A Discussion of the Fourplane Universe Conundrum.
Initial formulation for a unified field theory
by James Rose, Spring 1973.

... Continual interaction capability of particles in the universe demands similarity, or at minimum, adjustable similarities , for all parameters involved. Thus, all extants which do or can interact must be describable by the same energetics and configurational phenomena.

Theorem q, of the Theory of Relativity, sets the tone for this, as well as the second aspect of a unified field theory ...
..., i.e., if a "mind" is extant within the framework of a particular space, it is subject to the same forces (F) which exist within that space. Therefore, all thoughts, thought goals, etc. are directed by that same force. All actions and attitudes not only strive to enlighten the total nature of existence, but by their existence and functioning, reiterate that reality of total existence.

<...>

Is it possible, under this aspect of relativity, to arrive at a truly objective ceptualization of the universe ? Objectivity implies non-involvement with an occurrence to such a degree that it can be encountered and examined without affecting the system. But since observation and examination occur under the same fields and conditions, subjectivity is "designed" into the system. To get around this problem we must invoke a concept which will be further discussed at a later time. That is, the special theory of relativity.
 

If we allow that localization of mass-energy assumes the character of a mini-universe, so to speak, and that there are external sources of energy (information) which can enter this sub-universe, then we can say that if that information has passed through or been derived from other sub-universes, then that "received information" is objective, as it is information which has the characteristics only of those fields and areas that the information had previously passed through. Then, by enlarging the frame of reference back to the universe in toto, and by assuming total coherence and consistency for the universe, we can apply that information to be valid for our, or any, localized frame of reference. If something is operationally correct then we can assume it to be correct until the conditions of operation change.
 

Since all things are relative within any given reference system and therefore "subjective" by consideration, in searching for an objective understanding of the universe, it is absolutely mandatory to state those conditions (such as boundary parameters) which permit reference point separation and sufficient diminishing of disruptive interaction such that we can approach a paradigmatic understanding of systems, events, and phenomena which are "not ourselves" in models that correspond to actual activity and relationships in as close to objectively factual consideration as possible.

<...>

It is my idea then that metaphilosophical paradigms are not enough. We must obligatorily consider actual quantitative information of time-matter-energy in a final optimum objective schema of the universe. No separation is allowable. Concurrence is mandatory. It is not enough to give operational considerations if by doing so we differentiate mechanism from motivation. These two aspects are qualitatively and conceptually separable due to our neuro-ceptual construct which tends toward component visualization of any mass phenomena (in conjunction with Gestaltic tendencies). But, to carry that differentiation into a model of the state of existence, is not allowable, as the complete functioning event or system ceases its time flow operations as a unit phenomena. A "thing" acts in accord to forces concurrent with its actual structure and not in separate context from those forces. If they could be separated we would then have to posit the possibility of an infinite number of possible separately existing operational and "motivational" forces which could impinge in ways not concurrent with the conservation of energy in a closed system...for example: irregular motion of mass through space in quantized time sequences in which there is no real flow, but only a "time" of distinct units which have a differentiation so small that we can never measure it; thus, for all practical purposes, time is a smooth continuum...not actually, only ceptually.

<...>

Structural individuality is as obvious as the permutation of possible states determined by the number of interacting sub-units as well as the interaction resultant from time-space-matter-energy differentiation of extants and extants in particular context (i.e., the differentiation of instantaneous structure of a complete event and an event in an environment). But, and this cannot be stressed enough, there is absolute singularity of operating force (motivation) which displays itself through various basic energetics mechanisms...gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear binding, light, etc....and through all states of matter/energy. Diversity is as numerous as the permutation of the number of particulate matter in the universe, but "motivation" is pan-extant and singular. It is this singularity which marks the universe as totally coherent and cohesive.

Resolving the current conflict between biological theory and physical theory can be neatly accomplished. What we actually have is a situation in which two very high rating Integrity seeking mechanisms are confronting each other head to head. The first is Integrity seeking "wholistic integration" (incorporation), the need for singular ceptual unification of quantitative and qualitative facts. The second is Integrity achieving "identity" (individualization) and its concurrent implication of "separation from environment"...defined structure, identity, and operations distinctly set within an unlimited range of possible activity. The former demands a closed system. The latter demands an open one (and is therefore prone to embrace "probability" and other paradigms which permit "degrees of freedom").

Kinetic stability ..."Integrity"... is the singular motivation for all things that exist in the universe.

To talk of models and not describe things themselves, means we do not make assumptions of truth or fallacy concerning the uniformity of nature, but are explicit to the scope of what is discussable. We do not discuss the things themselves, but the symbols which represent those things; and symbols can only be true or false to the extent that they do or do not adequately represent what is being talked about...within the limitations of our ability to correctly give and apply proper models and symbols, which are, again, within the limitations of our ability to symbolize...and within the limitations of our language to be meaningful in regard to those symbols.

More than anything else, this concept depends upon an awareness of the relationship between ourselves and things external to us. An awareness that what is experienced (the event or thing external to our minds) and what does the final experiencing (our "consciousness") is intervened by the physical apparatus of sensations. The experiencing "consciousness" becomes cordoned off, distinct from the mechanisms which allow experience. It is an affirmation of a belief in the duality of mind and body, and additionally makes further the separation of the mind from the world.

