Did an advanced search for 'fifth dimension' posted by Posibility and read several posts from various topics.

Fifth dimension is affected. I happen to be familiar with modern neurological models so I'm able to appreciate this relatively well, I believe. The theory of constructed emotion was a real mind-bender for me. Sixth dimension metaphysics, from what I could briefly glean, holds that awareness, connection, and collaboration is inherent to everything, in an apparent attempt to unify everything from morals to the behavior of photons.

If nothing else, I at least now understand why Possibility chose Possibility for a name, out of all the possibilities.

I’ll read about it though. — praxis

Since you seem to be offended by my eccentric approach to Metaphysics, how would you describe, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread?

"Sixth dimension metaphysics, from what I could briefly glean, holds that awareness, connection, and collaboration is inherent to everything, in an apparent attempt to unify everything from morals to the behavior of photons." ____Praxis

I just wanted to try and clear this up before we go any further. — Possibility

Although I'm still in the dark about "constructed emotions" and such, it seems that the general gist of your Multidimensional theory is similar to my own worldview, in that Consciousness (awareness, connection, & collaboration) is "inherent to everything". But the details and implications may differ.

So, I'd like see how you would summarize the Information Theory that I've been defending in this thread, in your own words.

Meaning, perhaps storage of other EM field's of consciousness exist in yet another Dimension. — 3017amen

Did Wheeler use terms like "other dimensions" in his musings on " matter, energy, and information"? Did he associate Information with physical Electro-Magnetic fields?

Since you don't seem to be offended by my unusual worldview, I'd like to see how you would summarize, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread.

I’ll read about it though.
— praxis

Since you seem to be offended by my eccentric approach to Metaphysics, how would you describe, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread? — Gnomon

Offense, eccentricity, or your approach to anything is beside the point, as I've mentioned several times my concern is communication, and the issue started with your claim that metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse. That indicates that there's something wrong with your concept of metaphysics.

From what I understand Information theory is not your theory. In general though, my impression is that it's merely a way of looking at things. A hammer can be a hammer, or a paperweight, or a weapon, or information, etc etc etc. When you want salt you don't say, "please pass the information," you ask for salt. One the other hand, what is salt but information, or rather, patterns of sense data that a brain has been trained to recognize as salt.

To say that anything is one thing or another is dualistic and itself an event that necessarily has a purpose. It makes no difference if something is information or anything else if there is no purpose for making the distinction.

Information is that which eats away at entropy.

You seem to be focusing on our differences, but communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities. However, communication of novel concepts in Science and Philosophy is seldom presented in the vocabulary of the masses. Instead, it is first directed at those who are already well-versed in the technical language of a particular field. — Gnomon

This is a discussion centred around information theories, and information is about difference. “Communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities” seems to me a misunderstanding of what information theory is all about. The problem is that neither of us are particularly well-versed in the technical language of any particular field, are we? I’m still in the process of trying to ‘dumb down’ my theory, and you refuse to make any concerted effort to understand the quantum and Platonic theories behind your own ideas, let alone the quantum and neuroscience theories behind mine.

So you just give-up on putting your ideas into specific words, and rely on ESP? When you present specific ideas in vague general ("uncertain & variable") terms, a few people may grasp your meaning intuitively, but you'll never know for sure if they grokked your meaning or made-up their own meaning. In Shannon's Information Theory, successful communication can be verified to make sure what was received is what was sent. — Gnomon

If you think I’m relying ESP, then it would seem you are deliberately dismissing any opportunity to think for yourself. I cannot presume to know how you think - I need you to attempt to make sense of the information I’ve presented, before I can make adjustments to my explanations. We’re not dealing with actualities here. When you say ‘grasp your meaning intuitively’, you are relying on unconscious processes to do the work for you. I’m inviting you to be more aware of the process - to recognise that you CAN be more aware of how you relate to and integrate new information at a conceptual level. I have no ownership of meaning, all I can do is give you information about the view from my position, encourage you to use that information to try and locate what I’m referring to from where you are and give me information about the view from your position, allowing me to continually adjust the information I provide based on the difference between your position and mine relative to meaning, so that at some point we might approach a shared relation to meaning.

