How Biology And Human Life Fits Into Cosmology

I am going to have to re-post this posting once again because a lot more has been added to it. I have decided to incorporate into it the former posting "The Balance Line And Truth Pairs". If you are wondering if this means that there must be a God that created us, because we could not otherwise have arisen from inanimate matter, the answer is "yes".

Suppose that you took classes in chemistry, physics, astronomy and, biology. You may wonder why the first three are very mathematical in nature while biology is just as scientific as the others, but involves much less mathematics.

MATHEMATICS IS BASED ON THE OPERATION OF THE ELECTRIC CHARGES WHICH COMPRISE THE UNIVERSE

Our number system is useful in describing the universe because the universe is composed of two electric charges, negative and positive, and these two charges can be described in a one-dimensional line. So, this can be described with our one-dimensional "straight line" of numbers, the familiar 1,2,3,4....

If our universe was constructed of more than two electric charges, three for example, their potential relationships would require a triangle, rather than a straight line, for description, which is two dimensional. It could not be described accurately as a one-dimensional line. Our number system, on which all of our mathematics is based, is a one-dimensional system, because our numbers are effectively a one-dimensional line, and would be of limited use if the universe were composed of more than two electric charges.

We develop a number system, and mathematics based on it, because it is useful in describing, in technical detail, the world and the universe around us. But everything in our universe is ultimately composed of two electric charges, which make a straight line, and our number system is thus useful because it also forms a straight line.

I say that our number system is one-dimensional because there are two electric charges, and opposite charges attract, meaning that an arrangement of electric charges will line up in a straight line, negative to positive, and this is what makes our number system useful in describing the universe around us. This in no way refers to the number base, such as binary or decimal or hex, but only the one dimensional line of the numbers.

We looked at the ramifications of our universe being composed of two electric charges, and what it might be like if there were a number of electric charges other than two in the posting on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com ,"Our Dual Charge Universe".

The two most important words in any language are "yes" and "no". These two words form what we could describe as a "zero-dimension" number system. These two opposite words are, of course, ultimately based on the fact that there are two opposite electric charges. These two opposite words are of some use in describing the universe, but not as useful as our all-inclusive number system of a full dimension.

Our mathematical system, based on regular constant numbers with an equal space between any two adjacent numbers, is so useful in describing the universe around us because the ratio of information to energy and mass is also constant. Mass and energy is really the same thing, as described by the well-known mass-energy equivalence, and I have often described how energy and information must really be the same thing because we cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it.

The fact that everything in the universe is ultimately composed of the two electric charges is what brings constancy. Energy, mass and information must ultimately turn out to be the same thing if everything comes down to these two electric charges of which everything is composed. this actually must go for everything that can be described in terms of any quantity.

DNA AS THE SECOND "DIMENSION" OF INFORMATION IN LIVING THINGS

But the DNA on which the information in biology is based is like a completely separate dimension of information. The information in biological structures does not adhere to the usual physical equivalency of mass and energy. There is far more information in DNA than there is in an equivalent non-biological mass.

DNA can thus be considered as another dimension of information which effectively multiplies, or squares, the information in the atoms and chemical structures of biology. DNA is a completely separate dimension of information from the rest of physical reality simply because it does not adhere to the same rules of mass-energy-information equivalence. The only way to explain why DNA has far more information in it than any equivalent mass of inanimate matter is that it is based on the addition of a second dimension of information.

The covalent chemical bonds found in DNA and all biological structures, but not in organic matter, consist of atoms sharing electrons in outer orbitals among themselves, and this binds the atoms into a molecule. This type of bond contains more information than the ionic bonds that are found in inanimate matter, because the orbital of the covalent electron has a number of possible alignments. These simpler ionic bonds involve one atom losing an electron to another, so that one becomes more positively-charged and the other more negatively, and the two are bound into a molecule by opposite-charge attraction. For the extremely long polymers of organic molecules, covalent bonds are necessary.

The reason that living things can move without coming apart is based on the flexibility of covalent bonds, relative to the generally non-flexible ionic bonds. But this flexibility means that there is a range of possible permutations in which a covalent bond between atoms can exist. The simple ionic bonds of inanimate matter do not have this range. This range of permutations is information in the atoms of biological structures, which have a range of possible states while the fixed ionic bonds have only one state.

Notice that the information conveyed by DNA is based on permutations of four types of nucleobases. This is twice as many as the two electric charges which compose inanimate matter. Four is twice as many as two. The four nucleobases incorporate the electric charges of which all matter is made as well, but also have this second dimension of information. (The four nucleobases of DNA to which I am referring are adenine, cytosine, guanine and, thymine).

Another way of seeing that the structure of DNA is based on the information in the fundamental electric charges, but contains another dimension of information, is how the nucleotides in DNA are joined together by an electrical covalent bond between the sugar end of one and the phosphate end of the next, just as electric charges are joined into structures by the negative-positive binds.

Also that the structure of DNA is in the form of a double-helix around a common axis. The two strands go in opposite directions, but around the same axis, so that they are said to be anti-parallel. This is a reflection of the opposite electric charges being bound together by their mutual attraction.

Living things can die, and require sustenance and energy to stay alive, because of this vast difference in information density relative to inanimate reality. When a living thing dies, only one of the two dimensions effectively remain. Multiplying the numbers of living things does not increase complexity, because remember that, according to my complexity theory, repetition does not increase complexity.

If you are wondering about the religious implications of this, Yes, once again, it means that life could never have come into existence by the processes of inanimate reality, without the creation of God.

