture. In an effort to explain my own interpretation I started a book called "The Good Delusion" but eventually accepted that in order to be taken seriously by the modern world the idea must be presented as a structure of logic. This text is my attempt to create a structure of logic to form the basis of the concept. I will suggest that this logical basis can improve our understanding of physics by providing a unified framework with which to construct a physical model. I will refer to the concept as an object or system.

 

 

Fundamental Description of an Information Process

 

Claude E. Shannon characterized information processing as the conversion of latent information into manifest information. Latent information is that which is not yet realized or apparent, and manifest information is obvious or clearly apparent (Nursing Informatics and the Foundation of Knowledge, D. McGonigal, p23). I will describe a logical construct for the process involved in this definition.

 

I would like you to imagine a special object: a universe at t=0, in a state of singularity. No concept of space or time exists for this object. Whether we consider it to be infinitesimal or infinite is merely a case of the mental construct that we choose, and has no influence upon the state of the object. It does not exist in relation to other objects or external influences so it is not part of a larger system; we can use the word object or system interchangeably. We can imagine it a a point particle object or a system of infinite uniformity. Any meaningful description of information requires at least a pair of definable bits to give each other meaning, but in an object with no definable features no such pair exists. One can imagine this object (or system) as representing an unpaired bit of binary information: an unreal or unrealized bit which has not undergone an information process. As in the definition from Shannon, for for this object to be realized and become obvious, it would need to undergo an information process.

 

The nature of a process implies a concept of change, and change occurs within one or more dimensions. In order for this object or system to undergo a process it must change. With no external source of change I would like to suggest that the object itself is the cause of the change. The object performs an action upon itself to carry out this change. We cannot construct some definition of an action because we have no information to do so with, but we can assume that the object that we are imagining is an action. The system is therefore not static but active: it's definition is in terms of a fundamental action.

 

I would like to suggest that it would make sense if this action is the act of observation. Carrying out an observation would define the object as an observer (defining what it is by defining what it does), where the definition of an observer is to carry out acts of observation. The act of observation by my definition is a passive process that does not involve interaction with the environment and so it does not require the environment as an object for interaction. The observer therefore performs an act of self-observation. As a result, the system being observed becomes realized to the observer. We cannot contain both the observer and a mental state representing an observation (because that would create a division in our indivisible system), but represented as information there is no difference between a mental state and any other 'type' of state. We can only say that "one state leads to the other" without even distinguishing between the two. This implies a concept of change, but this change would only be manifest in the special case that we introduce the concept of time.

 

We cannot create some separate definition of time to add to the system; we can only associate an act of observation with an "act of time" and assume that the two are equivalent and indistinguishable in informational terms. We therefore classify continuous time as a continuous act of observation, or discrete time as discrete acts of observation, depending on which case we choose for our model. Let us imagine the situation evolving in discrete and continuous time separately to compare them.

 

Continuous time implies continuous observation, leading to a continuous spread which contains an infinite number of observations within any length except zero length (since it would imply non-existence of the system, which is a possibility, but then my writing would stop here). We can therefore say that the system must contain some range of time, which contains an infinite number of observations. Each observation is associated with a state of the system, so there are an infinite number of individual states. We could say with equal validity that there is a continuity of time of infinite length.

 

Discrete time implies discrete acts of observation. To assign any length to time is to assign length to an act of observation. No specific length can be chosen without adding information to the system. We can't say that "one" unit of time occurs, because this would select "one" as a special number and the observer would need to "know" that it must go "one step and then not one step", creating a binary system. This binary process would be associated with the end of any finite chain of observations, so there can only be an infinite number of observations.

 

I would like to suggest that we can include both options by associating continuity with the internal experience of the observer and discrete steps with external observations. By providing this distinction I must sacrifice the continuity of the system and say that a change has been forced by the internal/external distinction associated with our observer, and that one does not exist without the other. An external observation can be viewed as the observer "measuring the environment" and should be associated with the forwards direction of time. Internal experience could also be seen as internal observation, which equates to the opposite (backwards) direction of time. This agrees with our experience as observers if we assume that we do not ever perform an observation upon our own internal act of observation (or put another way internal experience is something that you feel, not observe).

