It would seem a great deal of what you explore is already given a more formal treatment through lower predicate calculus, information theory, and
design patterns as used in UML / database theory. My understanding of your book is that you've defined "context" to imply how things can intersect (as
a disjunctive operation) and be made exclusive (through say an xor or ~ implies operator). However you never explained why understanding people as a
product of the environment and as defined through various social contexts is meaningful. All I see is the assertion that we exist in this manner. This
isn't terribly controversial. It's actually the foundation of behavioral science. People as social creatures make up groups (groups are defined by
Mainly though this idea of the information continuum is somewhat of a truism. All material objects have information in them. Otherwise there's no way
to quantify and distinguish it from anything else. If you're looking to have empiricists seriously consider this concept you need to start digging
down in to more difficult questions like the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole information paradox. Simply declaring "information is eternal once it
emerges" isn't going to satisfy a deductive scientist. Penrose for instance advocates through the CCC hypothesis (based on observable evidence) that
information loss is inevitable.
When I say information loss I mean that information is encoded in some sort of non-massless object. This could be as small as a Higgs boson or as big
as a geological layer of sediment, but information (at least as far as we currently understand it) is usually encoded in an object that has some
degree of mass.
Personally I favor the argument that information precedes manifestation. So my argument would be that energy has inside of it the seeds of baryonic
structures. This is somewhat supported by the fact that the cosmic microwave background radiation might possibly tell us about what happened before
the Big Bang. If that's possible then massless particles can also somehow encode information (or maybe it's simply raw information in some
pre-material Platonic universe). This would also more correspond with your definition that any event that's happened is "immutable" in the sense that
it did happen and can't be undone. However quantum retrocausality may ultimately usurp this otherwise seemingly logical conclusion.
Another finicky issue, on page 62 you discuss time as a real quantity. In Peter Lynds paper, "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy
vs. Continuity," it's postulated there isn't a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position
of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined. It is concluded it is exactly because of
this that time (relative interval as indicated by a clock) and the continuity of a physical process is possible, with there being a necessary trade
off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time. This explanation is also shown to be the correct
solution to the motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally conceived by the ancient Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea. Quantum
Cosmology, Imaginary Time and Chronons are also then discussed, with the latter two appearing to be superseded on a theoretical basis. In other words
reality is merely sequences of events that happen relative to one another. Time is an illusion.
This type of argument stands starkly in contrast to your position that, "we, as corporeal beings, don't actually exist from moment to moment." Lynd's
alternate perspective postulates all objects in this universe are utterly real and constantly under transform at the planck scale. Hence the constant
popping in and popping out effect. Formalized treatments are required for scientists to take these sorts of ideas seriously.
Similarly on page 64 you comment, "Your corporeal body is an event that keeps on happening, and will continue to happen until it stops happening. Then
it will never happen again ..." There are a number of physicists who would argue otherwise. In "The Physics of Immortality" Frank Tipler hypothesizes
that at the omega point (i.e. the end of the universe) all quantum states will be accessible and due to this that a sufficiently advanced civilization
could reconstruct everything that was previously existent in physical reality.
On the biological front you have to face down researchers who do neurological work with cetaceans. To assert on page 74 that, "Not every brain is a
human brain. And yet these brains also generate information, and that information is also different than the raw residual information that you'd find
in the Informational Continuum. ... It's motivations are much simpler, and more rooted in survival, but the thing has a brain, and that brain is
generating information ... That said this information isn't Intellect. It's only reactive to external stimulation and ... it lacks what we'll be
referring to .. as The Personality. ... You can debate this ... if you like, but personification is only indulged here when all other descriptive
devices fail." While common sense might support this, real world research shows otherwise.
"Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,” said Lori Marino, a zoologist
at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, who has used magnetic resonance imaging scans to map the brains of dolphin species and compare them with
those of primates. “The neuroanatomy suggests psychological continuity between humans and dolphins and has profound implications for the ethics of
human-dolphin interactions,” she added. www.timesonline.co.uk...
I give this laundry list to point out that you really need to be much more specific when you discuss these sorts of things. You're touching on a lot
of fields. There are literally droves of PhDs who spend their lives thinking about these topics who would be thrilled
to move their subject
forward, even an inch, in an empirical way. No one appreciates a novice telling the experts they're wrong without some form of strong evidence.
Also you start to veer in to the realm of conjecture when you make the statement that our existing as information necessitates man continues to exist
post-death. Sure the information that describes us will continue to exist, but that doesn't mean the information is self-aware or conscious. Also
there's no way to test the hypothesis. So, unfortunately, it's the realm of theosophical speculation.
Beyond physics and biological related statements, in the philosophical arena, there are a number of ideas explored in your book that are already
touched on by a number of older well established philosophers. For instance on page 42 you note, "realistic folks are right about the fact that human
beings are only the sum total of what their corporeal bodies create, and that they, as individuals, did not exist in any form whatsoever until they
were born as physical human beings..." John Locke in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" theorized much the same that the mind of a newborn
child is a white page or, as it's now popularly termed, a tabula rasa. This follows naturally from renaissance thinking which argues reality is
logical and that therefore there is no paranormal preexistent anything.
There are also some small errors in the book. For instance on page 13 you write, "The Christian theology - it is the youngest of the world's major
theologies after all ..." This is slightly off the mark. Islam is the youngest of the world's three major monotheistic religions.
An even smaller complaint, on page 3, "This was after adding millions, maybe even billions of such galaxies to its ever expanding territory." The
universe has 1.7 x 10^11 (170 billion) observable galaxies. Flip millions to billions and billions to trillions and you're all good.
You have a great writing style and the book is very readable. Hope this helps!
edit on 14-2-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)