MATHEMATICS DESCRIBES ONLY ONE OF THE TWO DIMENSIONS OF INFORMATION IN BIOLOGY

There is some mathematics in biology, such as the chemistry of biochemistry. But this is describing only one dimension of the two dimensions of information in biology. There are no mathematics for the other dimension because it is a different dimension of information. This is why physical sciences like chemistry, physics and, astronomy are so much more mathematical in nature than biology.

We can understand biology, but cannot as readily express it with numbers as we can the physical sciences. This is because our number system is based on a constant: Information = Energy = Mass relationship. This is reflected in the constancy of numbers, 3 is just as far from 2 as 2 is from 1.

DNA, although composed of the same kind of atoms as inanimate matter, is also a separate set of information where the above relationship is not consistent. The first dimension of information, the physical dimension of inanimate matter, is constant in the relationship, while the second, the DNA dimension, is variable in how much information can be contained relative to mass and energy.

We are made of physical atoms, but have our complexity enhanced by this second set of information. We are able, to some degree, to impose our higher level of complexity on our surroundings in the form of technology.

Plants are closer to the ratio of mass and energy to information of inanimate matter than the higher-complexity animals and humans are. We could think of burning wood as releasing the energy, and thus the information, of the second dimension of information, the DNA dimension, while the original atoms of the first dimension of information remain.

Conventional mathematics is is ultimately based on the negative and positive electric charges of which the universe is composed, with their attraction and repulsion rules. These rules are clearly reflected in the negative and positive sides of arithmetic. The positive side is adding and multiplying, the negative side is subtraction and division.

DNA has information beyond this basis, even though it does have this basis as well. Mathematics, based on the information in the electric charges, does not effectively describe the second dimension of information. We must use words to describe it. In the purely physical dimension, we use words also, but only for repetitive patterns and for that which we do not fully understand.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE HIGHER LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY OF LIVING THINGS

Numbers are one-dimensional, words can be described as two-dimensional. Words may be able to describe what we cannot describe with numbers, but are not as precise as numbers at describing physical reality because the second dimension of information is our dimension, not that of the one-dimensional inanimate reality. Relative to numbers, words sacrifice precision for convenience.

We are of a higher level of complexity, relative to our inanimate surroundings. The higher level comes from this added dimension of information and words belong to this second dimension of information, brought about by DNA. This is also why we can be right or wrong about things that we think. There is not enough information in inanimate reality for every "truth possibility" that we see to be true, so some can be false.

We can use words in ways that we cannot use numbers, although words are not as precise as numbers. This is why we cannot describe so much of biology with mathematics, as we can the physical sciences of chemistry, physics and, astronomy.

Because of these two dimensions of information, living things store information at a rate much greater then the mass-energy equivalence of inanimate matter. Technical progress can be defined as being able to store information, not within ourselves but within our activities, with less and less energy relative to the amount of information. We see energy and information as separate things, when really they are the same thing, because we, unlike the universe of inanimate matter, can store information without expending an equivalent amount of energy.

In contrast, the only way that inanimate matter can store information is the actual manifestation of the information. There is no such thing as information efficiency by encoding in the universe of inanimate matter, because inanimate matter is governed only by mathematics and such encoding would require the second dimension of information.

Topics further removed from the physical sciences, such as law, government and, philosophy, are higher-level human concerns and are even further removed from the numerical basis of inanimate matter, but are not free of it completely. This does not apply to economics, since that concerns items made of inanimate matter that we need.

This brings us to what I define as "simple realms" and "complex realms". The difference between these two realms is explained by the two dimensions of information. A simple realm is based on only one dimension of information, while a complex realm is based on two.

In a simple realm, a statement must be either true or false, and two contradictory statements cannot be true. An ideal example of a simple realm is the mathematics which governs the one dimension of information in inanimate matter.

A complex realm requires the additional dimension of information that is not found in inanimate matter. In a complex realm, two opposing statements might both be true, or at least not exclusively true or false. Examples of this is philosophy, politics and, human perceptions. We could say that the difference between an art and a science is that art is a complex realm, while science is a simple realm.

As we might expect, a complex realm is not open to description by mathematics because of this second dimension of information. With one dimension of information, there is only one way to look at things, but with the two dimensions of a complex realm, there is an entire circle of different perspectives because there is an additional dimension of information.

Speaking of things like law, government and, philosophy, have you ever wondered why human concerns are divided into separate subjects? Imagine an inner circle within an outer circle, like a bull's eye.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullseye_(target)#/media/File:Archery_Target_80cm.svg

Inanimate reality, revolving around numbers and of a lower complexity level than our level, is represented by the inner circle. The higher level of human complexity, based more on our higher-level of complexity and less on numbers, is represented by the outer circle. If the lines of the two circles had to meet, the line of the inner circle, having less circumference, would not be long enough to match that of the outer circle.

The line of the inner circle would have to split into fragments, which is why we see our concerns as different subjects, separated by the gaps. If we were of the same level of complexity as our inanimate surroundings, everything would appear to us as one single subject but everything that we could perceive would be true, we could not perceive anything that might be false.

There is less of a gap between higher-level topics, such as law, government, philosophy and economic theory, further removed from the numbers governing inanimate reality and thus also less mathematical in nature than the physical sciences, than there is between "lower-level" concerns like mechanics and carpentry. This is because the higher-level topics are more about our complexity, and the lower-level topics are more about our complexity imposed on the lower-level complexity of our inanimate surroundings.