In Shannon’s Information Theory, semantic meaning has nothing to do with it:

Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. — Shannon, C. (1948). “The Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal, 27: 379-423.

Of course not. All I can hope to do, is throw a lot of mud on the wall, and hope some of it sticks. — Gnomon

It can be more systematic than that, if you stop assuming it’s ‘intuitive’ and do a little self-reflective reasoning.

It's called analysis of complexity into simple components. Are you opposed to analytical thinking? I understand that your notion of a Fifth Dimension is a broad concept. But couldn't you break it down into smaller chunks, that babies like me can digest? I still think your Multidimensional worldview may be compatible with my Information-based worldview. But your presentation has been so deliberately vague and non-committal that I can't be sure what you're talking about. — Gnomon

First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation. If you want to behave a like a baby, that’s your choice. I will continue to assume you are intelligent enough to think for yourself.

I recognise that my theory is fuzzy at best, which can be frustrating for analytical thinkers. It’s a work in progress, and I’ve never pretended it was ready for presentation. But most analytical thinkers can approach the theory from a mathematical perspective, at least. I’m not opposed to analytical thinking - I’m just not very good at it, I’m afraid. I understand the reductionist process, but the ‘simple components’ are the supporting theories I have already referred to a number of times: Carlo Rovelli’s four-dimensional relational structure based on quantum field theory; Feldman Barrett’s theory of constructed emotions and concept cascades; the mathematical plausibility of six dimensions demonstrated in String Theory; The rest I have tried to explain, and you have tried to ignore, it seems. But I will try to answer your questions as best I can in a later post.

It's been a very intriguing thread. I'm a John Wheeler/Physicist fan, and enjoy reading his theories about Information, thus (excerpt from a paper on conscious thoughts occurring 'outside' the brain/ Dirk K.F. Meijer, University of Groningen, The Netherlands) :

"Can our personal information survive?

This is where the "information theory", mentioned above, comes into play. Assuming with Wheeler that everything in the universe is composed of matter, energy, and information, according to the “Energy Conservation Law”, energy cannot be destroyed. It follows that also the information that constitutes us, may not disappear altogether. In this context, Prof. Meijer brings me back to the supposed consciousness workspace, that preserves an up-to-date picture of our total personal state of art. "If quantum information, like energy, cannot be destroyed, it is theoretical possible that when our brain dies, when we pass away, the information stored around our brain survives in some other dimension, an aspect that may be revealed in NDE conditions." — 3017amen

If information ‘stored’ in our brain were able to ‘survive’ beyond death, I believe it would do so in a form of energy that is devoid of the meaning and value it has in our mind, because the relational structures that enable this storage and retrieval system to operate rely on an ongoing dissipation of energy. Quantum information is not ‘stored’ in the conventional sense, because it refers to structures of potential energy, not actual. It exists as part of a quantum system - in order to attain this information, one needs to enter into a superposition state with the quantum system in which this information is integrated. While that’s possible enough to achieve while someone is alive, after death this quantum system is unsustainable. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be possible to eventually determine how to fully reduce, transmit and reconstruct some of this five-dimensional information before death, but currently the energy requirement to even attempt to transmit a barely noticeable portion of that information digitally remains prohibitive. Not to mention that we don’t understand how to reduce most of it.

NDE conditions, in my view, suggest not so much a survival of quantum information, but perhaps a moment of experiential shift whereby the prediction of the interoceptive system (affect) is finally unconstrained by the continual effort and attention requirements and limitations of a living organism. It might be a question of: what would you do in the next moment if you weren’t limited by what your body felt it could or needed to do in that moment? It might be worth bringing this ‘consciousness workspace’ together with Feldman Barrett’s ‘interoception of affect’ and see what happens...

