Fred H. Wöhlbier. The Evolution of Meaning

The Evolution of Meaning
Fred H. Whlbier
Published by Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

Copyright 2014 by F.H. Whlbier
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner
whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations
embodied in critical articles and reviews.
For information about permission to reproduce selections from this book
write to
Permissions, Trans Tech Publications Ltd
Kreuzstrasse 10, CH-8635 Zurich-Durnten, Switzerland
www.ttp.net
For ordering books write to
Sales Department, Trans Tech Publication Ltd.
Kreuzstrasse 10, CH-8635 Zurich-Durnten, Switzerland
www.ttp.net
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum No. 2
ISBN 978-3-908158-96-7
Contents
Preface
Chapter 1
What is it All About?

The Scientific Method
The Tree of Nature
The Tree of Everything
3
4
5
9
Chapter 2
The Material Base of Nature

Atoms
Elementary Particles
Up Quark and Down Quark
Electron
Electron-Neutrino
Matter I
Three Families of Matter
11
12
14
15
16
18
20
22
Chapter 3
Information Processing Events

Gravity
The Electromagnetic (EM) Force
The Nuclear Forces
The Four Types of Forces
Something to Wonder About
The Interaction between Particles
The Information-Processing Triplet of Parameters
27
27
29
30
31
34
39
41
Chapter 4
Law-like Information
The General Information Cycle
The Reality Status of the Laws of Nature
The Emergence of Law-Like Information
Biological Events
Conscious Events
Mental Causation
The Conceptual Level
The Category of Conscious Events
Cultural Events
The Four Categories of Law-Like Information
45
46
51
54
56
60
68
70
73
74
78
Chapter 5
Universal History
Spacetime
The Spacetime Tetrad
Spacetime and Law-like Information
The History Triplet of the Tree of Everything
Subjectivity
83
85
86
89
92
94
Chapter 6
Subjectivity
Physical Perceptions
Elementary Feelings
Propositional Perceptions
Volitions
Four Aspects of Subjectivity
97
98
99
101
102
103
Chapter 7
The Essential Dimensions

Freedom
Truth, Goodness and Beauty
The Four Essential Dimensions
107
108
110
115
Chapter 8

The Universe as a Meaning Circuit
The Superstructure of the Tree of Everything
Why Does the World Exist?
The Top Node of the Tree of Everything
121
122
126
128
131
Chapter 9
Predictions and Conjectures
133
Key Concepts and Definitions

Notes
Index
148
154
164
Table of Contents
Front Page
Contents
Chapter 1
Preface
Chapter 2
11
Chapter 3
27
Chapter 4
45
Chapter 5
Universal History
83
Chapter 6
Subjectivity
97
Chapter 7
107
Chapter 8
121
Chapter 9

Notes
Index
133
Preface
The present book is based upon the premise that information is the
fundamental entity in Nature. The Universe, from this viewpoint, consists
of an intricately interconnected network of information-processing events;
information here being understood not in the blind thermodynamic sense,
but in the active life/observation/meaning sense (P.W.C. Davies1).
This state of affairs can be formulated scientifically in terms of a
general information cycle that is applicable to all observable processes
taking place in the Universe. It turns out that there are just four categories
of laws and law-like entities that describe the outcome of events.
This result is surprising insofar as it seems to imply a 4x4 structure
of Nature of which we had hitherto been unaware. There are (1) four sets
of material particles, (2) four types of forces, (3) four dimensions of
spacetime and (4) four categories of laws and law-like information.
Further analysis led to the discovery of the Tree of Nature; an
asymmetrical dyadic decision-tree featuring a basic structure of six
fundamental parameters, a substructure comprising 24 individual
parameters and a triadic superstructure. These findings were published last
year in the book, The Tree of Nature.
The present work concerns an extension of this tree into the realms
of subjectivity and value-oriented essential dimensions; thus leading to
the construction of the Tree of Everything. The structure of this tree
features four distinct realms of reality, one of which pertains to the topic of
meaning.
For clarity, some of the results published in the Tree of

Nature are recalled in the present book. In due course, it is our
intention to combine the two books into a single volume, which
would also feature criticisms and amendments.
This book has been edited by my friend David J. Fisher (B.Sc,
D s Sc) who is the editor of a number of books and journals in the
field of solid-state physics, and the author of several general science
titles. I gratefully acknowledge Davids many comments and
suggestions, and appreciate greatly his continued support of this
work.
Fred H. Whlbier, January 2014
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 (2014) pp 3-10

(2014) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/SMPF.2.3
Chapter 1
My goal is simple. It is
complete understanding
of the Universe,
why it is as it is and
why it exists at all.
Stephen Hawking
What is it all about? Where am I and what am I doing here? Above all, who
am I, anyway? Religions have answers to such questions, but philosophers
have doubts. Can science help? Science, at its basic physical level, is a
descriptive-predictive enterprise; interested only in reporting hard (i.e.
observable) facts and in analyzing why, and how, such facts can lead on to
other hard facts. Meaning in the sense of meaning and purpose beyond
the pure facts is not part of the scientific vocabulary. This may change,
however, as science begins to understand the structural features of Nature in
sufficient detail to allow extrapolation into the non-physical realm of
meaning and purpose.
The Scientific Method

The scientific enterprise has its roots in the 13th century; with scholars such
as Roger Bacon (1214-1294), who was one of the early promoters of
observation-based research. This approach bore its first mature fruits with
the astronomical discoveries of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes
Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) who, in turn, prepared
the ground for Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and his famous three-volume
work Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published on July 5th,
1687.
Standing on the shoulders of giants, as he later said, Newton
achieved the final breakthrough with his discovery of a set of fundamental
rules: the three laws of motion, which form the foundation of classical
mechanics, and the law of universal gravitation, which describes the
workings of the first of the four natural forces that we know today; gravity.
By showing that the same natural laws govern both the orbiting of planets
around the sun, and the falling of an apple from a tree, and being able to
derive Keplers empirical laws of planetary motion on the basis of his
system, Newton initiated what is called today the scientific era.
We are all aware of the huge success story of this human enterprise.
With todays telescopes we can see backwards in time, almost to the
beginning of it all; to the beginning of space and time, that is, which
occurred pretty close to 13.7 billion years ago. The evolutionary story,
starting from the original hot-spot that constituted the Universe at that time,
and leading to the billions of galaxies which we observe today, is quite well
understood. Also understood is much of the evolution of life on Earth,
leading from the first living cell some 3.5 billion years ago to the
millions of species that fill all corners of the world, and to human
civilizations.
The fact remains, however, that all of the knowledge that has been
amassed by scientists around the globe is still at a purely descriptive level.
The scientific method of inquiry employs four steps in order to arrive at
reliable knowledge concerning the workings of Nature:
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2
(1) Observation of facts and processes; (2) hypothesis as to why these

facts and processes are the way that we observe them; (3) testable
predictions that follow from the hypothesis; (4) experimental verification of
the predictions as an indication that the hypothesis may be correct; this
conclusion remaining in force until new experimental results show the
hypothesis to be wrong.
If this is the approach, how could we possibly arrive at answers to
those questions that interest humans the most: What, if any, is the raison
dtre of the existence of the Universe? Is there any deeper meaning to the
phenomenon of life? What is consciousness good for? Could not all
processes function just as well without it? Above all: what is our place in
this strange world (Einstein)?
The scientific method has not been designed to tackle such questions.
It has however produced such a treasure trove of knowledge that we begin
to see structures that extend into the realms of meaning and purpose. This is
what the present book is all about.
The Tree of Nature