 

We now have two scales of time: discrete time running forwards and continuous time running backwards. To relate the two scales let us assume that any discrete moment tn is connected to any continuous period Δtn, where n is an arbitrary integer. Discrete moments of external observation lead to discrete awareness of the state of the system at that moment. A continuous flow of internal observation leads to a continuous awareness of the internal state of the observer.

 

Discrete awareness implies a discrete state while continuous awareness implies a continuum. I suggest that we replace these terms with the terms "particle" and "field" respectively. If we assume that the system undergoes change then we cannot initially speak in terms of a particle, because it discrete (fixed) by definition. We can only associate change with a continuous field perspective of the system. The existence of any degree of change implies the existence of a continuum to take place in, and we can say that the change of a field is continuous in nature. Let us call our system T, and denote the change with ΔT. One can interpret T as the "particle view" of the system and ΔT as the "field view". What can we say about ΔT? The only change implied by the act of observation is the creation of awareness within the observer. Specifically the observer is made aware of some defined state of the system. We can therefore say that ΔT causes some defined state of the system. If we imagine our system "starting" in a state where it is undefined (represented by an unpaired piece of information as initially assumed) then we can say that it moves from this undefined state towards a defined state in the forwards direction of time. In the field view the system is a continuous, infinite process of change. In the particle view we can assign the label T to our initial undefined state and the label T' to the defined state, but we can only do this if we assume that T = T' in the particle view. If we include the imaginary entities of T and T' in the field view then we can consider them as existing at either end of an infinite continuum (therefore separated by infinite distance) which runs from T' to T (because we have associated the backwards direction of time with the field). If we include ΔT into our particle view then we can imagine it as existing in between the states T and T'. It does not appear possible to imagine the superposition of these views; it requires the combination of the concepts of change and position, but I would like to suggest that we use the following mental construct for convenience of thinking:

 

Our system begins in state T. A change ΔT propagates from a future point T' towards T. Upon completion of this propagation the system is in state T'.

 

Stated another way:

 

Our system begins in a state which is unrealized and undefined. A change propagates from a future state in which the system is defined. Upon completion of this propagation the system is in state T'.

 

Note that this description is equivalent to Shannon's definition of an information process, and we can therefore say that if our object exists then is an information process, and this process involves a continuum of internal states combined with discrete external states.

 

 

Let us examine the evolution of our system in more detail. Rather than saying "what can we observe about this system" let us ask "what does the observer observe about this system". The observer would observe a continuous internal self-awareness, as well as awareness of an external state. The internal awareness can be seen as the driving force of change, directed backwards in time to make the observer aware of reality "as it was a moment ago". Let us say that 1 step in time is associated with 1 unit of change, and 1 unit of change is defined as the realization of 1 bit of information (picture a 0 becoming a 1). This implies that each step is of equal length and any duration is linearly proportional to the number of bits which have been realized during that period. If we associate ΔT with a unit change then we can say that ΔT = 1 bit = constant.

 

We can imagine this situation according to two views, but either case is just a convenient mental construct. With an external view we can imagine an infinite series of evenly spaced moments, each different from the last, running from past to future. With an internal view we see the space "between" two steps, ΔT, which we have defined as a constant. These two views can be interpreted as a dimension extended over infinity or a curled up dimension which "sees it's own tail" and I will justify this description later. Any infinite series of different states can only be described by an infinite amount of information, but a curled up dimension can be seen as containing only 1 bit. How can we explain this discrepancy? First it helps to realize that each case exists on a scale which differs from the other by an order of infinity (any continuum consists of infinite indivisible parts). The situation could with equal validity be seen as an infinite chain of discrete entities where the entities are each separated by a continuum or contain a continuum, and in this case there would be equal number of discrete events as "continuums" (to use a word which should not actually have a plural), but we must then also accept that each continuum contains infinite parts creating a fractal of infinities within infinities (the system can be said to "contain itself"). I would like to suggest that the "real" nature of the system might best be defined using a very recent word: outformation. I will describe the definition of outformation and explain that it is equivalent in nature to our system.

 

Outformation is an entity which is both countable and uncountable but is made up of individual units, each representing a change. Each unit contains an infinite series of units but there is never a distinction between any unit and a unit it is contained within.