ELECTRON REPULSION AND LIVING THINGS

Living things are composed of atoms and molecules, and these are held together by electrical attraction. But there is much more information involved in living things, aside from the fact that the covalent chemical bonds in living things hold more information than the ionic bonds in inanimate matter. The larger-scale structures composed of atoms and molecules are fastened and held together by electron repulsion.

Nowhere else in nature is information held in electron repulsion. It is electron repulsion that preserves the structures of atoms held together by gravity, keeping them from merging together, but there is no additional information in the electron repulsion, as there is in abundance in living things.

There are two dimensions of information in living things. The first dimension is that of inanimate matter, since biological structures are composed of the same kinds of atoms as everything else. Mathematics are based on this inanimate matter dimension of information, which is why biology uses much less mathematics than the physical sciences. Mathematics is based on an even progression of the well-known mass-energy equivalence, and this applies to inanimate matter, but not to biological structures.

Remember always that energy and information is really the same thing, we cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Biological DNA has four points of information, whereas inanimate matter only has the two electric charges.

What makes biology different from inanimate matter is obviously that it's structure is more complex. It contains far more information per mass, violating the continuous scale of the mass-energy equivalence. But this additional complexity comes from the fact that biological structures are the only place where information is stored in the electron repulsion between atoms. Apparent information in electron repulsion in inanimate matter is only the reverse of the force, either gravitational attraction or movement of atoms due to heat, that the electron repulsion is resisting.

Fastening, held together by electron repulsion with the additional information that came from putting it together, does not occur in nature. Atoms, and then atoms combining into molecules, are held together by electron attraction. Atoms are kept separate, not allowed to merge into one another, by electron repulsion, when undergoing gravitational attraction, but this contains no additional information about the structure. It is only a mirror image reversal of the gravitational force that is pulling the atoms together.

Human bodies are held together by ligaments and sinews, and organs held against muscular walls or other organs. All movement, both within and by the body, is achieved by the pull or push of muscular contraction. All bodily movement is thus ultimately driven by electron repulsion. If not for electron repulsion, matter could not move other matter because atoms would simply merge together. It is the mutual repulsion of their outer electrons that keeps atoms from merging together.

This makes it possible for electron repulsion to be another vehicle for information. In fact, in biological structures it is electron repulsion which is the basis of the second dimension of information, after the one of inanimate matter. This holding of information in electron repulsion does not occur in inanimate matter, and if it did it would violate the mass-energy equivalence.

By use of technology, we can impose our higher level of complexity on our inanimate matter surroundings. When we do, we apply the same concept of the structure of a machine being held together by electron repulsion, and the electron repulsion holding the information about it's design. This is completely separate from the electrical attraction holding the machine's atoms and molecules together.

The DNA, which contains the information about the structures of living things, is reflected in how we can describe a structure in the world and the universe with information that is a replica of, completely separate from, the information in the structure itself. This applies whenever we describe something with words or numbers or illustrations. This repetition of the information in a structure, but with much less mass, is seen nowhere in the universe of inanimate matter, where the only information about any structure is within the structure itself.

There is a vast amount of information in electron repulsion in biological structures. In fact, it contains the entire second dimension of information of biological structures that is not in inanimate matter. But yet we see that information cannot originate in electron repulsion, since it does nothing more than resist the merging of atoms together. This can only mean that the information in electron repulsion in biological structures could not possibly have originated naturally in the universe, it must have been put there by God.

THE PEAK PATTERN CHARACTERIZES LIVING THINGS

A peak requires two dimensions of information. Notice how vital this pattern is to living things. In fact, I consider the peak as the very definition of life.

For optimum health and efficiency, we always see a peak. We see the peak pattern in the optimum amount of sleep and food, of rest and recreation in the balance of work and play. Plants require an optimum amount of sunlight and water, too much or too little and the plant will die. Anything that has to be balanced is a reflection of the peak pattern that is manifested by living things, but not by inanimate matter, because it requires two dimensions of information.

A flame seems to resemble a living thing, in that it requires fuel and oxygen to sustain it. But it lacks the peak pattern. A flame operates by the one-dimensional line of inanimate matter, the more fuel and oxygen the better.

Anything that requires an optimum amount or combination, or any kind of balance, represents a peak. This pattern is only seen in living things, because the peak requires two dimensions of information, and is meaningless in the one dimension of information in inanimate matter.

THE BALANCE LINE AND TRUTH PAIRS

I have developed a philosophy of life that revolves around what we could call "The Balance Line And Truth Pairs".

The Balance Line is always there, in all that we do. It is a continuation of the peak pattern which characterizes living things, in contrast with inanimate matter. An ideal example is food, there is a peak which represents an ideal amount of food in a person's diet, as opposed to too much or too little. The Balance Line continues this individual peak pattern into a line which runs through all of human society. This peak pattern is completely missing in inanimate matter.

The Balance Line operates like a mathematical equation. What is on both sides of the equal sign (=) must be equal. We can change the equation however we like, as long as we make the same changes to both sides of the equation. This is why the equal sign is the most important symbol in mathematics. We could say that there is a balance line in the universe of inanimate matter, Newton's law that every action must be balanced by an equal and opposite reaction, but the balance line of human life is far more complex because it includes the second dimension of information.

When someone borrows money, they are getting money which they have not earned and this upsets the Balance Line. But when the money is repaid, the Balance Line is restored.

For the economic system to continue operating, people buying on one side of the Balance Line must be matched by people selling on the other side. This balance between buyer and seller underscores all of economics, such as the law of supply and demand.