FWIW, I believe that the information that constitutes us continues in those with whom we relate on a five-dimensional (affected) or six-dimensional (meaningful) level. The extent to which we interact with other quantum systems in these superposition states enables us to share or transmit the value, potential and meaning of who we are with the world, whether or not they’re aware of it as such. That’s really the only way this information can survive.

Is it a spiritual plane, or a physical dimension? Please give me some "narrow" bites that I can masticate with sore gums. :yum:

For example : What do "each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ " have in common? How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions? Who are some published authors, Scientists or New Agers, that have presented ideas similar to yours? — Gnomon

Is it a spiritual plane or a physical dimension?
Both, and neither. Sorry - not a very helpful start, is it?

If you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ in isolation from the other four, as a dimension that relates to physical reality as an entity, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘spiritual plane’, in much the same way as physicists often refer to quantum information in terms of physical ‘fields’.

Two of the three dictionary definitions of ‘physical’ are opposed to mental (so I assume you don’t mean ‘physical’ in that sense), but the third is less exclusive: Physical - relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally.

So if you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ as relative to the other four dimensions (at least), not as something other than physics, but as part of the natural forces of the universe, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘physical dimension’.

Both terms refer to what this fifth dimension is, but neither term alone defines it.

What do each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ have in common?
They describe a difference from empirical reality in a way that can be understood as equally real and ‘physical’ in its own right.

How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions?
The way I understand it, ‘spiritual’ dimensions are seen as non-spatial and exclusive, accessible only through certain channels; whereas the mathematical definitions interpret a ‘fifth dimension’ as an isolated four-dimensional reality, with its own spatial existence.

Who are some published authors, scientists or new agers, that have presented similar ideas?
I’m not aware of any, to be honest. Those whose theories seem to approach a similar idea I have already mentioned, including Deacon (from what I’ve read so far). I continue to think that perhaps I’m missing some understanding that’s obvious to everyone else and when finally pointed out to me will dissolve my theory into nothing, but everything I read seems to support the theory from a certain angle, while remaining ignorant of the whole picture.

I continue to think that perhaps I’m missing some understanding that’s obvious to everyone else and when finally pointed out to me will dissolve my theory into nothing, but everything I read seems to support the theory from a certain angle, while remaining ignorant of the whole picture. — Possibility

The first thing that comes to mind for me, and I could be way off-base from not fully grasping your theory, is that what’s at the core of human morality, and perhaps everything human, may simply be procreation. So if human awareness, connection, and collaboration are fundamental to the universe then the universe is all about procreation? In what sense could that be seen as true, assuming the thought is not wildly off-base?

That indicates that there's something wrong with your concept of metaphysics. — praxis

Yes. It's different from your traditional definition, which you have never stated explicitly. And you've never explained exactly what is "wrong" with my information-based definition, except that you don't like it. Is that due to gross prejudice, or to spelled-out reasons?

My definition is intended to draw a meaningful distinction between Physics and Metaphysics, as a first step to understanding how "Information" can be in both camps. Is your preferred definition more like Kant's or Aristotle's? :cool:

Kant's Metaphysics : Kant proposed an alternative metaphysics, which retains an a priori element, but confines it to objects of sense-experience.
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi151old/KANTMETA.HTM
[ Note : My alternative definition is more like Aristotle's, in that it is limited to mental reasoning (metaphysics) rather than sense experience (physics). ]

Aristotle's Metaphysics : Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being, or wisdom, or theology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/
[Note : which of those topics is limited to sense experience? You can sense a physical being with your physical senses, but how do you know anything about the abstract concept of being qua being?]