It has recently been shown2 that the workings of Nature are best understood
in terms of information-processing events. This is fully in line with the
thinking of some of our most prominent physicists, such as Anton Zeilinger
(information is the fundamental substance of the universe3), John A.
Wheeler (all things physical are information-theoretic in origin4) and Lee
Smolin, for whom the world consists of a large number of eventsand the
flow of information among events5. According to the physicist David
Deutsch6, a prominent proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics, The physical world is a multiverse, and its structure is
determined by how information flows in it. In many regions of the
multiverse, information flows in quasi-autonomous streams called histories,
one of which we call our universe.
Figure 1.1 The Tree of Nature branches out from Nature (as a whole) to a
first immaterial level, made up of the parameters of Spacetime and Lawlike information; the latter being the starting point for another branching
process which leads to a second level featuring the parameters, Forces and
Matter I. A third, and final, level encompasses the two high-energy
variations of matter; Matter II and Matter III.
The multitude of events taking place in our Universe (or Nature) can
be described in terms of a general information cycle in which the
applicable laws and law-like entities (e.g. rules, habits, norms and ordering
principles), subsumed here under the heading of law-like information,
play a decisive role (see Chapter 4).
It turns out that the laws and law-like entities can be classified into
four categories; the main classification criteria being degree of
intentionality, acquisition of knowledge and type of rationality. In this
monistic view, the processes involving life, subjective consciousness and
objective knowledge do not differ in principle from elementary physical
events, but instead refer simply to different types of information processing.
The fact that the events taking place in the Universe are describable in
terms of four categories of law-like information leads to a 4x4 structure of
Nature of which we had not previously been aware: There are
(1) four sets of elementary particles,
(2) four types of forces,
(3) four spacetime dimensions and
(4) four categories of laws and law-like entities.
The immediate conundrum was, Why always four?
Further study led to the discovery that the fundamental structure of
Nature can be pictured in terms of a simple decision tree, called the Tree of
Nature, as shown in Figure 1.1. The material base of the tree (bottom
triangle) comprises the three sets of material particles (Matter I, II and III).
The second triangle from the bottom refers to the topic of information
processing and comprises those items which are needed for any processes to
be able to take place in Nature: material aggregates, the forces acting
between them and the applicable laws and rules (law-like information). The
third triangle, labeled history, comprises those parameters that are needed to
describe fully all of the events that have ever taken place; in terms of the
location and time of their occurrence (spacetime coordinates) and their
causal relationship to other events (expressed by the applicable laws and by
other types of law-like information).
Figure 1.2 The Tree of Everything results from extending the Tree of
Nature by adding a fourth triangle at the top. The enlarged tree branches out
from Reality (at the top) to a total of eight fundamental parameters; each
of which being the starting point for two further splitting processes (which
are not shown here).
In the top-down view, the structure of the tree is seen to result from
consecutive branching processes. Nature (as a whole) represents the top of
the tree, and the first splitting process leads to a first immaterial level
formed by the parameters of Spacetime and Law-like information; the
latter being the starting point for another branching process which leads to a
second level featuring the parameters, Forces and Matter I. A third, and
final, level encompasses the two high-energy variations of matter; Matter
II and Matter III (Fig. 1.1).
As we shall see below, at each of these six fundamental parameters
of Nature the tree branches again and produces, by means of two additional
splitting processes, four individual parameters. In addition to this
substructure, consisting of 24 individual parameters, the tree will be shown
to exhibit also a distinct superstructure consisting of three triads of
fundamental parameters.
The important point here is that the structural features of the Tree of
Nature are such that they suggest an extension of the tree by adding a fourth
triangle at the top, as is shown in Figure 1.2. The addition of the fourth
triangle yields a Tree of Everything including, as it does, those features of
Nature that are connected with the aspects of meaning and purpose.
The Tree of Everything

The Tree of Everything represents the ontological preconditions for the
becoming of the Universe, and its subsequent expansion and development.
It answers the questions, What are the fundamental factors that determine
the workings of the Universe? and How are these fundamental parameters
interrelated? The term, ontology, refers to the study of being, or
existence. It is concerned with the parameters that must be in place before
any events can begin to take place. The basic aim of ontological inquiry is
to determine what categories of existence are fundamental, and to discuss
the question of in what sense the items in those categories can be said to
exist in reality.
10
The ontological structure of the tree is more fundamental, than is any

chronological description of the evolutionary process, because it also
contains time as one of its ontological parameters. The factor, time,
would have no place within a chronological order (in which events are
ordered along the time axis); rather, it is a precondition for any
chronological considerations.
In other words, the evolutionary story of the Universe can begin only
after all of the fundamental conditions have been set up. The setting-up of
the ontological parameters turns out to proceed by means of splitting
processes that begin at the top of the tree and end with the establishment of
the material entities at the base. The evolutionary story itself begins at the
bottom, at the material base, and develops from there.
In the following chapters we shall study each of these parameters of
Nature, and consider the structural relationships via which they are
interrelated. For reasons that will become clear later, we shall begin at the
bottom of the tree (the material base) and proceed, level by level, to the top.
The principle aim is to find out how Nature works, not only at the level of
physics, but also at the levels of life and consciousness, and whether we can
discern any deeper meaning in it all.

Chapter 2
The first principles

of the Universe are
atoms and empty space
Democritus (460-370 BC)
In his famous Lectures on Physics1, Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman

argued that our most important piece of scientific knowledge is the fact that
the world is made of atoms: If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific
knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the
next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most
information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis
that all things are made of atoms little particles that move around in
perpetual motion
12
Atoms
Atoms are the material basis of the Universe. The first to come up with the
atomic hypothesis were the ancient Greek philosophers Leucippus (first
half of 5th century BC) and his disciple Democritus (460- ca. 370 BC). The
ancient scholars arrived at their astonishing hypothesis by considering the
question of whether a given piece of matter could be cut into smaller and
smaller parts, ad infinitum, without ever reaching an end. It seemed to them
that the cutting process must end at some stage; that there had to be some
final grain which could not be split up into further smaller pieces.
Democritus called these uncuttable grains atomos (Greek for indivisible).
The atoms were thought to be invisibly small, unchangeable and
indestructible, and to move around in empty space. The Universe was made
up of atoms and empty space; everything else following from these two
ingredients. In the words of Democritus: By convention there is bitterness,
by convention hot and cold, by convention color; but in reality there are
only atoms and the void.
When the great Aristotle (384-322 BC), disciple of Plato and teacher
of Alexander the Great, discussed the atomic hypothesis he gave it an
interesting twist. Even though he actually rejected the theory, the
philosopher succeeded in giving the hypothesis a good deal of plausibility
by citing an analogy between atoms and the letters of an alphabet; a limited
number of which can be used to produce a seemingly infinite number of
words and sentences.
It took mankind more than two millennia to come up with scientific
proof that the atomic hypothesis is indeed correct. In 1643, the Italian
mathematician Evangelista Torricelli invented the barometer by showing
that air can push down a column of liquid mercury. In the following
century, the Swiss mathematician Daniel Bernoulli explained these findings
by conjecturing that air and other gases consist of invisibly small particles
that push each other around in otherwise empty space.
13
In 1803, the English scientist John Dalton finally developed a fullyfledged atomic theory according to which all forms of matter (and not only
gases) are composed of indivisible atomic particles. Even though Daltons
atomic approach was highly successful in understanding chemical reactions,
it took science another century before the theory became generally
accepted.
By the end of the 19th century, the physicists James Clerk Maxwell
and Ludwig Boltzmann had provided convincing evidence that the theory
was correct but there were still many scientists, including giants such as
Ernst Mach, who adamantly rejected it. This on the grounds that science
was based upon observable facts and that unobservable things, such as
hypothetical atoms, could not possibly be part of serious scientific theory.
In 1906, the fierce and bitter ongoing debate drove the depression-prone
Boltzmann to commit suicide. Only two years later, the work of Albert
Einstein, at that time still an unknown clerk at the Swiss patent office in
Berne, and Jean-Baptiste Perrin, convinced the scientific community that
atoms must really exist.
Then 1905, later to be called Albert Einsteins Annus Mirabilis
(miraculous year), saw the great physicist publish four papers which
radically revised our views of space, time and matter. One of these papers
explained the hitherto inexplicable phenomenon of Brownian motion in
terms of atomic theory. Brownian motion is named for the Scottish
botanist Robert Brown who, during microscopic studies made in 1827, had
noticed that small particles floating in water were jiggling around as if
something was pushing them. Einstein, convinced that the atomic
hypothesis was true, surmised that the particles were kicked around by
water molecules and provided the mathematical equations that correctly
describe this behavior. Three years later, the atomic hypothesis was
experimentally confirmed by French scientist, Jean-Baptiste Perrin.
Nobody had still ever actually seen atoms of course. One ten-millionth
of a millimeter in size, they are just too small to show up in our
14
conventional microscopes. It was only in 1981 that this shortcoming of