 

I suggest imagining changing the "zoom" on your mental image of an evenly distributed row of elements. If you zoom onto any element then you begin to see that it has width, and that it is in fact made of identical elements. To view elements contained within an element requires zooming by an infinite degree and so it can be assumed that only 1 scale of elements exists for any given level of zoom, i.e. from any objective viewpoint only "one infinity" of elements can be observed and not "more than one infinity".

 

Information in a binary system is usually represented with 0's and 1's. We should notice that in this notation the 0 does not represent the number zero; here it represents unrealized information. Early in my writing I introduced the object as existing outside of any concept of space or time, but I later introduced time and this was responsible with a conception of a state to "begin" with. This beginning state was described as undefined or unrealized. This is not a similar description to the number zero: an undefined state could hypothetically include any number of elements including no elements or infinite elements. With no way to specify a number of elements without adding information to the system we can assume that it must include either zero elements or infinite elements, and since zero elements implies non-existence we can say that it has infinite elements if time exists. This makes some sense with our conception of undefined because infinity itself is undefined (any defined number is not infinity). We can say that if time exists, from the viewpoint of any observer, the system includes an infinite number of elements. The source of binary distinction stems from the distinction between existence and non-existence, but we can simply view the non-existent states as being impossible to observe even in principle. Outside of time our system can be said be in a "unified state of both existence and non-existence" or "both defined and undefined". I will compare this with "both countable and uncountable" and, combined with imagery presented earlier in my writing, suggest that our definition of outformation is equivalent to that of our system.

 

Let us take a moment to make observations about our own reality. Our reality includes both an internal and an external world. I will refer to the external world as the universe. Even in principle it would be impossible for us to experience the moment of singularity so we can say that it cannot exist in our internal world. It appears impossible to perform a measurement upon the singularity so that we can say that it does not exist in the universe. We might say that the singularity exists beyond our universe and within each individual moment of our universe in an undefined state. We can talk about a period of time which occurs "in between" the singularity, where the singularity exists both before and after time. We can picture these as boundary conditions on both "sides" of time. If we are considering the external universe alone and ignoring any internal world then we can say that the universe moves between being infinitely undefined to being infinitely defined. We can recognize that this process may look like increasing physical entropy (few defined states towards many defined states). We might infer that something equivalent would occur within our internal world, except that due to time reversal we would see a change from undefined towards defined states (in other words a statistically random process leading from highly disordered to highly ordered states of mental being).

 

 

[[iNTRODUCE IMAGINARY TIME AND REVIEW]]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a final method of

 

We could say that our system moves from an initial state containing infinite elements to a final state of containing no elements, that there are infinite elements between these two states, and that each element contains the system. It is a piece of outformation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

described by 1 bit of information being realized. , and we assume that the informational content of each state is identical, we can say that each step in time is of the same length, so ΔT = constant. The state must change at each step because the existence of any state is dependent on the existence of change.

 

This process includes a series of defined states separated by periods of change

 

Viewed on an

 

I would now like to make an assumption which I will justify later. Each discrete step in time is associated with a fixed amount of change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the same awareness as would also be directed into the future, and would be receiving defined results from a process that happens a moment later. If we could experience an external reality then it would be discreteWhy does our own view of the outside world not seem discrete? When we look at the world we don't experience separate frames of reality; it is always a continuous flow. If we think about it we can realize that since we are not aware of moments in which we are not observing we can only experience reality in a continuous way. In other words whether we consider time to be continuous and flowing backwards or discrete and flowing forwards does not or discrete doesn't effect the continuous feel of existence. However this does mean that for any given duration of internal experience there is an associated integer number of external states.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the observer considers these to be part of "one world" then a description of that would would necessarily include self-awareness but would not necessarily include external awareness that world includes both the sense of self-awareness and The observer could only ever say that there is "one world" which includes both it's own self-awareness and Awareness directed externally would see the defined results of changes propagating from the future. The observer would not necessarily be aware of it's own physical structure, except in one special case. If the observer is able to sense The physical str reality "as it was a moment ago"(which is directed backwards in time and propagates a change towards a past moment). One might say that the observer experiences the universe "as it was a moment ago". The observer cannot possibly choose a specific moment to observe for any length of time because individual observations , because To choose any specific moment The observer cannot be said to For any given moment T Any given moment T can be said to be in a state of being defined by a future moment.