Metaphysics and Being Qua Being : So too, he said, are there many senses in which things can be said to exist. Thus, it seems, there can be no science of existence and of universal causes, and so there can be no metaphysics. . . . Aristotle's solution is to demonstrate that there is a single, 'fundamental' sense of 'exist' from which the other senses derive, and that that sense of 'exist' is the subject of metaphysics.
https://sites.google.com/a/acrewoods.net/home/library/aristotle/metaphysics-and-being-qua-being
[ that "fundamental concept of being qua being is what I call BEING ]

BEING : In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

You're speaking in riddles again, Gnomon, which is fine, but it's getting old.

. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind — Gnomon

In my opinion, you are drawing a line that doesn't exist. Physics is just as concerned with conceiving as with perceiving. Is spacetime a metaphysical conception? :chin:

Both, and neither. Sorry - not a very helpful start, is it? — Possibility

Well, the assertion plus negation is confusing to the mortal mind. But then, my personal philosophy is called BothAnd. So, I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, only if you will explain the correlation between a "spiritual plane" and a "physical dimension". I'm cool with the BothAnd concept of Yin/Yang, but refers to parts of a whole system, not to separate planes of existence.

Spiritual Plane : In esoteric cosmology, a plane is conceived as a subtle state, level, or region of reality, each plane corresponding to some type, kind, or category of being.
[Note : by calling a spiritual plane "subtle", mystics are trying to explain why scientists are unable to detect and measure it. How do you personally detect and measure the Fifth Dimension? ]

So if you consider the ‘fifth dimension’ as relative to the other four dimensions (at least), not as something other than physics, but as part of the natural forces of the universe, then it makes sense to refer to it as a ‘physical dimension’. — Possibility

Most physicists would place the Fifth Dimension under the heading of Super-natural forces. I'm more sympathetic to your implication, but I call such "forces" meta-physical.

Can you give me a link to that third definition of Physics? I don't find it with a quick search. Here's the Google definitions of "Physical", which corresponds to how I use the term.
1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
[ Note : these two definitions don't cover your yes & no interpretation. But the Enformationism thesis goes into great detail to show how those "opposed" concepts are inter-related as different forms of universal Information. ]

Both terms refer to what this fifth dimension is, but neither term alone defines it. — Possibility

Can you summarize your fourth definition, which combines the other two into a single concept? My definition of Information does exactly that.

a difference from empirical reality — Possibility

Which of the Scientific definitions I linked to describe "a difference from empirical reality". The New Age definition, which you rejected early in this thread does try to distinguish a series of non-physical spiritual planes from the measurable dimensions of empirical (physical senses) Science.

Anyway, here's a word of caution from a person who reads Auras for a living :
5th Dimension Nonsense : https://www.rose-rosetree.com/blog/2020/01/04/5th-dimension-nonsense-serious-warning/

New Age Fifth Dimension : https://andreaoneness.com/fifth-dimension/
[ Note : Treats metaphysical Consciousness as-if it is a physical place in space with multiple layers, similar to the ancient notion of seven heavens. Is that metaphor accurate? How do you know? Have you been there . . . physically? Does God live on one of those dimensions? ]

‘spiritual’ dimensions are seen as non-spatial and exclusive, accessible only through certain channels; — Possibility

Interesting! Are you a certified channeler? Do you convey messages from those "exclusive" planes to those of us stuck here on this mundane plane? Mystics have written dozens of books to describe their experiences in those spiritual planes or states. Can you give me an example of one of your extra-dimensional experiences? Are they similar to out-of-body experiences? ]

Those whose theories seem to approach a similar idea I have already mentioned, including Deacon (from what I’ve read so far). — Possibility

I've read Deacon's Incomplete Nature twice, and several related books, but I don't remember any references to higher "dimensions" or "planes". I just checked, and those terms are not in the index. But the word "information" occurs in the index many times. Can you quote a reference relevant to our discussion? :nerd:

First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation. — Possibility

I am trying to be defend my thesis without being offensive. Is that what you call "passive-aggressive"? You and Praxis have been attacking my thesis from the beginning, even as you admit to knowing little or nothing about it. And you have offered no positive alternatives, except vague "maybes" and oxymorons such as "both & neither" .