observational atomic theory was finally resolved when Gerd Binnig and
Heinrich Rohrer developed the scanning tunneling microscope. This is
based upon quantum-physical phenomena and allows us actually to see
the surfaces of atomic and molecular arrays. In 1986, these two scientists
were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for this work.
Now that we can actually see them, it is undisputable that atoms exist.
There are 92 types of atoms to be found in Nature; each type representing
an element. In addition, 20 other types of atoms (elements) have been
synthetically produced during scientific experiments. Atoms can combine to
form the millions of different substances (molecules) which we observe in
Nature; ranging from hydrogen and water molecules (consisting of two and
three atoms, respectively) all the way to the unbelievably complex
biological substances in which thousands of atoms combine to form
intricately structured molecules (DNA, proteins etc.).
Democritus had actually thought that each substance is constituted of
its own type of atom, but Nature apparently operates much more
economically in that it needs only 92 types of atoms, which can combine to
form the millions of substances in the world as we see it. If Nature functions
so economically, could it not be that the approximately 100 atoms are made
up of a limited number of smaller particles? Could it not be that there are
only a handful of elementary particles of which atoms are made?
This is indeed so. We know today that atoms are made up of a heavy,
and positively charged, nucleus which is surrounded by various numbers of
negatively-charged electrons. The nucleus consists of one or more
positively charged protons and (zero or more) neutrons (carrying no
charge). As we shall see below, protons and neutrons are in turn made up of
two types of quarks. Atoms are thus made up of only three types of
15
elementary particles: two types of quarks (called up quarks and down

quarks) and electrons.
For some reason, Nature has also provided us with a fourth type of
elementary particle; the neutrino, which is similar to the electron but which
carries no electric charge (whereas the electron carries a negative electric
charge). The world in which we live consists only of these four types of
matter particles: neutrino, electron, up-quark and down-quark.
Up Quark and Down Quark

The up and down quarks are the elementary particles that occur commonly
in Nature. As we shall see below, there are two additional sets of quarks
(charm/strange and top/bottom) that are formed in high-energy collisions
and can be studied in particle accelerator experiments. The existence of
quarks was conjectured independently by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and
George Zweig in 1964; and confirmed experimentally, one after another, in
the period 1968-1995.
One of the curious aspects of quarks is that, even though they are the
tiniest of the elementary particles, they make up most of the mass of the
Universe, by far. Another odd finding is that the attractive forces acting
between them become stronger as the particles move apart; in surprising
contrast to the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force, which
decrease in strength as the aggregates involved are separated by larger and
larger distances. Another unique property of quarks is that they cannot exist
by themselves; isolated from other quarks, that is.
Quarks are so different from other material particles or aggregates
(ions, atoms, molecules, crystals) that they certainly deserve to be
characterized by such unusual names as up and down, charm and strange,
bottom and top. And it comes as no surprise that these six varieties are not
referred to as different kinds or types, but as different flavors.
16
The name quark is due to Gell-Mann who was inspired by the

nonsense-word quark which occurs in James Joyces scurrilous novel,
Finnegans Wake; in a passage beginning with
Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he has not got much of a bark
And sure any he has its all beside the mark.
Another one of their peculiarities is that quarks possess an electric
charge that is a fraction of that of an electron. The up quark carries a charge
of +2/3, whereas the charge of the down quark is -1/3. Quarks are the
building blocks of positively-charged protons (charge +1) and uncharged
neutrons (charge 0). Thus, in order to form a proton, two up quarks and one
down quark need to combine whereas, for the formation of a neutron, two
down quarks and one up quark are required. To get this result, one simply
needs to add the charges.
Up quarks and down quarks cannot exist in isolation. They can never
be observed individually, that is. In other words, the two types of particles
complement each other in a very strong way. We shall see more of such
complementarities as we study the other parameters of the Tree of
Everything.
Electron
The name of the third elementary particle, the electron, is connected with
the findings of the ancient Greek scholar, Thales of Miletus (ca. 624-546
BC), who had noticed that amber, when rubbed with silk, attracted light
objects. Amber is fossilized pine resin and, as we know today, the rubbing
charges its surface electrostatically. But Greek mythology held a more
poetic view of amber: When Phaeton, the son of sun-god Helios also
called Elector was killed, the tears of his mourning sisters became the
origin of electron, the Greek word for amber.
17
In the mid-19th century, the British chemist Richard Laming suggested

that an atom is composed of a core at the center, surrounded by particles
carrying electric charges. Two decades later, Irish physicist George
Johnstone Stoney studied the phenomenon of electrolysis and conjectured
that there exists a single definite quantity of electricity, the charge on a
monovalent ion. On the basis of Faradays laws of electrolysis, he was then
able to estimate the value of this elementary charge and suggested that it be
called an electron; a combination of the words electr(ic) and (i)on.
The final breakthrough came when British physicist J.J. Thomson
succeeded in showing experimentally that electrons are particles. For the
first time it became clear that atoms are composed of smaller parts. Today,
we know that atoms consist of a nucleus at the center, and a shell of
electrons surrounding it. The size of an atom arises from the fact that the
electrons are at a certain distance from the nucleus. One can thus picture an
atom as consisting of three ingredients: a small nuclear core, one or more
surrounding electrons and empty space; most of it is empty space.
The shape of the electron has been shown to be almost perfectly
spherical, and its mass to be nearly 2000 times smaller than that of a proton;
the nucleus of the smallest atom (hydrogen). Almost all of the mass of an
atom is thus located in the nucleus.
What makes electrons important is that they carry a negative electric
charge. Because of the electric charge, the number and distribution of the
electrons determine the chemical properties of an atom. The bonds that hold
atoms together in molecules, crystals and other substances are completely
determined by the number of electrons of the respective atoms.
This is to say that all of chemistry is due to electrons and their charge.
All molecules, beginning with the simplest, such as hydrogen or water, and
ranging up to such ridiculously complex aggregates as proteins and genes,
are due to the behavior of the negatively charged electrons. When it comes
to our everyday life, it is the electrons that count. This is in complete
contrast to the neutrino, the fourth (and last) kind of elementary particle,
which hardly seems to matter.
18
Electron-Neutrino
The most entertaining fact about the electron-neutrino (one of the three
neutrino-types) is the way it was discovered. In the nineteen-twenties, the
concept of the atom was generally accepted and quite well understood. One
of the few remaining puzzles were radioactive beta-decay processes in
which electrons are emitted from an atomic nucleus. The energies of such
electrons were shown experimentally to exhibit a continuous rather than a
discrete spectrum; thus apparently contradicting the law of conservation of
energy.
To solve the problem, Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli came up
with the idea that, in such processes, a hitherto unknown elementary particle
was emitted whose properties were such that the continuous energy
spectrum could be explained without running into conflicts with wellestablished conservation laws.
Pauli proposed his daring idea in a letter sent to a meeting of atomic
physicists (addressed by Pauli as radioactive ladies and gentlemen), held
in Tbingen (Germany) in 1930. Here are some excerpts from the text,
which has become one of the most famous pieces of physics history:
Dear Radioactive Ladies and Gentlemen,
As the bearer of these lines, to whom I graciously ask you to listen, will
explain to you in more detail I have hit upon a desperate remedy to save
the law of conservation of energy Namely, the possibility that in the
nuclei there could exist electrically neutral particles, which I will call
neutrons The continuous beta spectrum would then make sense with the
assumption that in beta decay, in addition to the electron, a neutron is
emitted such that the sum of the energies of neutron and electron is
constant.
But so far I do not dare to publish anything about this idea, and
trustfully turn first to you, dear radioactive people, with the question of how
likely it is to find experimental evidence for such a neutron I admit that
19
my remedy may seem almost improbable But nothing ventured, nothing