In the posting "The Fundamental Currency" on my world and economics blog, www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com , the Fundamental Currency is actually freedom. There are two slants on freedom, "freedom to" and "freedom from". The underlying pattern in the operation of society is the exchange between the two slants of freedom.

The law is a manifestation of the Balance Line. When one breaks the law, the Balance Line is upset. When justice is done, the Balance Line is restored.

The necessary equality of opposite sides of the Balance Line can be seen everyday wisdom sayings such as "You get what you pay for", "You reap what you sow", "You get out of it what you put into it" and, "Do to others as you would like them to do to you". These statements are all about maintaining the Balance Line.

I recognize four sets of truth pairs:

1) True and False
2) Negative and Positive
3) Good and Bad
4) Right and Wrong

We, being of higher complexity then our inanimate surroundings, can see truth possibilities that may not actually be true. The reason is that not enough complexity exists in our surroundings to make all of the possibilities that our more complex beings can see be true.

The first truth pair, True and False, is what we use to find out what is true. This is why the two most important words in our language, "yes" and "no", are opposites that resemble a set of truth pairs. If someone comes up with a theory about something, it would be more correct to state that the theory is either true or false, rather than right or wrong.

We have senses and feelings. There are things that we want, and things that we do not want. Some things are pleasing, and others displeasing. This is where the second set of truth pairs comes in, Negative and Positive.

The third truth pair is Good and Bad. There is a difference between being pleasing and good, and also between being displeasing and bad. The difference between the second and third pairs often comes down to short-term versus long-term. Positive and Negative is in the short-term, while Good and Bad is long-term. Deciding to have a diet of nothing but chocolate might be positive in the short-term, but would likely be bad over the long term. Deciding to begin an exercise program might be negative in the short-term, but would likely be good over the long term.

The Good and Bad truth pair is often based on the necessity of maintaining our elevated level of complexity. If not managed well, our level of complexity will deteriorate back toward the lower level of our inanimate surroundings. This is manifested in our health, and also the potential deterioration of poorly-maintained buildings and machines.

The seeking of how to bring about good instead of bad brings us to the fourth truth pair, Right and Wrong. This usually means doing, not whatever we want to do, but what we are required to do. A community agrees among themselves upon certain rights and rules for the benefit of all, and that no one will infringe on the rights of others. Right and Wrong also means following the requirements of God.

A person could "live" in any of these four sets of truth pairs. A person living in the True and False pair would be an impaired person, having difficulty differentiating reality from what is false. A person living in the Negative and Positive pair would be one who "lives in the moment", just living as their impulses tell them to. A person living in the Good and Bad pair would have the wisdom to live an effective life, by choosing what is good and avoiding what is bad, but only to get the benefits for themselves of living in this way. The highest way of life is to live in the fourth pair, Right and Wrong. This person would also do what is good, and avoid what is bad, but would do it because it is the right thing to do whether it would bring immediate benefits or not. This would mean considering the rights of others and obeying God, even if no tangible benefit is in sight.

We could say that these four truth pairs act as four bricks, one on top of another, to support the Balance Line. This structure of truth pairs is how we find our way to the Balance Line. I see this as the underlying mechanics of how human society operates. Animals operate by truth pairs also. Inanimate matter has no truth pairs, plants have the first two truth pairs.

Remember my doctrine that any large-scale structure must reflect the nature of it's "building blocks". An ideal example is that of orbits, the orbitals and spins of electrons in atoms being reflected in the orbits of astronomical bodies that are composed of these atoms, because that is the only information available with which to construct the large-scale structures. This is very clearly reflected in these sets of truth pairs. In my cosmological theory everything in the universe, space and matter, is composed of infinitesimal electric charges. There are two charges, negative and positive. We could say that this is the one truth pair of inanimate matter, with the other truth pairs based on it, and that plants have the next two truth pairs and creatures with a free will having all four truth pairs.

Just as the sets of truth pairs are seen to be based on the underlying fact that everything in the universe, both matter and space, is ultimately composed of the two fundamental electric charges of positive and negative, the Balance Line in all human activity can also be seen to be ultimately based on the most important physical rule in the universe, that positive and negative charges must balance. We are based on the same mathematical rules as the universe of inanimate matter, but we have the second dimension of information also which cannot be quantified by mathematics.

Atoms can be considered as a kind of "zero unit", which is composed of a balance of both of the opposite electric charges. But atoms often do not completely maintain the Balance Line between positive and negative charges, and this is what brings molecules into existence. The formation of molecules, from atoms combining together into a structure, is a further attempt by the universe to attain the Balance Line between the two opposite electric charges. Molecules form by either ionic or covalent bonds, both of which are based on an electric charge imbalance. Nuclear bonds, within the atom, are far stronger than the molecular bonds between atoms and this is a reflection of how the structure of the atom mostly, but not entirely, succeeds in attaining a balance between electric charges, and the attachment of atoms as molecules attains the rest.

In my cosmological theory, gravity results from another imbalance and the resulting attempt by the universe to regain the Balance Line. Energy always overcomes either of the basic rules of electric charges, that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. Atoms can be considered as the fundamental "zero unit" of the universe in that they are structures where the two opposite charges balance out. But the formation of atoms by the application of energy to the electric charges comprising space involves much more overcoming of the repulsive force between like electric charges then the attractive force between opposite charges. It has to be this way or atoms could not exist, binding energy in the nucleus of an atom overcomes the mutually repulsive force between the positively-charged protons.