Based on his questions, Praxis doesn't even understand your theory any more than I do. Apparently the notion of sublime planes of existence is more attractive to him than the idea that mundane Information is the essence of Reality and Ideality. You have been rather gentle with your deprecations, but Praxis has simply been trolling. So, if it's alright with you, I will continue to respond to the put-downs without reacting in kind. :cool:

Praxis has simply been trolling. — Gnomon

I wrote a sincere post about my impression of information theory as you requested. It's your choice to respond, of course, but it's indisputable evidence of non-trolling interest and conduct.

Granted I've been unnecessarily rude. I've gained interest in the topic and would like to be more cooperative. You cannot fault Possibility's conduct, by the way, which has been remarkable by any standard.

@Gnomon I’m wondering if you’re familiar with this guy.

In my opinion, you are drawing a line that doesn't exist. Physics is just as concerned withconceiving as with perceiving. Is spacetime a metaphysical conception? — jgill

Yes. Physics does both empirical perceiving and theoretical conceiving. But the latter is more like philosophical mind-work, than empirical sense-work. I am simply making the same meaningful distinction as earlier philosophers made, between Pragmatic Science and Theoretical Philosophy. Theoretical Physics is non-empirical. Someone once asked Einstein where his lab was, and he held-up a pencil.

Aquinas Metaphysics : There are thus correspondingly two distinct classes of science: speculative science and practical science.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/

Theoretical vs Empirical Science : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/philosophy-begins-where-physics-ends-and-vice-versa/

Yes. Space-time is meta-physical, in the sense the we imagine those "dimensions", but don't sense them physically. I'm drawing a line between empirical Physics (natural philosophy) and theoretical Science (metaphysical philosophy). The latter is actually speculative Philosophy. Dark Matter and Dark Energy and String Theory are current areas of research that have no sensible matter to measure, and depend on mathematical, not empirical, data..

Space & Time : In 1781, Immanuel Kant published the Critique of Pure Reason, one of the most influential works in the history of the philosophy of space and time. He describes time as an a priori notion that, together with other a priori notions such as space, allows us to comprehend sense experience. Kant holds that neither space nor time are substance, entities in themselves, or learned by experience; he holds, rather, that both are elements of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time

The first thing that comes to mind for me, and I could be way off-base from not fully grasping your theory, is that what’s at the core of human morality, and perhaps everything human, may simply be procreation. So if human awareness, connection, and collaboration are fundamental to the universe then the universe is all about procreation? In what sense could that be seen as true, assuming the thought is not wildly off-base? — praxis

It’s interesting that your initial thought was simply procreation. If it was only about human awareness, connection and collaboration for its own sake, then our ‘instinctual’ drives to survive, procreate and/or dominate come across as fundamental to the universe. This rather narrow idea is that the universe cannot do without us, that our capacity (not event that - our mere existence) is the pinnacle and purpose of existence. Indeed, when we ignore the truth of our relation to four-dimensional physics, this assumption that the universe exists for humanity is even more pronounced.

The challenge of six-dimensional metaphysics argues that this is a limited perspective of reality. Increasing awareness of our relation to existence at each dimensional level brings us face to face with the temporary, fragile and insubstantial nature of this relation. The universe would not mourn our loss, should we drive ourselves to self-destruction or put a stop to procreation altogether. The idea that humanity is the source of all value and meaning in the universe has been falsified by both science and spirituality, but we struggle to make sense of this in relation to our own experience of existence.

Awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion in six-dimensional metaphysics occurs to some extent in every relational structure, from virtual particles to the Greek notion of agape. It forms the basis of matter, cause and effect and this notion of the will. It’s only in integrated fifth and sixth dimensional relations that sufficient information is acquired to develop conscious awareness, connection and collaboration with the three-step process itself.