 

 

Taking a particle view we can say that at any given moment the system is in some defined state, but by specifying a time we cannot "do the defining" and say what the state actually is. From the field view if we were to select any moment T from the continuum we can say that the system is undergoing an infinitesimal change dt. If we select any two times T and T'

 

What does a combined perspective look like?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This seems to present us with a situation which seems "impossible to imagine"; a field view with no sense of beginning or end, which suggests that the system approaches infinite change between states of absolute polarity, and a particle view in which "other" states do not exist. . . external, discrete observations be denoted by the word "particles" and an internal, continuous observation be denoted by the word "field". We can say that a field is associated with a change ΔT between two states of a particle T and T'. We could assume that a field causes the change in state of a particle, or that the change of state of a particle causes a field between those states, both with equal validity. We can also choose our starting point (t=0) as being at T or T' with equal validity. If we say that T is our starting point and T' happens 'later' then we are forced to imagine our field as an entity which runs in the opposite direction, from T' to T. We could interpret this as information travelling continuously via a field from a future point T' to a present point T, at which time the particle changes instantaneously from the state T to T'. While the change of state is instantaneous it still has an associated period, ΔT, which would set a fixed duration for steps of repeated observation. Note that we can refer to the discrete states T and T' as discrete, defined states of being while ΔT can be seen as a continuous period of doing.

 

Can we say anything about the nature of difference between T and T'? The action being carried out is observation, so we can say that any change must be as a direct result of of this action. We know that the effect of observation is to make an observer aware of the state of a system. Therefore a system being observed would become defined or realized "within the mind" of the observer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[show that time directions are equivalent from respective perspectives]

 

If our universe has a beginning then that would suggest some first moment of time, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to select any moment as being the one to start with. However I will demonstrate that any choice has the same result, meaning that a choice would not break symmetry in our system.

 

Let us pretend that the observer experiences some length of time Δt which we we associate with 1 discrete step forwards in time, and associate that with 1 act of observation, leading to awareness of the system in a specific state. If we assume that a change in state of the system has occurred during that time then our observer must become aware of something different to itself. Our system would then need to contain "an observer", "something different", and "a mental image of something different".

 

 

 

I would like to suggest that in the absence of any method by which to choose between the binary options of discrete or continuous we must include both, but we must do so in a way which does not create any real distinction between them. Acts of observation which are directed inwards or outwards are associated with time flowing backwards or forwards, but an observer only experiences The continuous experience of an observer would be locked of time: forwards and backwardsor observation; one which is discrete and one which is continuous, both of which lead to a continuous experience for the observer. In the absence of any method to choose between them we might wonder how to move forward, and at this point I would like to observe that in our own universe we experience continuity within ourselves but external events appear discrete according to quantum physics. From this observation I infer that if an observer experiences anything at all (i.e. it exists in time) then it must gain a degree of freedom to direct observation "internally" or "externally".

 

In more generic terms we can see this binary arrangement as being created by the addition of change which is associated with the addition of time. Any concept of change requires time. But our observer particle cannot spontaneously choose one of two options. The observer cannot make no choice because that would imply that it didn't exist in the first place. Without any method of choosing, it must then perform both actions, and each would be equivalent to the other. We can consider either situation separately and the difference is nothing but our use of mental image. The observer is either a particle in a continuity which observes "towards the outside" or the observer is a continuity and observes "inwards".

 

 

 

 

 

. the two are equivalent so all that can be said is that "one follows the other", without even distinguishing between "one" and "other".

 

 

 

 

inside an observer within this indivisible system, so imagine an observer and some mental image of an observer a both existing in our system, so the mental image replaces the object. We might realize that they are equivalent in every way other than that the existence of the mental image occurs after the existence of original object, but this distinction only becomes meaningful if we introduce the concept of time.

 

 

 

Upon performing this action it follows that the object being observed becomes realized or defined in the mind of the observer, i.e. the observer becomes aware of the state of whatever system is being observed. The observer is therefore aware of it's state as an observer.

 

 

 

 

 

In other words it's existence is not defined in terms of the static state of an object or system, implies not the existence of some static state of an object or system but a fundamental action.

 

I suggest that the object fundamentally represents both a state of being and a state of doing simultaniously

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

In this paper I will describe the nature of a dimension in terms of a unit of information processing combined with the existence of an observer. I will show that a multidimensional version of this process can be used to create a model of the physical universe.