gained, and the seriousness of the situation, due to the continuous structure
of the beta spectrum, is illuminated by a remark of my honored predecessor,
Mr Debye, who told me recently in Bruxelles: Oh, It's better not to think
about this at all, like new taxes. Thus, dear radioactive people, scrutinize
and judge.
Unfortunately, I cannot personally appear in Tbingen since I am
indispensable here in Zrich because of a ball on the night from December
6 to 7. With my best regards to you, and also to Mr. Back, your humble
servant signed W. Pauli.2
Pauli had called his new particle neutron but this name was later
changed, by the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, to neutrino which is Italian
for little neutron. The neutrino is indeed extremely small and its mass has
since been shown to be 4 million times lower than that of an electron3.
Today we know that neutrinos do exist and that they are not only very
small but extremely elusive. They are smaller and much lighter than
electrons, but the decisive difference between the two types of particles is
that neutrinos are electrically neutral, i.e. they do not carry an electric
charge.
This feature has the consequence that the interaction between
neutrinos and other forms of matter is so minimal that they can pass through
the entire Earth without hitting another particle. Each second, billions of
these curious particles pass through our bodies without leaving any trace.
Because of this evasiveness of the ghostly particle, as it is often referred
to, it took 26 years to prove its existence experimentally; and another 40
years to confirm experimentally that it has some mass (albeit infinitesimal).
The American writer John Updike aptly summed up the situation in an
often-cited poem; beginning with the words,
Neutrinos, they are very small.
They have no charge and have no mass
And do not interact at all.
20
The earth is just a silly ball

To them, through which they simply pass,
Like dustmaids through a drafty hall
Or photons through a sheet of glass.
Matter I
As we have seen above, the material aggregates of the world around us
consist of just four elementary particles: the elusive electron-neutrino and
the three particles of which atoms are made: the electron (responsible for
the shell) and the up and down quarks (forming the nucleus).
The two types of quarks can be said to complement each other
because they cannot exist alone; without the presence of the other type of
quark that is. The electron-neutrino and the electron also seem to be
complementary to each other because, as we shall see below, their
controlling forces (the weak force and the electric force) have been shown
to be different aspects of the so-called electroweak force.
We are interested here not so much in the individual types of
elementary particles that make up the Universe but, rather, in the general
structural features of the Tree of Nature (Fig. 1.1) which permit us to
extend this tree into the dimensions of meaning and purpose (Fig. 1.2); thus
offering a first glimpse of the central question with which mankind has seen
itself confronted for at least six millennia: What is it all about?
The four types of elementary particles point to three structural features
that we shall meet time and again as we proceed toward the top of the tree:
(1) There is always an odd-man-out parameter which differs
greatly from the other three parameters. In the case of elementary particles,
the odd one is the neutrino because it has minimal mass, carries no electric
charge and interacts minimally with other particles.
21
(2) After setting aside the exception, there remains a triplet of

parameters that are, in some important way, connected to each other. In the
present case, the electron and the two types of quarks are strongly
interacting particles that have the potential to form atoms.
(3) There are always doublets of parameters that are closely
connected and, in some sense, complementary to each other. In the case of
Matter I, the complementary couples consist of (i) the electron-neutrino and
the electron and (ii) the up and down quarks, respectively.
This can be better visualized by arranging the particles in the form of
a decision tree, as shown in Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1 The four elementary particles constituting Matter I.

Odd one out: Electron neutrino.
Triplet: Electron, up-quark and down-quark.
Complementary Doublets: (i) Electron-neutrino and electron; (ii) up and
down quarks.
22
Three Families of Matter

Who ordered that? This is one of the celebrated quips that we meet time
and again in historical accounts of the story of physics. It is due to Galicienborn American physicist and Nobel Laureate Isidor Isaac Rabi; expressing
his surprise and indignation at the discovery of the muon, a kind of heavy
electron with a mass about 206 times greater than that of the electron. That
was in 1936. At that time physicists had learned to understand the world in
terms of atoms which consist of protons and neutrons at their core, plus a
shell of electrons. Nobody needed a heavier version of the electron. It just
didnt fit into the physical worldview of the day.
Figure 2.2 The elementary particles constituting Matter II.
23
Figure 2.3 The elementary particles constituting Matter III.
Almost 40 years later, American physicist Martin Lewis Perl

discovered a still heavier version of the electron; the tau, which has a mass
3500 greater than that of the electron. Perl was awarded the 1995 Nobel
Prize in physics for his discovery. Today we know that not only the electron
comes in three versions, but also the neutrino and the two types of quarks.
Here are the three groups, usually called families', of the elementary
particles:
Family I: Electron-neutrino, electron, up-quark, down-quark (Fig. 2.1)
Family II: Muon-neutrino, muon, charm-quark, strange-quark (Fig. 2.2)
Family III: Tau-neutrino, tau, top-quark, bottom-quark (Fig. 2.3)
The particles of families II and III are produced in high-energy
collisions but are extremely unstable and short-lived; decaying within a
fraction of a second. For example, the muon has a mean lifetime of two
microseconds, and the tau decays within 10-13 seconds.
24
Nobody knows why Nature has provided us with these additional

varieties of elementary particles. They have the same properties as the
particles that make up the world in which we live (family I), but they have
higher mass; and they form only in very high energy environments. These
high-mass particles must have existed in abundance in the early stages of
evolution; at the time, that is, when the Universe was still a small and
unbelievably hot spot.
In his bestselling book, The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene4 poses
questions, such as Why are there three families? Why not one family or
four families or any other number? The systematic approach which we are
presenting here does not yield an answer to the first question, but it does
have a reply to the second.
It would be consistent with the Tree of Everything (Fig. 2.4) if there
were only one family. However, if there are to be additional families, there
must be at least a doublet of additional families, branching out from family
I. Thus the tree does not explain why there should be three families, but it is
consistent with the occurrence of three families. If there were a total of two
or four families, this would not be consistent with the general structure of
the tree.
It belongs to the structural features of the Tree of Everything
(including the Tree of Nature) that parameters always come in doublets and
that such doublets arise from a source parameter with which they share a
common aspect. The source parameter here is family I. The parameters
branching out from this source are families II and III, which represent
simple variations of family I. The common aspect of the three families is
that they represent the material basis of the Universe, each version referring
to a given energy state; the higher the energy environment, the higher are
the masses of the respective particles.
25
Figure 2.4 The material basis of the Tree of Everything is constituted of the
three families of Matter.
26
Let us consider it the other way around. Let us suppose that we had
discovered families II and III first. As the particles of one family have
exactly the same properties as those of the other family, differing only in the
respective masses, we would have concluded that this could not possibly be
due to chance. Our best guess would have been that both sets of particles
were variations of a common mother set of particles. This would have
turned out to be correct (in a way).
The three sets of material particles (Figs. 2.1-2.3) make up the
material base of the Tree of Everything (Fig. 2.4). We would know nothing
of these particles if their presence was not communicated, by means of
force particles, to the rest of the world. This will be the subject of the next
chapter.