The human organism is a relational structure in five dimensions. Within and between such structures, meaning as a six-dimensional relation is constrained by a limited human perception of value and potential. The most common denominators in the awareness, connection and collaboration of human perceived potential (ie. survival, procreation and/or dominance) is often perceived as the meaning of all existence.

But we are not the only source of value and meaning in the universe. In fact, our impact has barely registered notice at all beyond our solar system - and even within, it can hardly be considered a positive impact. The scope of that isolation alone should give us pause, but the idea that our sense of human morality pertains to this universe that largely ignores us seems hilarious at best. In my view, it is not what we do for ourselves, but what we strive to understand in relation to the entire scope of existence that matters to the universe. Procreation has proved effective in transferring information to some extent, but it is our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration well beyond the importance of our own existence, species, planet and galaxy that is of the most value to a universe whose ultimate purpose seems to have always been to matter.

First of all, I would appreciate if you would stop the passive-aggressive self-deprecation.
— Possibility
I am trying to be defend my thesis without being offensive. Is that what you call "passive-aggressive"? You have been attacking my thesis from the beginning, even as you admit to knowing little or nothing about it. And you have offered no positive alternatives.

Based on your questions, you don't even understand Possibility's theory any more than I do. Apparently the notion of sublime planes of existence is more attractive to you than the idea that mundane Information is the essence of Reality and Ideality. If it's alright with you, I will continue to respond to your put-downs without reacting in kind. :cool: — Gnomon

Might want to check who you’re speaking to before you attack...

What I call ‘passive-aggressive self-deprecation’ is your continual reference to yourself as dumb, stupid, baby, lacking in intelligence, education, etc - none of which I have even implied. Offering your neck to the chopping block is not a constructive way to defend anything.

Praxis can be uncharitable at times, but not always - the more constructive criticisms of your thesis need not be based on having an alternative, but rather on challenging you to do the work required to formulate a sound thesis in the first place. Your ‘thesis’ is a belief system at this stage, and as such is not ready to defend, I’m afraid. You don’t (and refuse to) understand the theories you prop it up with, and instead take every criticism as a personal attack. My theory is far from ready to defend either, by the way, so I certainly don’t mean that as an unfavourable comparison.

Can you give me a link to that third definition of Physics? I don't find it with a quick search. Here's the Google definitions of "Physical", which corresponds to how I use the term.
1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
[ Note : these two definitions don't cover your yes & no interpretation. But the Enformationism thesis goes into great detail to show how those "opposed" concepts are inter-related as different forms of universal Information. ] — Gnomon

Just hit ‘Translations and more definitions’ at the bottom of the entry.

our capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration well beyond the importance of our own existence, species, planet and galaxy that is of the most value to a universe whose ultimate purpose seems to have always been to matter. — Possibility

This is the essence of my issue with your theory, at least as far as I currently know or understand it. We value awareness, connection, and collaboration, and I suspect that this is due to our being a social species. Why would these qualities be of value to the universe, or even a non-social species? It’s like anthropomorphizing the universe, but if I’m not mistaken, you said that’s laughable, so, not sure where I’ve gotten lost.

Also, I can’t grasp the idea of how the universes ultimate purpose could have been to matter, or rather, I don’t know what that means.

Did Wheeler use terms like "other dimensions" in his musings on " matter, energy, and information"? Did he associate Information with physical Electro-Magnetic fields? — Gnomon

Gnomon!

Within the contextual framework of his participatory anthropic principle (PAP) as mentioned previously, those EM fields can be detected like 'Geons' (GR & EM). That foregoing experiment of those fields emanating from Black Holes could infer conscious activity from another dimension. Of course, it could also be other forms of energy waves like light and heat, etc.. Or, there is no reason why it could not be all of the above...refer to the video.

But specifically no, I have not found where Wheeler has used the phrase ' 5th Dimension' beyond the usual 4 Dimensions of space and time.