So this leaves a net attractive force because not only must there be a balance between the electric charges themselves, but also between the rules of the electric charges. This overcoming of the repulsive force between like-charged protons in the nucleus, so that atoms can exist, leaves a net attractive force in the universe which shows up as gravity.

This theory of "The Balance Line And Truth Pairs" illustrates how much more complex humans are in relation to our surrounding environment of inanimate matter. The universe of space, matter and, energy operates entirely by one pair of opposites, negative and positive electric charges. All of the laws of physics are ultimately based on these fundamental charges and the rules of their operation. The "Balance Line" of the inanimate universe is always the balance of electric charges.

The world of humans is also based on pairs of opposites, much like the primal negative and positive electric charges. But whereas the inanimate universe operates by only one pair of opposites to attain it's balance line, we have four pairs of truth pairs to attain our Balance Line. The Balance Line of the universe is always based on electric charges, while ours is based on higher intangibles like economics and justice. This is because we have the second dimension of information that inanimate matter does not.

This is in a similar way to inanimate matter having only two points of information, the two electric charges, while the DNA of which living things are composed has four points of information, even though it is composed of the same kind of atoms as inanimate matter.

However, it all shows how there is only a limited amount of information in the universe, originating with the Big Bang, and even the underlying mechanics of how the human world operates must be based on the same information that the physical universe does, but with the second dimension of information added.

HOW BIOLOGY AND HUMAN LIFE FITS INTO COSMOLOGY IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY

Let me illustrate how biology, with it's additional dimension of information, fits into cosmology in another way, this time concerning technology.

All technology is tools that we use to bridge the gap between our higher level of complexity and that of our surrounding environment, due to the extra dimension of information in biology that is not found in inanimate matter. Technology is us imposing our higher complexity level, with our two dimensions of information, on our inanimate surroundings. This led me to conclude that the complexity of all different examples of technology must ultimately be equal because it holds a place in this information gap. Given the difference in the two information levels, biology having two dimensions of information while inanimate matter has only one, all technology is a manifestation of this difference.

All examples of technology certainly do not appear to us as equal in information, but this is because our technology has both dimensions of information but we tend to look at only one of them. The information in technology is composed of both internal and external information, but we tend to see only the internal information..

The external information in technology, the side that we tend not to pay attention to, can be described as the information concerning the position or location of that example of technology in the grand scheme of us, with two dimensions of information, relating to our surrounding inanimate environment, with it's only one dimension of information. The reason that some examples of technology appear to us to be more complex, containing more information, than others is simply that it is not as dependent on external factors, but the external information plus the internal information is constant, and equal to the total information within us with our two dimensions of information..

One way of looking at the difference between internal and external information in an object or system of some kind is the basic words "how" and "why". The how of something's existence is the first dimension of information, that of inanimate matter. The why of it's existence is the second dimension of information, that in living things. An inanimate object can be explained as to how it exists in the same way that an object made of inanimate matter, but shaped by living things, can be explained as to why it exists.

The internal information in a piece of technology represents the one dimension of information in inanimate matter, and the external information represents the second dimension of information in biology that is not present in inanimate matter.

We can use the human body as an example of this equality of total information. The body is what we could call an alphabet system. This means that parts of the body can have no real meaning apart from the whole. This gives any part of the body much more information than if it was a stand-alone object.

The thumb appears as a simple part of the body, with much less information than the heart or eye or brain. But we only see the internal information in our usual way of looking at things. To understand the thumb, we must understand in full how it fits into the complete picture. In other words, we must see it's external information as well.

Aside from understanding the information in the physical thumb itself, we would have to understand the nerves within it and the blood which circulates through it. We would have to understand why the body needs a thumb, how the eye sees an object and the brain wants to pick the object up and the muscles propel the body to the object so that the hand can pick it up because the thumb is positioned in opposition to the fingers, which brings us to the laws of physics because we must overcome the gravity that is holding the object down , which is the reason that we must pick it us by using the thumb, which brings us to the laws of physics and to the cosmology of why the gravity exists that the thumb must work to oppose, as well as the energy required to lift something by using the thumb, which brings us to how we get our energy from food and how this energy ultimately comes from the sun, which brings us to the nuclear fusion by which the sun operates, then we have to get into the information of why we would want to pick up the object by using the thumb, and so on. It actually requires bringing in all of the information in the universe, the two dimensions of information both of living things and of inanimate matter.

So, if we have to describe all of the information involved, both internal and external, all parts of the body ultimately end up equal in their level of information. It is the same with technology because, although not all examples of technology are physically connected in the way that the parts of the body are, all bridge the gap between our higher level of containing two dimensions of information and the lower level of the surrounding environment, with only one dimension of information.

The question about the second dimension of information in technology is: Could the forces of nature have created it? If the answer is yes, then it has only the one dimension of information of inanimate matter. Even if this is the case, it can still be used as a tool. to pound or cut something, but then requires the added information of being guided by the person who is using it as a tool. The most usual sign of the second dimension of information is symmetry and even spaces in the design of the product. That would be unlikely to occur naturally because this is at the stage of the information state tending to being "different because there is no information to make it the same", as described in the section in the compound posting on this blog, "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe", titled "Negative And Positive Information In The Universe".

Some examples of technology seem to have more information than others, but that is only because more of the information is internal in the technology. If we add the internal and external information, all technology is equal in it's level of information to our two dimensions of information. When we look at some examples of technology as having more information than others, we are looking at only the internal information in the technology.

An electric saw appears to be more complex than a manual saw, but that is only because more of the information is internal, rather than external. With an electric saw, it is less necessary to understand the muscles that would power the manual saw.