Chapter 3
Information is the
fundamental substance
of the Universe.
Anton Zeilinger
In the preceding chapter, we have introduced the twelve elementary matter

particles1 that are known to us. We would know nothing of any of those
particles if they did not interact with the world around them. These
interactions are mediated by a total of four forces; gravity, the
electromagnetic force and two types of nuclear forces.
Gravity
Modern science begins with Isaac Newton who, supposedly inspired by the
phenomenon of apples falling down from trees, discovered the most
28
visible of the four forces via which material objects can interact with each
other: gravity.
One of the first biographers of Newton, the antiquarian and
archeologist William Stukeley, tells us how the great scientist explained to
him, in April 1726, the type of thinking that had led him to discover
gravitation: Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the
ground? Why should it not go sideways, or upwards? Assuredly, the reason
is that the earth draws it. There must be a drawing power in matter, and the
sum of the drawing power in the matter of the earth must be in the earths
centreif matter thus draws matter; it must be in proportion of its quantity;
therefore the apple draws the earth, as well as the earth draws the apple."2
In the late 1660s, Newton had begun to consider the idea that
terrestrial gravity, due to which an apple falls from a tree, might extend all
the way to the Moon and other celestial objects. It took him another two
decades, however, before he was able to present his law of universal
gravitation in a book titled Philosophi Naturalis Principia
Mathematica, published on July 5th, 1687: Every point mass in the
Universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly
proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the
square of the distance between them. Point mass here refers to the fact that
the force of gravity of a material object can be regarded as being located at
the center of the object. The expression universal gravitation indicates that
gravity acts everywhere, even in outer space, and between every object.
Newton arrived at the law of universal gravitation by combining his
concept of gravity with Keplers laws of planetary motion. In this way he
was able to improve the accuracy of predictions resulting from Keplers
original planetary laws. This confirmed Newtons theory. There was only
one big problem: nobody knew how the conjectured force of gravity could
possibly extend over large distances and influence the behavior of celestial
objects. Today, more than three centuries later, there is still no general
agreement as to how gravity actually works. We shall come back to this
problem below.
29
What we do know is that the interactions between material particles

(and their aggregates) have much to do with the transfer of information. In
fact, it becomes ever clearer that the Universe does not consist of material
entities per se, but of information-processing events. This will be discussed
in more detail in Chapter 4.
The Electromagnetic (EM) Force

As we have seen above, the existence of what we call today electrostatic
forces was already known to the ancient Greek scholars of the 6th century
BC: amber, when rubbed with cloth or fur, exhibits the property of
attracting small objects.
The earliest literary reference to magnetism was made in the 4th
century BC in China. In the 11th century AD, the Chinese scientist, and head
official of the Bureau of Astronomy, Shen Kuo discovered the magnetic
north pole and, in 1088 AD, described the magnetic needle compass and its
usefulness for navigation. The first reference to the magnetic needle
compass in Europe was made almost exactly 100 years later (1187) by
English teacher and scholar, Alexander Neckam.
Somewhat more than six hundred years later, in 1820, Danish
physicist Hans Christian Oersted discovered by chance that a compass
needle is deflected by a nearby wire carrying an electric current. At that
time, nobody was able to explain what then became known as, and is still
called, Oersteds Experiment. It took scientists another four decades of
intense research by such giants as Andr-Marie Ampre, Carl Friedrich
Gauss and Michael Faraday before the Scottish theoretical physicist James
Clerk Maxwell was able to show that electricity and magnetism are
different aspects of one and the same entity; the electromagnetic field.
Maxwells theory is based upon a set of 20 differential equations
which describe the propagation of electric and magnetic fields which
regenerate each other as they travel through space. Using these equations,
and plugging-in experimental data from electrical experiments, Maxwell
was able to calculate the rate of propagation of electromagnetic fields.
30
Much to his surprise, this turned out to be very close to the speed of
light, leading him to conclude courageously, that light and magnetism are
affections of the same substance, and that light is an electromagnetic
disturbance propagated through the field according to electromagnetic
laws"3.
Maxwell had thus managed to unify our views of electricity,
magnetism and light; exposing the three phenomena as being various
aspects of one and the same entity, the electromagnetic field. On the
centennial anniversary of Maxwells birth, his achievement was praised by
Einstein as being the most profound and the most fruitful that physics has
experienced since the time of Newton.
The Nuclear Forces

In addition to gravity and the EM force, which play important roles in our
daily life, there are two other types of forces of which we have no personal
experience at all: the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, also
called the strong force and the weak force, respectively.
The strong force is responsible for holding quarks together in the
protons and neutrons which make up the nuclei of atoms. It is the strongest
of the four types of fundamental forces; being about one hundred times as
strong as the EM force and a whopping 1039 times as strong as the force of
gravity. On the other hand, whereas gravity and the EM force have unlimited reach, the strong force does not extend to distances exceeding 10-13
centimeters; roughly the size of an atomic nucleus.
The weak nuclear force is about one hundred thousand times weaker
than the strong force, and its range is at least one hundred times shorter. The
weak force is important for explaining nuclear transformations and
interactions, as well as certain radioactive processes, such as the beta-decay
mentioned in Chapter 2. The force is also responsible for the hydrogen
fusion processes taking place in the sun and other stars. What interests us
most, however, is the fact that the weak force and the EM force can be
31
considered to be different facets of a single unified force, called the

electroweak force.
At first glance, the two types of forces seem to be very different. The
EM force has unlimited reach (light waves reach us from galaxies billions
of light-years away), whereas the weak force is limited to distances smaller
than the radius of atomic nuclei. Moreover, its strength decreases extremely
rapidly with distance: at a range of about 10-15 cm it is already 10,000 times
weaker than the EM force. And yet, at energy levels of about 100 GeV
(Giga electron volt), the two forces unite naturally to form the electroweak
force.
This energy level, corresponding to temperatures of the order of 10 15
degrees Kelvin, must have existed in the early Universe during the small
fraction of a second (10-12 seconds that is) after the Big Bang which began it
all. As the Universe expanded and cooled down the combined electroweak
force split up into the two forces that have existed ever since: the EM force
and the weak force.
The physicists Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg
were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics for their contributions to
electroweak theory. Final experimental proof of the theory was obtained in
1983. The upshot here is that the EM force and the weak force are closely
related to each other (in terms of electroweak theory) and are, in a way,
complementary to each other. This is an interesting point with regard to
fitting the two forces neatly into the general structure of the Tree of
Everything.
The Four Types of Forces

After having briefly introduced the four fundamental forces with which
Nature works, let us see how they fit into the three structural features of the
Tree of Everything as we have stated them in Chapter 2 for the four types of
material entities: (1) An odd-one-out parameter, (2) a triplet of closely
related parameters and (3) two doublets of closely related and, in some way,
32
complementary parameters. Figure 3.1 shows the structural relations for the
forces tetrad:
Figure 3.1 The four fundamental forces.

