I believe it is a mistake to concentrate only on the reductionist theory of the "very small", and to assume that there
is nothing else interesting about systems that are larger.
I do not necessarily disagree.
Theories of spacetime and matter's "unit" composition
are not the be all and end all. To explain emergent system behaviour, you have to have a theory whose language
is a vocabulary of various kinds of complex properties. This is because emergent systems, as one of their
interesting properties, do not depend on all of the properties of their substrate. They only depend on those properties
of the substrate which are essential to the interaction constraints that determine the macro behaviour of the system.
Thus, in theory, you can change the system's substrate and still have the same complex system, at its relevant
level of description.
I am trying to identify those components of the substrate that support "observation". I am currently of the opinion that these components are shared by all dances or alternatively there are no such components. Either way "observer" would not be a useful label for any dance.
However, that being said, I think, Hal, that we're on a similar wavelength re. "fundamental" "info" physics.Snip
Ref. my previous everything-list posts on the subject:
I took a quick look. My approach is to forge a system containing no net information that nevertheless expresses no net information in the form of a randomly shifting "normal" real.