A knife appears as one of the simplest examples of technology, with the least information. In fact, knives really have not changed much since prehistoric people used a sharpened piece of flint or obsidian to cut a selection of meat. But to understand the full set of information in a knife, it would be necessary to understand not just the skill involved in cutting and the muscles that would move the knife and the digestive system delivering the energy that would drive the muscles while using the knife. We would also have to understand the reasons for having knives, including how the structures of plants and animal flesh are based on carbon, of which the atoms are structured in layers so that they can be cut with a knife, and so on...

A flag looks simple, with little information, but just imagine all of the information involved in why people group into nations that identify themselves with flags. This would include the nature and use of food and resources that locals want to conserve for themselves, why we speak different languages and have different political beliefs and customs and religions that lead us to group into different nations, and so on..This is all of the external information in the flag.

The rods that an architect's rodman drives into the ground appear as very simple, of low internal information. But that is because almost all of their information is external, the complexity of position or location. To fully understand those simple rods, we would have to understand not only the human body that drove them in, but why we would need a building there and why we need buildings at all, and would involve bringing in all of human civilization just to fully understand that rod.

All technology is involved in imposing our higher level of information, with our two dimensions of information, on that of the surrounding environment, with only one dimension. Thus, the total information in all examples of technology is equal to the the level of the two dimensions of information in the humans that created the technology. If one example of technology appears as containing more information than another, that is only because more of it's information is internal, rather than external. If we add both internal and external information together, it always adds up to the level of us with our two dimensions of information because the internal and external dimensions of information in technology is a mirror of these two dimensions of information..

Seen in this way, all examples of technology are ultimately of equal complexity because they are parts of a whole, and to understand each part it is necessary to understand where it fits in the whole. Numbers operate in the same way in that they are part of a system, with each part defined by what it is not, so that it is necessary to understand all numbers in order to understand any one number. This is the pattern that I refer to as "The One And The Many", to understand any one, it is necessary to understand where it fits in the many. An ideal example is location, to understand where something is located, it is also necessary to understand where it is not located.

Use of technology illustrates, once again, how information and energy is really the same thing. I say this because we cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to something without also applying energy to it. Though technology, we can make life physically easier, meaning that it requires less energy, but only at the expense of making it more complex, meaning that it requires more information. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.

THE HIGHER AND LOWER LINES

Wouldn't it be great if life was really simple? Well, there is good news. Everything about life and living things can actually be broken down into two horizontal parallel lines, one higher and one lower. Actually, it is better described as two concentric circles, one inside the other. These two circles or lines represent the two levels of information in living things. The lower line, or the inside circle, represents the lower level of information that is inanimate matter.

Living things, as we have seen, actually have an extra dimension of information that is not present in inanimate matter. This is why, once again, mathematics is used much more to describe sciences like chemistry, physics and, astronomy than it is for biology. Numbers and mathematics is of the first dimension of information that is inanimate matter, and not the second dimension which is the additional information in living things.

The outer circle, or the higher line, which represents humans or other living things, with our additional dimension of information, is larger than the inner circle, or the lower line, which represents the single dimension of information in inanimate matter. The result is that we can see things, in the world around us, that may or may not be true.

This is simply because the complexity of our minds is greater than the complexity of the world and universe around us. There is not enough potential complexity for everything that we can imagine to be true or to exist to be true or to exist. This would not be the case if we were not of higher complexity, with the additional dimension of information. If we were of equal complexity to our surroundings, we would not be able to imagine anything that is not true.

The advantage of this is that we can create new things out of our environment, by imagining them before they exist, and then create them by imposing our complexity on the matter of our surroundings. This is effectively bringing the inner circle, or the lower line, up to the level of our line, in terms of information. This is not creating new information because it is only replicating information that is already there. The result is known as technology.

The disadvantage of our minds being of a higher level of complexity than our surroundings is that there is the possibility of believing things that are false. The reason is that there is not enough complexity, or information, in our surroundings for everything that we can perceive to be true.

This model of the information structure actually explains the relativity and quantum physics that I have been discussing in my cosmology theory. When we "look" down toward the inner circle, from our informational position inside the outer circle, we will naturally see some of the adjacent sectors of the outer circle also. This is why, on each of the opposite sides of the conventional laws of physics, we see quantum physics on one side and relativity on the other side. These two realms of science have their own rules, that are completely unlike the laws of ordinary physics. This is because, as this informational model of the two circles illustrates, we are seeing our own natures reflected back at us.

Since one line is above the other line, there may be a possibility of "falling" from the higher line to the lower line. Remember that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Another way that we see the equivalence between the two is in how we can make life physically easier, through technology, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.

So, if energy and information is really the same thing, and we can fall, in terms of energy, by way of gravity, then shouldn't there be a possibility of an informational "falling" from the higher level, with it's additional dimension of information, back down to the lower level of inanimate matter?

This is exactly what happens when a living thing dies. The same atoms are still there, which belong to the lower level of inanimate matter, but the additional dimension of information departs. Just as gravity is always seeking to pull all matter together, in terms of energy, so there is an informational "gravity" that seeks to pull the higher level of living things back down to the original level of inanimate matter.

Since energy and information are really the same thing, this higher informational level of living things must also be a higher energy level, and this is why living things require maintenance and food to survive.

Technology is the applying of our higher informational level to the matter of the lower, inanimate level. In other words, we make things that are useful to us from the inanimate matter around us. But, like our own bodies, our technology can "fall" back down to the lower informational level if it is not properly maintained, or if it breaks.