Odd one out: Gravity (extremely weak, least understood, does not
noticeably participate in nuclear or atomic processes).
Triplet: EM Force, strong force and weak force (compared with gravity,
these are relatively strong forces; all three forces are engaged in atomic and
nuclear processes, and are describable within the framework of the
standard model of particle physics).
Complementary Doublets: (i) Gravity and the strong force (conjectured
below to be complementary to each other); (ii) EM force and weak force
(both unify naturally, at energy levels of 100 GeV, to form the combined
electroweak force)
33
Odd one out: Gravity

The oddity of the four forces is undoubtedly gravity. When compared to the
other three forces, gravity is a force of almost zero strength. For example,
the gravitational force with which two electrons attract each other (on
account of their mass) is 4 170 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
000 000 000 [1042] times weaker than the electromagnetic force acting
between them, and causing them to repel each other. Not only is the force of
gravity unbelievably weak, it is also the least understood of all of the forces
and its hypothetical messenger-particle, the graviton, has not yet been
confirmed experimentally. Moreover, gravity does not have any noticeable
effects on the processes taking place at the nuclear or atomic level.
Triplet: EM force, weak and strong force
The triplet is made up of the EM force, the weak and the strong force.
These are the three forces that are applicable when describing the processes
taking place in atoms. The workings of all three forces can be described by
the so-called Standard Model (or Standard Theory) which is based upon
the concept of charges (electric charge, weak charge, strong charge).
1st Doublet: Gravity and strong force
The first doublet of complementary parameters refers to gravity and the
strong force. Unfortunately, gravity is not yet fully understood. General
relativity pictures this force in a way that is not compatible with our present
view of quantum mechanics. It is generally believed that an overarching
quantum gravity theory may solve the problem und yield a deeper
understanding of the gravitational force. Intense research is in progress. The
Tree of Everything predicts here that an ultimate solution will involve a
strong complementarity between gravity and the strong nuclear force (see
also Chapter 9).
34
2ndDoublet:EM force and weak force

The EM force and the weak force represent different facets of the
electroweak force and are thus very closely and mutually related; each
presupposing the other in electroweak theory.
Something to Wonder About

We know a lot about the material particles and the forces acting between
them. But it is exactly this detailed knowledge that leads to a great many
surprising, even perplexing, questions. Is there any explanation for the fact
that two forces have unlimited reach (gravity and EM) whereas the other
two are limited to distances of the order of 10-13 cm or less? Why is gravity
1039 times weaker than the strong nuclear force?
How would the world change if the force of gravity were twice as
strong as it actually is? What effect would it have if we were to double the
strength of the EM force? What, at first glance, may look like a high-level
scientific pastime turns out to be a very serious undertaking with farreaching philosophical implications. The remarkable fact is that we would
not be here if the various properties of the elementary particles were
somewhat different than what they actually are.
In the words of one of todays best-known physicists, Brian Greene:
the detailed features of the elementary particles are entwined with what
many view as the deepest question in all of science: Why do the elementary
particles have just the right properties to allow nuclear processes to
happen, stars to light up, planets to form around stars, and on at least one
such planet, life to exist? [Italics by Greene]4 Greene refers here to the socalled Anthropic Principle which states the surprising, and much
discussed, fact that the properties of the particles and forces of Nature, and
the various constants of the laws of physics, happen to have almost exactly
the values they need to have in order to allow for the eventual evolution of
life, consciousness and human culture.
35
Here are some examples of the facts supporting the validity of the
principle. If the weak force were only a few percent stronger than it actually
is, all of the neutrons would have decayed shortly after the beginning of the
Universe and we would have ended up with a Universe of 100% hydrogen.
There would have been no cosmic and terrestrial evolution processes which
eventually paved the way to the human culture of our day. If, on the other
hand, the weak force were to be even somewhat weaker than it is, only a
small portion of the neutrons would decay before being bound up with
protons to form helium nuclei, and the resulting Universe would consist of
almost 100% helium; another dead end.
The strong nuclear force holds together the nuclei of the atoms.
Should this force be only 1% stronger, hydrogen would not exist because
the protons would have become bound up, with other protons and neutrons,
to form heavy nuclei. The disastrous result would have been that there
would now be no water in the Universe, and no life. On the other hand, if
the strong nuclear force were a little bit weaker than it is we would get into
two other problems: (1) Hydrogen-based nuclear fusion would no longer be
possible and we would be left without the sun or other stars to serve as
energy sources. (2) Only hydrogen atoms would be stable, no chemical
evolution could take place and the Universe would have remained a dead
place for all eternity.
The electromagnetic (EM) force is vital for all of chemistry because it
determines the strength with which the electrons of atoms are bound to the
nucleus. Were this force to be only a few percent stronger than it actually is,
the electrons would be much too strongly bound to the nucleus for any of
the more complex molecules to form. Sophisticated assemblies, such as
DNA or the proteins of living organisms, would have never had the slightest
chance of coming into existence. If, on the other hand, the EM force were
somewhat weaker than it is, the electrons would bind much too loosely to
the nuclei, with essentially the same result: no DNA, no proteins and no life.
The most mysterious of the forces is gravity; a force of almost zero
strength when compared to the other three forces of Nature. Gravity is so
incredibly weak that one might be tempted to consider it a negligible
36
quantity. It is, in fact, a quantity that one does not need to consider when
studying the interaction of elementary particles or the behavior of small
entities, such as atoms and molecules. However, it turns out that we would
not be here if the force of gravity were much different from what it actually
is. Let us see why.
From the viewpoint of any living organism, stars are needed for two
things. Firstly, it is the nuclear reactions in the stars that produce the heavier
elements needed for the formation of the complex molecular and biological
structures that are required for the evolution of living organisms. Secondly,
the stars provide the continuous stream of energy which an organism needs
in order to develop and maintain these complex structures. In both cases
there are stringent conditions which the stars must meet in order to fulfill
their task.
On Earth, for example, it has taken life a period of more than three
billion years to evolve creatures as complex as man, with his unbelievably
intricate brain structure. For this to happen, most of the elements we are
made of, such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, must have previously been
produced in stars, so that they were available on Earth and ready for
chemical evolution to begin. Secondly, the sun must be of the right size,
contain the right components and be in a stable condition, so that it can
provide us with a constant stream of energy for more than three billion
years.
Here is some of the fine-tuning required to fulfill these requirements.
If the force of gravity were somewhat stronger than it is, the nuclear
reactions in the sun and all of the other stars would be much more violent
and the stars would burn out much faster: life would not have the billions of
years it needs in order to evolve to the human level.
On the other hand, if the force of gravity were a little weaker than it
actually is, the effect would have been twofold. For one thing, stars and
galaxies would most likely have never been able to form in the first place.
Secondly, if stars had indeed formed at some place in the Universe, gravity
would have been too weak to press the hydrogen gas atoms together to
beyond the critical point needed for nuclear reactions to take place: The
37
heavier elements would thus never have had a chance of seeing the world;
and stellar energy sources could not have arisen.
Another problem is the production of the heavier elements in stars.
We have already seen that the weak force needs to be almost exactly as it is,
or we would end up with a world that contains either only hydrogen, or only
helium. Once a Universe reaches such a state, nothing happens anymore and
no further chemical evolution is possible. Only if the Universe succeeds in
generating, in its very first evolutionary stages, a carefully adjusted mixture
of hydrogen, deuterium (a hydrogen isotope) and helium, will it be possible
to synthesize the heavier elements needed for complex structures, such as
living organisms.
Let us now turn to the basic components of atoms; protons, neutrons
and electrons. The masses of the proton and the neutron are quite similar:
938.3 MeV (million electron volts) and 939.6 MeV, respectively. The small
difference between them is very important in many ways. For example, the
deuterium mentioned above would not form if the difference between the
masses of the proton and the neutron were to be even slightly different from
what it actually is; with the result that the heavier elements needed for the
evolution of life could not have been synthesized in the stars.
In addition, it is good that the mass of the electron is smaller than the
already small neutron-proton mass difference. If this were not the case, the
neutron would be a stable particle and would not decay as it actually does
to form a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The result would have been
that most of the protons and electrons in the early Universe would have
combined to form stable neutrons; leaving too little hydrogen to act as the
fuel of the stars.
The processes by which the various heavy elements are formed, in the
center of stars, often depend upon very special physical properties of the
particles taking part in these reactions. For example, there is the famous
prediction, of the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, that the carbon nucleus
must have an excited energy level of 7.7 MeV; otherwise it would be
impossible that the Universe could contain as much carbon as it actually
does. As all forms of life depend critically upon the abundant availability of
38
carbon, with its very special chemical properties, this energy level is a prerequisite for our being here.
Hoyle had noted that the stellar carbon-manufacturing process
combines three helium atoms into one carbon atom. As it is quite unlikely
that three atoms should meet, under the proper energetic conditions, to
combine in this way Hoyle suggested that two helium nuclei first interact to
form a beryllium nucleus and that this beryllium nucleus could then interact
with another helium nucleus to yield carbon. For this to happen in
appreciable quantities, carbon would need to have a 7.7 MeV excited state
in order to provide for the high reaction probability required for this twostep process5. When experimental investigations showed that carbon indeed
had such an excited state, at 7.66 MeV, Hoyle shot to fame and science was
enriched by the experimental confirmation of yet another very special
condition which our Universe has to fulfill in order for us to be here.
In fact, Hoyle himself was so impressed by his discovery that he
wrote: I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would
fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been
deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside
the stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part
of a deep-laid scheme. If not, then we are back again at a monstrous series
of accidents6.
There are dozens of characteristic twists of this sort, all of them
being required to be in place if life is to evolve on Earth. These include
relatively unspectacular, more or less hidden items, such as Hoyles 7.66
MeV excited state for the carbon nucleus and the finely-tuned mass ratios of
the elementary particles. Other prerequisites for life include the large-scale
properties of the Universe as a whole, such as its very special geometry, the
somewhat mysterious cosmological constant (which governs the expansion
of the Universe) and the highly improbable initial rate of cosmic expansion
following the so-called Big Bang; the beginning of the Universe. If any of
these parameters were much different, galaxies, stars and planets could
never have formed.
39
There is no question among physicists that the argument behind the

