Informational Environment [split Veridical NDEs are a myth]

Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex
https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-every...-20250402/

Functional information is being parsed as to how to be be objective measurement and find it, like other quantum processes, to be contextual.

Good find. Adrian Thompson's work, and unexpected discovery was an important step on my journey (you can probably see the similarities), short article here

But nowadays...

Matching patterns add-up/glue-together/shared outside of spacetime.

Add-up, glue-together, share etc are different labels, for different perspectives of the same thing.

This adding, occurs within/upon/via some matching pattern itself, (which we have in common)

It takes at least two to share, two to add-up, two to glue-together.

Two provides at least two perspectives of the same thing.

Multiply this into something infinite, and from it emerges infinite perspectives (the everyday world).

Any matching pattern can add-up outside of spacetime, which is another way of saying no information is lost, no matter how far away in space or time, which is another perspective of quantum entanglement...

All the anomalous stuff seems to confirm that this is the system upon which the everyday world is built.

Good find. Adrian Thompson's work, and unexpected discovery was an important step on my journey (you can probably see the similarities), short article here

But nowadays...

Matching patterns add-up/glue-together/shared outside of spacetime.

Add-up, glue-together, share etc are different labels, for different perspectives of the same thing.

This adding, occurs within/upon/via some matching pattern itself, (which we have in common)

It takes at least two to share, two to add-up, two to glue-together.

Two provides at least two perspectives of the same thing.

Multiply this into something infinite, and from it emerges infinite perspectives (the everyday world).

Any matching pattern can add-up outside of spacetime, which is another way of saying no information is lost, no matter how far away in space or time, which is another perspective of quantum entanglement...

All the anomalous stuff seems to confirm that this is the system upon which the everyday world is built.

Thanks for the article from A. Thompson and yes it is very parallel.   Your comment about "glue-up" struck a chord as well.  Yesterday, I was thinking about how in an info-space informational objects can react in wave like terms and express the fact in computation. It brought to mind the term append, but I think "glue-up" is more evocative.   Clearly, when someone thinks about an idea in a new context, the "stuff" from each can creatively combine.
 

Is biology special, then, among evolutionary processes in having an open-endedness generated by self-reference? Hazen thinks that in fact once complex cognition is added to the mix — once the components of the system can reason, choose, and run experiments “in their heads” — the potential for macro-micro feedback and open-ended growth is even greater. “Technological applications take us way beyond Darwinism,” he said. A watch gets made faster if the watchmaker is not blind. -ibid

I made a claim to sbu that info-space has 3 dimensions, analogous to physical space.  Thinking about the viewpoints covered in this complexity article and its applications to biology and evolution, does the trio of inner information, external information and complexity make sense?  As an agent, perception can  focus on either  inner environment, external environment or the complexity in the ecology of both.  Complexity seems like depth or height above the 2 dimensional plane.

It sounds very much like the naive dualist concept of a spiritual dimension(one or more?) just rebranded. If informational entities are real, how do they interact with the physical?

I LIKE naive Dualism. It donforms with much of what sensitive people report about the non-physical existence, and it subsumes all the variants of Dualism that people care to invent.

OTH I too would like a definition of an informational entity - does it, for example, include a hard disk (empty or full).

David

I LIKE naive Dualism. It conforms with much of what sensitive people report about the non-physical existence, and it subsumes all the variants of Dualism that people care to invent.

OTH I too would like a definition of an informational entity - does it, for example, include a hard disk (empty or full).

David

Since I am endorsing 3 environments (1 is monism, 2 is dualism and 3 is called pluralism) dualism is not my thing.  My simple argument is to keep the units of measure straight.  There are units of measure in the physical sciences that are well developed in Metrology. 

 
Metrology is the scientific study of measurement. It establishes a common understanding of units, crucial in linking human activities. Modern metrology has its roots in the French Revolution's political motivation to standardise units in France when a length standard taken from a natural source was proposed.

Information science has endeavored to have a parallel Metrology for hardware and software. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8174576/

The word “software” covers a lot of territory, either directly or indirectly. A notional software attribute can be different things depending on which artifact or process serves as the object of measurement. The objects of measurement that are in scope of NISTIR 8289 include the following:

Architecture and design; Requirements; Specification; Algorithm; Implementation (source code or script); Executable (binary or bytecode); and Execution (of binary, bytecode, or script).

  It is pragmatic effort to parse how we understand information processing.  It says little to nothing about human morals.

