## Time, Space, Information Meta-Levels

Recreating (and advancing) pk’s censored domains: Macroinformation.org &
Knatz.com / Teaching / Thinking Tools / Information / Macroinformation / Views /
@ K. 2002 11 01

Information once again is any difference that makes a difference.

(Note: English Prime discourages the use of the word “is” with its attendant temptation toward fallacies of identity (as in “Anthony Hopkins is Hannibal Lecter”). But I first want to draft these essays comfortably: without the complication of that caveat. Accept my disclaimer knowing that I intend to edit iterations of “is” as a separate problem as my drafts mature.)

At the sentient human level, any difference that makes a difference is significant difference, perceived difference. My theory of macroinformation relates the concept of information to other concepts such as that of dimension. (In a moment I’ll also begin to relate information to learning (and to knowledge).) My thinking here finds analogies between the complexities of information and the complexities of space as we have articulated them. We talk easily about “length,” “width,” and “depth.” We see them as emerging in relation to “position.” At another level of abstraction we talk about space as relating to time, with time functioning as a logical dimension.

Let’s graph the above while it’s still relatively easy to grasp.

Space / Time

 0 1 2 3 4
 position length width depth time

(in any order)

 0 ( 1, 2, 3 ) 4

(Note: The numbers are merely numerical order, starting with zero. The graphic conventions followed are the West’s left to right and top to bottom. The theo-hierarchical associations that accompany those conventions are rejected.) (If accepted, they’ll be articulated one at a time and out-loud.)

I map information similarly

Information: Orders of
(Spectrum of Complexity)

 0 1 2 3 4
 difference data meta- data meta- information macro- information

Just as length or depth require the possibility of position, so too data requires the possibility of difference registering on something: of difference being perceived. The ground zero of information at the sentient human level is that foreground may be distinguished from background, thing from matrix, speech from noise, print from paper.

I relate information dimensionally to the concept of space. Simultaneously, information relates to Gregory Bateson’s logical mapping of “learning.” Learning we inherit is Learning0. Learning we learn that isn’t in our genes, from cloth weaving to Bell’s Theorem, is Learning1.
Learning to learn, like Edison teaching himself how to find new problems to solve, is Learning2 (or like that of the porpoise which discovered that what her handlers really wanted wasn’t just a different trick but wholly new and original behaviors). (If Learning2 is difficult to impossible to imagine for most students and teachers, then Learning3 would be as impossible for humans to imagine as a hyper-cube.) Width is perpendicular to depth: by geometrical definition. Learning1 is logically orthogonal to Learning0 and to Learning2. Similarly, the dimensions of information are mutually orthogonal.

Spectrum of Learning

 0 1 2 n
 “instinct” discovery meta-discovery meta-discoveryN

(Does any creature have Learning3? Does any ecology? Does “god”?)

I am not suggesting that informational dimensions are mutually orthogonal spatially. Information does not exist in space (however much data may express itself in speech or print: the speech extending across “a room,” the print extending at some printers’ pitch). The dimensions of information are mutually orthogonal logically. (A sane theory of Macroinformation will require unprecedented care in considering a thing’s category of existence. Physical things interact with physical things differently than physical things interact with abstract things. Abstract things may interact with other abstract things more differently yet.) (Expect macroinformation to emerge from junctures of such differences.)

I emphasize the non-physical nature of information in keen anticipation of drawing other relationships. The physical world, as Descartes emphasized, manifests extension. You can measure it, weight it. Informational worlds are intensional. They may be structured analogously to concrete space but they are not “in” concrete space.

(I emphasize this with little hope of being understood, for the human world has long been ruled by theologies that depend for their power on precisely these confusions (universities being fully as theological in this regard as churches) (but less aware of it).)

 time position length, width, depth N dimensions
 intension . . . extension . . .

(Note: In this table I place time at the left in respect for Ilya Prigogine’s assumption that time is infinite, the universe finite. Therefore, time comes before space (or even position): infinitely before.

(My theory of macroinformation will remain a primitive model until information can be mapped in relation to more up-to-date models of space: including Kaluza-Klein space and Calabi-Yau space. I for one have no idea how a tenth or eleventh dimension might extend in relation to information (or to normal space).)

Intension (note the spelling) is the antonym of extension. Information extends NOT in space. Information has no depth, width, or length. Rather than say “That poem is deep,” we’d do better to say “That poem is intensely macroinformational.” Information extends in time but not in space. “Cyberspace” is an oxymoron. Information extends only in the mind: and the mind is intensional.

Again, note the spelling. There is no pun allowed there.

Distinguish please between the “mind” and the “brain.” The brain is a physical organ of the physical body. It extends from temple to temple, forehead to the rear of the skull, top of the head to the base of the skull. It weighs so many grams. It operates by electro-chemical processes. The mind in contrast is not an organ. It has no synapses. It is an effect, a process of processes.

It is emergent.

It is intensional.

It is macroinformational!

(By analogy: what even sophisticated persons who avoid crude terminology like the soul may still call the spirit is a nested stack of intensional processes. “It” too is macroinformational.)

(link to be reestablished after move)
Informational Levels: from Difference to Meta-information

session interrupted