Our consciousness then is attributed with the ability to symbolize, to apply representative meaning to experience, to translate experience into consciousness...with our bodies being the tool of that function. But, is our consciousness derived from the inherent activity of our construction to symbolize, translate and re-form? Or is our consciousness that something which is pre-extant, and guides us from some type of so far unexplained or undetermined knowledge, awareness or whatever, of a more profound type, enabling a "higher" plane of consciousness?

<...> To come to some final conclusions then, two possibilities become available. The first is to apply a concept of supranatural force coming into play, which acts as the driving power for the whole system. The other possibility, which is the concept I believe true, is to conclude that the innate forces connected with atomic and sub-atomic activity are the driving forces of the entire system.

This is true to the degree that the existence of a single particle of matter or energy "defines" the entire system; defines all possible forms which any extants can assume. It is the ultimate information load carrier, in that it also defines what forms will occur when they do occur. At this level there is no consciousness per se, only capacity of activity derived from construction.

<...>   Brillouin <...> states that a vast amount of information is needed to correspond to any detectable change in entropy. (Boltzmann, Planck)

P_o = domain
P₁ = expected errors I₁ = ln (P_o -P₁)

The only problem with this schema is, basically, that it is not superior to any other schemas which have previously been formulated. The reason I say that is this: to describe something is to work with a specific range or possible range of information concerning that thing. At some point in all these schemas a limit is reached beyond which there is no information which can be incorporated into an understanding of the system. <...>  The search for knowledge throughout history gives a pattern of trying to push back the walls of those limits. And, putting pragmatic considerations aside for a moment, this is the primary motivation for scientific inquiry. In fact, for inquiry of any kind.

It is interesting to note though that where ever such a black box limit is reached, there is always a concurrent concept incorporated into the schema which either tries to explain what is beyond that limit, or at the very least, attempts to label that region. This is an implicit indication of a need for wholism in any thesis or schema. In just this manner we can begin to understand why specific ideas were, and are, held during various stages of man's development, as well as any activity or concept which attempts to label and/or explain what lies beyond the limits of existing knowledge.

<...>

Most important though, is that I am trying to make a paradigmatic shift in how we talk about our world. Mass-energy-space-time is not enough. It is not enough to acknowledge that "physical laws expect simplicity and generality" whereas "biological and evolutionary theory expect complexity and individualism". Since it takes no great intellectual prowess to realize that there must be some direct correlation between the macro-structure and microstructure of our world, the only immediate conclusion to be drawn from this is that our current models are inadequate to fill in this most important point in seeking a unified concept of the universe.

My premise is very simple. Mass-energy-space-time are actually functional components of the pan-extant phenomenon of "Information". Energy is information. Spatiality is information. Time is information. They are separate variable parameters which determine information transfer as well as information channel formation, each in regard to its own range of operation. Information is not the just the intangible codification of energy. Energy is information, be it light, electromagnetic radiation, stimulus-response or whatever. And energy, as information, is transmitted under those conditions and through those channels as the nature and construction of the environment permits. An environment therefore is defined as that region through which information can be differentiated by means of multiple loci.

<..>  This obviously includes all situations where component systems and sub-systems are united to the same materials of construction but differ in their direction of entropic flow because of differing ranges and levels of activity. Entropy can be evaluated in regard to the whole of a system. It can also be attributed to sub-components. Mathematically, this means separate entropies can be at work per each partial derivative of a function.

In this regard entropy is replaced by stability as the foundational drive of the universe, and entropy becomes a functional mechanism for achieving stability. Here I propose the concept of Integrity, which is the mandatory form of kinetic stability. This, because of the nature of motion and time which will be discussed later.

For any given system, its drive is to increase it's Integrity. In regard to its construction and those field and relativistic effects which "define" sub-universe regions, a system increases its Integrity through increases in information up to the optimum levels for its construction. In some cases, such as radiation, a closely defined system might show information bleed into its external environment in order to reach its optimum information level. <...>

<...>

For any system with a definable material construction, its information capacity is the maximum information load before disruption occurs due to excessive internal forces. At the point the adjustable parameters of space/time also reach their limits. Information load is that amount of codified and uncodified energy that a system can contain and still retain its capacity for elastic form retention. Sub-system noise is also included, but unless transmission channels exist which might permit amplification thereby inducing structural disordering, it plays a minimal role in any calculations.

Digressing for a moment, we can explain the existence of complex macromolecular structures, as well as their nature of activity, if we determine the operational boundaries of the function of entropy. <...>

<...>

Now, at which point and for which system do we label one form "information" and all else "energy" ? Obviously we cannot. Energy equals information.

<...>

Displacement of mass-energy through space occurs through a phenomenon termed 'time'. In this form time is a directional continuum....non-reversible and non-quantized (i.e., a time lapse may become infinitely small but at no point is there an instantaneous event which is 'separably' distinct).

<...>

The space-time continuum is therefore integral with Integrity in that it determines kinetic constancy, and 'defines' "stability" an terms of an on-going <dynamic continuous> functioning, and not staticly balanced instantaneous juxtapositions. Integrity is a pan-extant phenomenon of "process", of continual information transfer. The field of information flow (that is, any occupiable space) is the total environment in which an extant exists (or can exist), and, functions in regards to both internal regions bounded by structure, as well as external regions which are beyond that interkinetic structure.

<...>

Keeping in mind innate structural qualities, Integrity is information load proportional to information capacity. Integrity determines continuation and continuity. This latter factor could be unit or process, where either information must increase or structure must change, resulting in higher Integrity form. Time extancy increases all related levels and complexities of information flow, and structural constancy.