Anthropic Principle is real. "A life-giving factor lies at the center of the
whole machinery and design of the world" concludes John A. Wheeler; one
of the most towering figures of 20thcentury physics7
We shall not discuss here further the implications of the Anthropic
Principle, nor do we see any immediate connection with the structural
features of the Tree of Everything. Still, these are important scientific
findings that are in need of study and clarification.
The Interaction between Particles

How exactly do material particles interact with each other? According to
quantum field theory, elementary particles can be pictured as constantly
emitting, and re-absorbing, force-carrying virtual particles. The latter are
not directly observed, but their existence can be indirectly verified. These
virtual particles, also called messenger particles, communicate the forces
that are characteristic of the elementary particle by which they are emitted.
The messenger particles of the electromagnetic force, for example, are
virtual photons. One can picture the electromagnetic field of an electron as
being a cloud composed of virtual photons carrying the message here is a
negatively-charged particle.
The interaction between two electrons can thus be described as
follows. A given electron A continuously emits, and re-absorbs, virtual
photons; thus building up an electromagnetic field around itself. If another
electron, B, happens to come close to A, it will absorb photons that have
been emitted by A and thus notice that it is approaching another
electron. Of course, B also emits photons and these are absorbed by A.
The overall process can thus be described as involving an exchange of
photons between the two particles; resulting in the effect that the two
electrons move away from each other (because both electrons carry the
same charge, thus repelling each other).
40
Figure 3.2 The information-processing triplet of the Tree of Everything.
41
The physicist Brian Greene8 likens the process to an ice-skater who

affects a fellow ice-skaters motion by hurling a barrage of bowling balls at
him. An important failing of the ice-skater analogy, Greene points out, is
that the exchange of bowling balls is always repulsive it always drives
the skaters apart. In the case of two electrons, this analogy works well. But
if we have two oppositely charged particles, a negatively charged electron
and a positively charged positron, for example, the result of the photon
exchange is exactly the opposite, i.e. the particles are drawn together. Its
as if the photon is not so much the transmitter of a force per se, but rather
the transmitter of a message [emphasis by Greene] of how the recipient
must respond to the force in question. The message is either move apart
or come together.
It follows that the interaction between two electrons, A and B, is
equivalent to an information process in which each electron absorbs a
photon emitted by the other electron, and both react in accordance with
the applicable physical laws by moving away from each other.
In other words, interactions between particles are best described in
terms of communication and information-processing events. In the same
way that the EM force is communicated by means of virtual phonons, the
strong nuclear force employs eight types of gluons, which are exchanged
between quarks with the result of gluing these tightly together. The weak
force is transmitted via electrically charged W+ and W- bosons, and the
neutral Z boson, and gravity can be pictured as being communicated by
means of virtual gravitons. Gravity is not yet fully understood however and,
so far, the graviton has not yet been observed experimentally.
The Information-Processing Triplet of Parameters

There exists a strong complementarity between matter and forces. On the
one hand, the material particles emit virtual force-communicating particles;
and on the other hand, these messenger particles communicate the presence
of the normal particles to the rest of the world. In other words, the
messenger particles are due to normal particles and the latter cannot be said
42
to exist unless the messenger particles communicate their presence. This

complementarity is shown in Figure 3.2, second level from the bottom, to
originate from the law-like-information parameter (to be discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 4).
As we shall see below, the information processing triplet (Fig. 3.2)
exhibits the same general features that also characterize all other triplets of
the Tree of Everything. The unifying view of the three parameters (matter,
forces and law-like information) is given by the fact that all three items
taken together are needed to produce observable reality. We have already
noted that interaction processes require both material particles, and virtual
force-communicating particles. But there is also a third item involved here:
the laws that describe the interaction process.
We present reality here in terms of information processing events.
This is in line with the thinking of a number of todays physicists, such as
Lee Smolin who tells us that it is an illusion that the world consists of
objects the Universe consists of a large number of events and the flow
of information among events.
According to John A. Wheelers it from bit doctrine, all things
physical are information-theoretic in origin: Otherwise put, every it
every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself
derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely even if in
some contexts indirectly from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no
questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every
item of the physical world has at bottom a very deep bottom, in most
instances an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality
arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the
registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical
are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory Universe9.
Fundamentally speaking, reality is made up of information processing
events that lead to observable changes. Such events are based not only upon
material entities that communicate with each other (via virtual messenger
particles), but also require the existence of law-like entities such as
43
fundamental laws, rules, habits, norms and ordering principles; subsumed

here under the heading of law-like information. This will be the topic of
the next Chapter.

Chapter 4
Law-Like Information
The laws of Nature are of a

stronger and more explicit reality
than the objects to which they refer
Henning Genz
Law-like information has a special status in the structure of the Tree of

Everything (Fig. 3.2) constituting, as it does, the connection between the
two matter-related triplets of the lower part of the tree and the two upper
triplets which refer to immaterial parameters. Even though laws and lawlike entities are clearly immaterial in nature, they have some features that
connect them closely to the material aspects of the world. This will become
clearer below. Let us first consider the nature of information-processing
events, and the reality status of laws and law-like entities.
46
The General Information Cycle

One can differentiate between three aspects of information: (1) syntax refers
to the occurrence of individual units of information (the letters of an
alphabet, for example); (2) semantics is concerned with the meaning of a
given set of information units; and (3) pragmatics describes the effect of the
information units (after their meaning has been recognized). In his standard
text on information theory, the philosopher Holger Lyre emphasizes that
these three kinds of information are inseparably unified; merely
representing different aspects of the fundamental information concept1.
In short, information is a dynamic concept representing a sequence
of three different items; (1) existence of information units (syntax), (2)
understanding (semantics) and (3) production of information (pragmatics).
On the basis of these three aspects it is possible to formulate a general
information cycle that can be applied to all observable events taking place in
the Universe. The cycle is based upon the following key concepts2.
(1) An Information Processing Entity (IPE) is any entity that is
capable of sensing information, and reacting accordingly. The simplest
processors are elementary particles, e.g. electrons and quarks. These can
combine to form physical aggregates such as atoms and molecules. The
most complex processors that we know of are found in the realm of life;
living cells, multi-cellular organisms, conscious creatures and humans.
(2) Potential Information is latent information that transforms into
factual information once it is taken up and understood, in some way, by a
given processor (IPE). Potential information is communicated by material
entities, such as photons (light) reflected from a traffic sign. Its actual
meaning, in a given event, depends upon both the IPE and the situation at
hand. A traffic sign, for example, carries quite different actual information
depending upon whether the respective IPE is a car driver or a buzzard.
According to Jeremy Campbell3, information is in essence a theory
about making the possible actual. Prior to being charged with meaning, all
kinds of interpretations of a given situation are available. It depends upon
the receiver of the information (the IPE), and upon the corresponding
47
context, which factual semantic information will be generated from a given