My concept is that all technology is equal in complexity, the level of our higher complexity level. Some examples of technology may appear as more complex then others. But that is only because technology varies in how much is internal complexity and how much is external complexity, but the two together sum to our level of complexity.

A cup, for example, seems like a very simple example of technology. But to really understand the cup, it is necessary to understand us and our digestive systems, and all about why we would use such a thing as a cup.

We can bring our informational level still higher by joining with other people to form a civilization. The connections between people, such as establishing laws and a division of labor, is of a higher level of complexity then that of the pure autonomy of prehistoric times.

Remember my principle of the complexity of society being proportional to the distance that the average person travels, the more complex the society is, the more total travel will be necessary. This is because the more complex the society, the more job categories and the more different products there will be, but only applies to settled civilized societies, not to life of a nomadic nature where the constant movement is the way of life.

Any kind of weathering, decay or, deterioration is a step from the higher informational level back to the lower level of inanimate matter. The reason that weathering or "exposure to the elements" is an informational step downward is that these increase the contact of the lower informational level with our technology at the higher level.

Illness, injury and, aging also represent an informational step downward, toward the lower level. Death is making the complete journey down to the lower level. This also goes for things like forgetting and loss of physical conditioning. On the higher societal level, an informational step downward is also represented by political or economic crises.

If we could ever start expressing complexity in numbers, which I think would be extremely useful, the only practical starting point would be the difference between these two levels. This would necessarily involve new methods of measurement. For example, one way to measure the complexity of the human body with regard to the lower informational level of inanimate matter would be to consider that the complexity of the body is equal to the sum total of all that could possibly go wrong with the health of the body, because the having or not having of that health is the difference between the higher and lower levels.

I consider that the existence of these two separate levels of information are proof of the existence of God, who must have created it this way. The higher informational level, which represents living things, could not have arisen out of the lower level. The reason that the lower level keeps trying to pull everything back down to it's level is that it was created first, and the higher level came after.

Are you wondering if there might be a kind of "seam", or boundary, between these two levels of information that we can see?

Actually, it appears that there is. The cell walls in living things are likely the boundary between the two informational levels. These two levels seem to be why living things have to be composed of cells. The cells are the collections of matter, of the lower informational level, which act as the building blocks of living things, according to the information in the higher informational level. This is why living things do not consist just of independent atoms, outside the units of cells. Both levels of information must be present in living things, and the divisions provided by cells facilitates that.

Each cell represents the complexity of the lower level of information, the single dimension of information in inanimate matter that is best represented by a straight line of numbers, but is far more intricate than the world of inanimate matter all around. An example of intricacy is a watch and a lawnmower. The two might be of comparable complexity, but the watch is far more intricate because it contains the same amount of information in less matter, although this intricacy does not represent more information.

The information of the differences between the cells, and of how the cells relate to one another to form a complete whole, represents the second dimension of information. Being composed of cells is a more stable structure for living things because it provides a foundation on the lower informational level, within which the living thing will exist. This enables the living things to better exist, meaning to last longer in the environment, than if it were just one complex unit at a much higher level of complexity than it's surroundings.

THE FRONT AND THE BACK

Here is something that I cannot see has ever been pointed out.

Suppose that there was a way to illustrate how living things fit into the universe around using simple everyday words. There actually is, the words are "front" and "back".

Humans have a front and a back. Animals have fronts and backs. But plants, such as trees, do not have a definable front and back. Plants have a top and bottom but not a front and back.

Nothing in the inanimate universe around us actually has a front and back. This includes stars, planets, galaxies, atoms, clouds, rocks, etc.

Like plants, things in the inanimate universe can have a top or a bottom. The rotational axis of a planet can be said to give it a one-dimensional definition of what could be a top or bottom. A spiral galaxy can likewise be said to have a one-dimensional rotational axis that can be defined as a top and bottom, although it is a matter of perspective which direction is the top and which is the bottom.

The reason that something like the rotational axes of planets and galaxies cannot have one end of the axis definitely defined as a top or bottom is that this would require another dimension of information.

Here is what I find to be so interesting. Only living things with free will, such as humans and animals, have a front and a back. Unlike plants and collections of inanimate matter, we have a two-dimensional definition. We have not only a top and a bottom but also a front and a back.

This reflects what we saw in the theory. There are two dimensions of information whereas inanimate matter has only one.

Remember that in my information theory, we are at a higher level of complexity than our inanimate surroundings. This is why we have free will. Free will doesn't make sense unless we are more complex than our surroundings. The reason that we can be wrong about things, which is a result of having free will, is that there is not enough complexity in our inanimate surroundings for everything that we can conceive of to exist.

In my information theory, plants are no more complex than the inanimate surroundings. That is why plants have a top and bottom but not a front and back. But plants are far more intricate than the surrounding inanimate environment, which means more complexity per mass. This also explains why we rely on plants for food but no one plant can provide a balanced diet. We require several plants because they are not as complex as we are.

The fact that plants are of far greater intricacy than, although no more complex than, the inanimate surroundings is shown in how objects of a similar size to the plants, such as rocks, do not have meaningful tops and bottoms. But the entire planet, with it's axial rotation, does have a top-bottom axis, although it cannot be any more than a matter of perspective which is the top and which is the bottom.

When we make things out of inanimate matter we are imposing our complexity on it. That is why many of the things that we make, such as houses, cars, appliances, signs, documents and, photographs do have fronts and backs.