 

Analysis of an Information Process

 

Claude E. Shannon characterized information processing as the conversion of latent information into manifest information. Latent information is that which is not yet realized or apparent, and manifest information is obvious or clearly apparent (Nursing Informatics and the Foundation of Knowledge, D. McGonigal, p23). To create a mental picture of my model I would like you to imagine a universe at the moment of singularity at it's big bang, before the existence of any dimensions. Assume that this indivisible singularity can be represented by 1 bit of information which has not yet been realized. We could also assume that this bit of information represents a point particle rather than the universe, but the choices would be equivalent because at singularity the universe is a point particle.

 

Assume that the system includes an observer, or specifically that the point particle is the observer. I would like to talk about what would be observed by the observer in the system.

 

Observation is a special type of action because by it's definition it is void of any interaction with the environment. However, there are still two things which happen due to observation which we can describe. The observer becomes aware of the system being observed, so we can say that an observation "provides the observer with awareness of a system". We can further say that the act of observation leads to the object (system being observed) becoming defined, or realized, in the awareness of the observer. So we are presented with the dual events of the subject "becoming aware" and the object "becoming realized". More generally we can view these as processes of 'doing' and 'becoming' which lead to a system changing from an unrealized to a realized state.

 

Since the universe we are imagining is in a state of singularity there is no subject or object to distinguish between. Any act of observation could only be performed from the observer particle upon itself, and so it would simultaneously undergo processes of observing and becoming realized. Let us assign a length of time Δt to the duration of these processes, after which the system is in a state of being fully defined. We have said that our system can be described by a single bit of information so it becomes fully realized once this 1 bit has been fully observed.

 

We can describe the system as a single unit of information processing; a piece of latent information undergoes a process to become a piece of realized information.

 

I would not like to make a distinction between continuous time and discrete time and examine the scenario from a viewpoint of each. If time is discrete then it would make sense to assign a single unit of time to this single information process. We can then say that the observer experiences 1 moment of awareness after 1 unit of time at which point it is fully realized to itself. If time is continuous then then Δt can be divided into an infinite number of moments, each of which is experienced by the observer. This implies an infinite number of states to observe which exist between states of no realization and full realization, which poses a problem because we have stated that the entire system can be represented by a single bit of information. To assign observable states to each of an infinite number of moments would require an infinite amount of information.

 

 

 

 

I would now like to make the following assumptions:

The observer

The subjective experience of an observer is made up of a continuous flow of moments where the observer is fully aware of the object being observed

If an object

Any selected time within the flow of subjective experience is associated with a moment of full awareness of the state of the system

An observer does not experience any period of time during which it is only partially aware of an observation, i.e. only a moment of complete awareness is associated with experience

A single moment of awareness can only be associated with awareness of the full state of a system at that moment, and there is no

The state of any finite system can be represented by a finite number of bits of information, and full realization implies awareness of of all the bits making up that state

The subjective experience of any observer is made up of a continuous flow of consecutive moments of awareness

Using these assumptions I would like to contrast the subjective experience of the observer within our system with your own external experience of the system.

 

Analysis of Dimensions

 

In the scenario described above involves an action, which we assume is a process, taking place over a period of time Δt. We can say that at the first moment of this process the system is fully unrealized, and at the moment of completion the system is fully realized. The process of transformation is contained between those two specific moments in time. There are two ways that we can assign What can we say about the subjective experience of the observer? This depends on a choice of whether we consider experience to be discrete or continuous. If experience is continuous, made up of a series of infinitesimal moments of awareness, then we can say that the observer experiences what happens during Δt and that it requires infinite time to complete this experience. If experience is discrete then it makes intuitive sense to associate a moment of awareness only with the full completion of becoming realized, and so the observer experiences a single moment of awareness at point of being fully realized.