Since you don't seem to be offended by my unusual worldview, I'd like to see how you would summarize, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread. — Gnomon

I interpret your Theory of Information as a combination of Wheeler's PAP and Davies' Panentheism
(not Pantheism). With respect to the latter, God's body is the metaphorical universe. With objective certainty, we can use mathematical abstracts to describe the information about the human structure, yet the mind of God is not known to us except through the subjective certainty of PAP.

In this interpretation, the body provides for your informational theory from which we dissect as clues. And the mind (subjective self-awareness/consciousness) is only known to us through the phenomenon of QM/PAP. Both of which remains a source of information.

Putting some of that together with your theory is yet just another theory relative to self-awareness/conscious existence. As Wheeler alluded,"... at the heart of everything is a question, not an answer. When we peer down into the deepest recesses of matter or at the farthest edge of the universe, we see, finally, our own puzzled face looking back at us."

I thought this was a cool picture of Wheeler and Einstein (Wheeler on the far right):

This is the essence of my issue with your theory, at least as far as I currently know or understand it. We value awareness, connection, and collaboration, and I suspect that this is due to our being a social species. Why would these qualities be of value to the universe, or even a non-social species? It’s like anthropomorphizing the universe, but if I’m not mistaken, you said that’s laughable, so, not sure where I’ve gotten lost. — praxis

Fair enough. I don’t think I’ve given enough information on the forum to explain this part very well, particularly in relation to the universe - and no-one has really addressed my terminology before, so I appreciate you doing so.

The language of ‘awareness, connection and collaboration’ suggests consciousness, or at least a panpsychism approach when applied to the universe. I think we have a tendency to assume a certain level of intelligence as necessary for awareness, so the way I use the term here is a little unconventional, and is probably a placeholder for a more appropriate terminology. As I have said here, I am not precious about the words I’ve used: I have a conceptual structure in mind, for which the words currently make sense to me, but my aim is to be understood.

By ‘awareness’, I’m referring to the exposure of a system to particular information. By ‘connection’, I’m referring to the correlation between systems that enables transmission of that information, and by ‘collaboration’ I’m referring to a relationship that facilitates the integration of this new information into the system itself.

I think there’s an underlying reason why humans are a social species, why multi-celled organisms formed, why life originated, why atoms formed molecular or chemical structures and why quantum particles formed atomic relations. And it has nothing to do with survival, dominance or procreation. Each of these dimensionally rare relational structures suggests a weak impetus towards increasing awareness, connection and collaboration (or exposure, transmission and integration of information) beginning with the most fundamental elements of the universe. Without it, the universe as we know it would not have existed, and neither would we.

It’s like anthropomorphizing the universe, but if I’m not mistaken, you said that’s laughable, so, not sure where I’ve gotten lost. — praxis — Possibility

Praxis!

What is your take on Wheeler's PAP?

Each of these dimensionally rare relational structures suggests a weak impetus towards increasing awareness, connection and collaboration (or exposure, transmission and integration of information) beginning with the most fundamental elements of the universe. Without it, the universe as we know it would not have existed, and neither would we. — Possibility

I got this gist when I read through a collection of your posts on various topics, and you now explicitly say, "it has nothing to do with survival, dominance or procreation." I think we can collapse that into just procreation, by the way. I think it might help if you could explain where procreation fits. It fits somehow.

Maybe a good approach is with genes. It's easy to see how genes are information, and that it appears the one goal of genes is procreation.

No time now but I'll check it out.

Another suggestion that a Black Hole might be a portal to another galaxy, civilization, dimension, etc. etc. The funny thing is, apparently when you enter, you can't get out :

Gnomon!

I've been meaning to ask, and I keep forgetting so I'll ask now, does your theory consider any old- school Hermetic philosophy/cosmology? ( It seems to dovetail a bit with PAP/Panentheism. .)

Thanks for that interpretation of matter, energy and information. After doing a TPF search, it appears you have studied Whitehead's cosmology/metaphysics. Does he happen to provide for any insights into any of our informational theories?

Just wondering... .