So if inanimate matter has only this one-dimensional, top-bottom definition, then where could the definition of the other dimension, the front-back, have come from? It must have come from outside the universe. We must have been created by God. Plants show evidence of God's creation too, because of their far higher intricacy than their inanimate surroundings.

The Spin Balance Principle

The sphere is the default form of matter in the universe. If there is enough matter to coalesce by gravity, it will come together into a sphere. This can easily be seen in any star or planet. Conventional physics tells us that this is because a sphere is the lowest energy state.

The information on construction of a sphere must ultimately come from the two electric charges of which it, and everything else in the universe, is composed. Today, I would like to describe exactly how the information to construct the spheres in the universe comes from it's two electric charges.

The reason that the sphere is the dominant form of matter is that this form must manifest the two electric charges of which the spheres of matter are composed. A sphere, rotating in a given geometric plane, has two possible directions of rotation that are opposite to one another, and could just as easily be one direction as the other. The sphere must also have all possible rotational axes the same because it could just as easily have had to rotate in another plane.

In other words, the default gravitational form of matter must be a sphere.

This is also why there must be both matter and antimatter. If matter is actually permutations of electric charges, and there are two electric charges, then whatever permutation there is must have a reverse permutation by simply inverting the negative and positive charges. Indeed, antimatter is simply matter with the electrical charges reversed so that a positively-charged positron orbits a negatively-charged nucleus formed of anti-protons, instead of the negatively-charged electron of conventional matter in orbit around a positively-charged nucleus.

All the universe, both matter and space, is composed of the two electric charges. Matter, when there is enough to coalesce by gravity, coalesces in the form of a sphere, and rotates in one direction which could just as easily have been the opposite direction. The possible axes around which the sphere could rotate reflects the number of spatial dimensions. No other geometric form, other than a sphere, accomplishes this. Any other dominant form of matter in the universe would not match the information in the two electric charges that comprise the universe. That is why the dominate form of matter in the universe is a sphere.

The kinetic energy of matter, having been thrown outward by the Big Bang, must be manifested when that matter is pulled together as stars and planets. This kinetic energy is seen as the rotation of stars and planets and the revolution of planets around stars. The information for this arrangement comes, once again, from the atoms of which these stars and planets are composed. Electrons orbit the nucleus in the same way that moons orbit planets, and planets orbit stars. Each electron has a spin, which is reflected in the rotations of planets and stars.

We have seen already, in the posting on the physics and astronomy blog www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com that, if the Big Bang was symmetrical, all rotational and orbital planes in the entire universe must balance out so that they are equal over the 360 degrees of a circle. There is no reason to think that the Big Bang was not symmetrical, because there was no information to make it otherwise. This information also comes from the atoms of which matter is composed because each electron is mirrored by another electron with opposite spin, so that the two balance out. There are sometimes unpaired electrons, and this is what brings about magnetism. Magnetism is an effort to make all electron spins balance out.

The planes of the electron orbitals must also balance out, both within the atom and over the entire universe, because there is no information to make one plane dominant over another. The atom is not only a "zero-unit" of electrical charge, but also a zero-unit of orbital planes, and this is a reflection of how the orbital planes and rotation of planets and stars must balance out over the entire universe.

This is because the Big Bang was a relatively simple event, and there was no information to make it otherwise. Energy can bring about local imbalances of electric charge, this is what matter is, but the charges must balance out overall. The revolution and rotation of stars and planets operates in exactly the same way.

What about rotating galaxies? Why do they rotate in the planes that they do? We see groups of spiral galaxies, but with each rotating in a plane that is completely different from the others.

If an atom is where the orbital planes of electrons must spatially balance out, why shouldn't a galaxy be where revolutionary and rotational energy balance out? What else would make a rotating galaxy rotate in the plane that it does? The principle is the same as that of a balance wheel that is used to align a satellite, the motion of the wheel and the motion of the satellite must balance out.

This balance can be seen in Kepler's Law that a line from a planet to the star that it orbits will sweep over equal areas of space in equal periods of time. This means that the energy in all part of the orbit must be equal because to have more energy in one part of the orbit than another would require more information, which does not exist.

Of course, the planes of galaxies across the universe must balance out. To have it otherwise would mean that the Big Bang would have to have been asymmetrical when there was not the additional information available to make it so. As we have seen, it is Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions makes it that the universe, as a whole, must be symmetrical. The center line of matter in the universe would have to be conserved. This law would balance any asymmetries in the universe.

In the Solar System, the planets and sun were once part of the same unit. A massive star exploded as a supernova before some of the matter re-coalesced by gravity to form the sun and planets. But that is not the case with galaxies. There was only one Big Bang, not a separate one for each galaxy. Something must have gotten matter to group together into galaxies. What could that be but to group matter into "zero-units" of rotation? The information to bring this about came from the atoms of which the galaxies are constructed.

There are groupings of galaxies across the universe, but with the galaxies being of different sizes and different rotational speeds and planes, and it is all to balance rotation. In our galaxy, for example, the plane of the planets' orbits around the sun are not in the same plane at all as the plane of the galaxy, which we see as the Milky Way. There is a difference of about 60 degrees between the two.

Any gear system is, in effect, a zero unit of rotation. A gear rotating in one direction is balanced by one rotating in the opposite direction. If one gear is larger than a meshing gear, the larger one will rotate more slowly and the smaller one faster. A car can be said to be a gear system in which the tires moving the car balances out to zero with the internal rotational energy.

In galaxies that do not rotate, and the globular clusters around the outside of our galaxy, it is still likely that the rotations of stars, and revolutionary momentum of any planetary orbitals, balances out.