Replies

I agree that we must keep an open mind!

Perhaps the concern is that such a hypothesis is a type of mysticism rather than physics. I disagree.

From the Pattee article:

There are fundamental reasons why physics and biology require different levels of models, the most obvious one is that physical theory is described by rate-dependent dynamical laws that have no memory, while evolution depends, at least to some degree, on control of dynamics by rate-independent memory structures. A less obvious reason is that Pearson's "corpuscles" are now described by quantum theory while biological subjects require classical description in so far as they function as observers. This fact remains a fundamental problem for interpreting quantum measurement, and as I mention below, this may still turn out to be essential in distinguishing real life from macroscopic classical simulacra. I agree with Mayr that physics and biology require different models, but I do not agree that they are autonomous models.

Perhaps the concern is that such a hypothesis is a type of mysticism rather than physics.

A-G, I'm sure that is the case with many people who object to the suggestion that there is anything at all immaterial about our Universe. But it seems to me the objection just doesn't hold up.

I mean, think about it: Matter is universal, ubiquitous, and homogeneous, generally speaking. Everything in the world is made out of the same "stuff," to put it very crudely. It seems to me that what makes an entity the thing it is, given the ubiquity and "sameness" of matter, is how the matter is put together, how it is assembled -- its "instruction set." But now we are talking about an entity's information content -- and this is not a material thing.

Just a little speculation I've been thinking through lately....

Thanks so much for writing, A-G. Hugs!