Informational entity is not a specific term of science and I don't think I have used it.  I have stressed the term Information Object and have defined it in several posts in this thread.  But that is not what you are really asking about.  Let me try, speaking outside of a methodological argument.

I would describe a person's character as an information object in its measurability, in terms of normative standards such as laws and regulations.  In court, character is an objective outcome as to behavior against these standards. Character reports have standing.  Behavioral outputs are what we observe in informal ways and these behaviors are data, hence they can be stored, accumulated and evaluated.  A computer program can be made to output behavior to a virtual character that can be mapped to predict a person's output.  In this sense it is part of an informational environment.  Very clinical. An agent in sea of competing interests, generating objective activity.

In the 3rd environment behavior is judged against personal moral standards, as to whether it is selfish or altruistic.  Where a person's love interest, religion, or spirituality is of concern, it goes beyond the variables of information science.  Intent and motivation in this 3rd environment are contextual to the community ecology in which one is embedded.   At this level, is a person's character processes not just information, but with other connection to transcendent values.  The deeper meaning of a person resides in this environment.  It goes outside of a pragmatic, is she/he cooperative?  It goes to what is deep in people's "hearts".  It is their felt meaning of life vs the struggle as a real individual.  Judgement can be brutal and empathy healing.

My take on whether this structure and activity of a person is their soul - is just personal belief.  I do think that there is this spiritual environment, where our friend Valmar speaks of perception.  Can I speak to it, not very well?  My own self-judgement is kinda harsh.

...I think "glue-up" is more evocative.   Clearly, when someone thinks about an idea in a new context, the "stuff" from each can creatively combine.

That seems correct... but rather the 'new idea' is the combining, which produces a different perspective. And that production happens outside of spacetime. Spacetime is just the result.

The 'thing' doing the production is hidden, but it can't hide, it's relationships lie freely available for discovery, hidden within everything in the result.
 

I made a claim to sbu that info-space has 3 dimensions, analogous to physical space.  Thinking about the viewpoints covered in this complexity article and its applications to biology and evolution, does the trio of inner information, external information and complexity make sense?  As an agent, perception can  focus on either  inner environment, external environment or the complexity in the ecology of both.  Complexity seems like depth or height above the 2 dimensional plane.

I think about 2 dimensional surfaces... the complexity emerging from the interaction of these 2D-surfaces outside of spacetime.

That seems correct... but rather the 'new idea' is the combining, which produces a different perspective. And that production happens outside of spacetime. Spacetime is just the result.

The 'thing' doing the production is hidden, but it can't hide, it's relationships lie freely available for discovery, hidden within everything in the result.
 


I think about 2 dimensional surfaces... the complexity emerging from the interaction of these 2D-surfaces outside of spacetime.

Your post reminds me of a quote: "apart from space, it fills all the spaces of the universe"  "it is in all time, apart from time". 
 
Our minds can explore our informational environments past, present and future.  The mutual information gain from this non-physical interaction can change real world outcomes in the present and near future.  Information understood in our minds from this exploration can restructure states of being now and in the near future (and maybe add to the past).  This information arrayed in our environment is open to detection of the past and in the future as probabilities.  This is direct perception.

 J.J. Gibson's theory of direct perception, also known as ecological psychology, proposes that perception is an immediate and innate process that occurs without needing inference, memory, or other cognitive construction. Instead, the information needed for perception is contained directly within the environment itself, specifically in structured patterns of light (light arrays) that the observer directly picks up through their senses. This means the mind doesn't build a perception from sensory data; it directly perceives the world as it is, with perception and action being intimately linked.

Natural physical information can only be measured in the here and now.  In situ data can be recorded and viewed later, or projected into the future, but methodologically it is only available for measurement in the present moment and place.  However, information processing can connect to probabilistic outcomes when perceiving well-formed data in any time and space.  It reaches into infospace and all time beyond the limits of methodological materialism.
Bringing past states and well connected future responses into present measurement spaces is not one of the 5 physical senses.

In this worldview our minds connect directly (become entangled) with "probability waves" where multiple outcomes are possible.  Having connection with their potential meanings activates a change to the mutual states of observer and observed.

If, as presented, there is a separate informational environment -- then there is "substance" existing as probabilistic structures inherent with important objective meanings.  When we are using "our" memories we are interacting with the ambient information in the past.  The physical brain supports this activity but the outcomes of understanding the past are about states and not about materials.