Replies

It seems to me whenever one is dealing with universals, one has already touched upon the problem of the “Eternal Now.” For the physical laws are universals: they are (theoretically) the same for all observers in whatever spatiotemporal locations, any and every “time” whatever (in quantum physics, time is usually defined in terms of Planck time, or “the most-infinitesimal unit of time that the human mind can detect.”) — which is sort of a rough approximation of a “something” within the meaning of the Eternal Now. So to the extent that we apply the physical laws to the data of Nature, we are already “participants” in the Eternal Now.

There is only a universal now for for things which are at rest relative to us, i.e. in our frame of reference. Events (time) are different for different observers in different frames of reference. If I give a group of observers each a synchronized clock and send them off at different velocities so that they are at different distances and speeds from an event, they will all record different times for the event. There is no universal now for all reference frames.

About your AP hierarchy, it seems eerily similar to Drakes Equation or Global Climate Models. A bunch of guesses is a bunch of guesses even if they are dressed up nicely in an equation format : )

Special creations would require that absolutely everything that exists has to be uniquely fashioned, one at a time. But what a spectacular redundancy of principle would be involved! Why would God (say; or any designer in general) want to make everything from “scratch,” every single time??? I mean, when He’s (its) already loaded all the “ingredients” He would need in the very fabric of Nature itself? And that “load” consists of: Information — as indicated by our old friends (i)–(v).

Not everything, simply everything that is not identical.

There is only a universal now for things which are at rest relative to us, i.e. in our frame of reference. ... There is no universal now for all reference frames.

How can something be "universal" if it's something "relative to us?" This doesn't make sense to me: You can't put man "outside" of a system and then say the system is universal. Which is what happens when you make the relative position of the observer the criterion of what is "universal." Our frame of reference gives us relative position with respect to other frames. It does not give us truth, which is what the universal physical laws are awesomely good at approximating in astonishingly high degree.

It seems what we're looking for is a higher frame of reference. If indeed it is true that the universe is one single, integrated, dynamic, "informed" system — as modern theory suggests — then that frame of reference would need to extend to the whole; as such it would be universal.

You wrote this puzzling line: "Not everything, simply everything that is not identical." No explanation given. Is it reasonable for me to infer that here you are making a case for some kind of novel, spontaneous emergence? Or do you really believe in "special creation" for "non-identical" entities? If the latter, how would that work?

Thanks so much for writing, LeGrande!

p.s.: RE: my "bunch of guesses ... dressed up nicely in an equation format." I wouldn't exactly call them guesses. But if it pleases you, you may do so. BTW, I left out the algorithmic complexity value conventionally given for DNA: ~10⁹ bits.

I'm sorry you did not appreciate the way I "imagined" the structure of the IC/AP system. It could be imagined differently. But I thought this might be a good way to tackle the issue, especially because it makes explicit work done in the assessment of the algorithmic complexity of living systems, and suggests how unimaginably vast is the "available potential information" of Nature.