 

We can now make a choice to view the situation in two ways, and I will demonstrate that both are valid and occur simultaneously. Viewing the subjective experience of the observer we have two options. Either the observer experiences the process contained within Δt, or it experiences only the first and final moments of this process. Since we are talking about a single bit it might make more sense to view

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the perspective of the particle itself these two states exist simultaneously: for every act of observation there is a simultaneous moment of awareness. Now let us imagine that an act of observation is a process which requires a fixed time to complete. At the start of such a time period we say that the particle has "maximum potential for observation" called Po, and the particle expends that potential over that time period. During that same period the particle undergoes a process of "becoming realized" called Pr. We say that Po and Pr are inversely proportional and add to 1 at any given frame of time. But as Since the system is both the subject and object in our action, it has the choice between a state of 'being' and a state of 'doing'. The particle may look at itself If the system does not observe itself then achieved a distinction between two states of the system. We have defined states of 'being' associated with moments of awareness and we have undefined states of 'doing' associated with carrying out acts of awareness. We can consider these states as 'occurring' or 'existing' individually or simultaneously depending on what convention we use. For example if they occur separately then we could associate 'being' with t1, t2 etc. and 'doing' with (delta)t1, (delta)t2 etc., or if they happen of they occur simultaneously we can use t1, t2 etc. to denote states of both.

 

 

Let's go back to our singularity. At t=0 the particle performs it's first act of observation and produces an associated moment of awareness. That moment of awareness produces the state of the system. We have previously defined the system as an observer particle, and so the defined state produced by our moment of awareness is an observer particle. We have reproduced the initial state and achieved a static universe which remains in a state of singularity. A sequence of time in this universe might be represented by a string of binary 0's but without their 1 counterpart to give them meaning.

 

We have missed the fact that the introduction of a time dimension allows for a degree of freedom. If we examine the act of observation we can note that it's source can either be from a past version of itself or, with equal validity, a future version. In other words acts of observation can flow both backwards and forwards. We can visualize our system over a stretch of time as a string of 0's separated by acts of observation both from themselves and towards themselves in both directions, as represented below.

 

0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0 <-> 0

 

When examining any single element of this chain we note that in each case the particle must still make a choice between

 

 

 

This seems to be a roadblock, and to get past it we must not ignore the degree of freedom provided by the addition of time. We have assumed that the particle is

 

"observe outside observe inside"

 

We can separate the states which exist at our moments of awareness and those which exist between moments of awareness.

 

We have We can see this gain in knowledge of state as the difference that has occurred between t=0 and t=1. There are different ways that we can imagine the contents of the system at t=1, after an initial act of observation has occurred. . What does it observe? The system being observed is the particle itself, and so the observer becomes momentarily aware of an observer. You can say that it observes itself This can be considered a separate observer if one accepts that the only change which has occurred is a step in timeDuring that step of time it becomes aware of the system being observed, which includes only itself, and it therefore observes the existence of an observer.

 

Introducing an action (even the 'inactive' action of observation) requires some notion of time due to the we require some notion of changetime, because any action has a from/towards nature (from subject towards object). If the observer particle performs an act of observation then this act must be carried out across some length of time. We can associate any moment of observation with a moment of time, which I will call (delta)t. We have not introduced the existence of an object for our particle to observe, and so during (delta)t immediately following the singularity our particle has nothing to observe other than itself. During this initial act of self-observation the particle becomes aware of it's defining feature (that it is an observer), and so it becomes defined (from it's own point of view). We can recognize this process as being equivalent in definition to an information process. The key point that I would like to make here is that the system includes two states which form a duality, and these states depend on the existence or non-existence of a state of observation.

 

There are several ways to view this duality, and I have listed some below.

 

Outside of observation event - Inside of observation event

Before - During

Unrealized - Realized

Latent - Manifest

Undefined - Defined

Not measuring - Measuring

 

serg

 

 

 

 

 

[talk about the subjective experience of the particle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What can we say at this point about the universe we are imagining? The objective assumption that we have just made about this particle as an observer adds a duality to the system. An observer performs the act of observation, and the nature of this act is inherently directional because it comes from 'within' the observer particle towards the 'outside' the particle. We have added to the system a perspective; the subjective perspective of the observer particle as it makes an observation.

 

 

 

 

 

Any information process can be represented as a series of 0's and 1's. Each step can be represented as a state either remaining the same or becoming different, and at each step there are two possible states which can be manifested next (a fact which is continuous across the entire information process). The convention of using the terms 0 and 1 is a redundant choice, as each symbol represents nothing other than difference when compared to the other. In other words we can't say anything more about the specific nature of the 0 when compared to the 1.

 

I would like to demonstrate that in one specific configuration one can explain the information process in a logical [Reality is the link I posted:power of suggestion]