potential setting.
(3) Factual Information results from sensing, and understanding, a
given situation in some way. It refers to the meaning that the potential
information has for a given processor in a given context. Factual
information can be questioned as to its truth value (true or untrue?). There is
no need for such information to be true, but it is always possible to question
its truth value. The adjunct, factual, thus does not refer to some absolute
truth; it refers rather to what the processor holds to be true.
(4) Law-like Information refers to such entities as laws, rules,
algorithms, norms, habits, rational behavior, decision fields or patterns of
order that guide, or describe, the actions of an IPE; once a given situation
has been understood in one way or another. Law-like information refers to
the pragmatic level of description of an event and is given by an if-then
structure; the information simply describes what is being done, or prescribes
what is to be done.
(5) The Real Effect represents the observable result of an information
process. A car may stop in front of a traffic sign; a buzzard may settle on
top of it. If there is no noticeable effect, no information processing has
taken place.
The above concepts are related to each other by the following general
information cycle; the denomination IPE indicating that the respective
information depends upon the IPE in question:
Potential Info + Factual InfoIPE + Law-like InfoIPE Real Effect
The basic premise here is that Nature is made up of causally-related,
information-processing events. The potential information of a given
syntactic situation is interpreted by an information processing entity (IPE)
in terms of the factual situation at hand (as understood by the IPE) and the
corresponding action to take (as guided by IPE-specific law-like
information). The three items together yield an observable effect, i.e. a
physical, or mental, change due to the information process. The observable
effect may concern the environment or the IPE, or both. The term
48
environment here is relative to the IPE; everything that is not the IPE
represents part of the environment. The real effect may be regarded as
being the most important aspect of the overall process. It represents
potential information for other information cycles to begin with (Figure
4.1).
The crucial point is that the four parts of the information cycle form
an indivisible whole. The potential information of a given situation
represents (syntactic) information only if it is understood (taken up) by
someone, or something, in some way. The factual interpretation of the
situation at hand leads the processor to act in a way that can be described in
terms of laws or other law-like entities; e.g. when nearing a stop sign,
apply the brakes (if the IPE is a car driver), or when coming close to an
electron, change the direction of flight (if the IPE is a negatively charged
particle).
The factual information of a given setting cannot be defined in
absolute terms. According to Lyre4, the probably most important
characteristic of information is the fact that it is, ultimately, information for
somebody [emphasis by Lyre]. Information is information for somebody,
or something (the IPE). The virtual photons of an electromagnetic (EM)
field, for example, potentially carry information for those particles that are
capable of interacting with EM fields, such as electrons or protons. For
other particles, e.g. neutrinos, they do not carry any information (because
neutrinos cannot take up virtual phonons). Information must be understood
in order to be information. The word understanding is here used in a broad
way and includes the unconscious sensing of physical data.
For living creatures, factual information is that information which, in
a given context, is held to be true. It does not need to be true (e.g. for other
creatures), but it is the kind of information that can be questioned as to its
truth value. In the realm of life, the concept of meaning is useful only in
reference to an individual, and his interpretation of a given situation.
Meaning develops at the interface between an IPE and the rest of the world.
49
Figure 4.1 The general information cycle begins with the syntactic
information that is encapsulated in a given situation and whose potential
information content is interpreted, in some way, by a processor (IPE). The
corresponding factual information (as understood by the IPE) leads to a
reaction, which can be described in terms of an if-then rule (law-like
information). The resulting real effect (an observable change in the world)
concludes the cycle and confirms the reality status of the first three items of
the process (syntactic-potential, factual and law-like information). The real
(i.e. observable) effect not only constitutes potential information for further
cycles to begin with but also represents the sine qua non condition for an
information process to take place at all.
50
Once a processor has interpreted a given situation, he is bound to act

in some way. Even the decision simply to discard a piece of information is
an action which concludes the information process with an effect. The
action of an IPE may be described by a simple if-then rule; e.g. If I see a
stop sign, then I apply the brake. Such a rule may already exist in the mind
of the processor (e.g. if the IPE has learned the rule in driving school), or he
generates it spontaneously. All actions can be formulated in terms of if-then
rules.
It is important to note that the basic laws of physics, and the
additionally emerging rules, are not causing the outcome of an event; rather,
it is the triad of potential information, factual understanding and pertinent
law-like information that leads to an observable result. Here is an example.
Let a wild beast run towards me (potential information); I notice the beast
(factual information) and my logical reasoning leads me to the rule, In case
of danger, try to escape (law-like information); and here I am on the run
(real effect). It is not only my decision to escape that causes me to act.
Rather, this is just one of a triad of items which together cause the event.
Without the wild beast running towards me, and without my noticing this
state of affairs, I would not have run away. All three factors together
produce the causal background that results in the observable effect of my
flight.
In higher animals, and especially in humans, the relationship between
potential information, factual interpretation and law-like action is often
highly complex, so that these three steps are intricately interwoven, rather
than being strictly ordered in this sequence. In any case, the decisive
element of the information cycle is always the real effect, i.e. the change in
the world that the cycle produces. What counts is realized reality (Sartre).
We can tell that the potential information of a given situation has been
understood and reacted upon, if some noticeable effect results. If there is no
observable effect, there is no event, no information processing. In the words
of physicist H.C. Baeyer, unless information leads to significant consequences, it is not really information at all5. The observable effect makes a
cycle become reality; thus creating new potential information. The potential
51
setting with which an information cycle begins is the result of all of the
previous cycles that have ever taken place.
This line of thought overcomes the traditional mechanistic worldview,
according to which material objects are passive entities that obey laws
which have been imposed upon them at the time of the Big Bang 6. In the
information-based view, the objects ranging from elementary particles to
persons are understood as being entities that are actively engaged in the
world, thus shaping the evolutionary history of the Universe. In other
words, they are more subjects than objects.
This is in line with the thinking of the philosopher Michael Hampe
who, in his recent study of the history of the concept of natural law, states:
if laws (and law-like entities) lead to patterns of activity, the natural
objects must be able to act by themselves. Human activity and spontaneity,
in such a conception, then are not something unnatural, but are found all
over in Nature7.
The general information cycle represents a unified process in which
factual information, law-like information and real effect (i.e. potential
information for further cycles to begin with) are inseparably interconnected
with each other; attaining the status of reality only at the moment when a
cycle is completed. Nature, in this view, consists of discrete entities
(information cycles) that are characterized by the fact that they process and
generate information.
The Reality Status of the Laws of Nature

Physics describes the behavior of material entities (elementary particles,
atoms, molecules etc.), and the workings of the four forces, by formulating
the respective fundamental laws which describe the events that can be
observed to take place in Nature. A much-discussed question here concerns
the reality status of the laws. Can we bestow upon them the noble status of
reality (H. Genz)?
52
For some scientists and philosophers the fundamental laws are nothing
more than man-made tools for predicting the outcome of experiments. In
this view, the laws simply represent economical means for the mathematical
description of empirical research results; they do not exist, except in our
minds. Scientists and philosophers who hold the opposite view are called
realists; they are convinced that the laws are just as real as the elementary
particles; both of them existing independently of the human mind.
The physicist and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is thus a realist
when he writes, My argument here is for the reality of the laws of Nature,
in opposition to the modern positivists, who accept the reality only of that
which can be directly observed8. The theoretical physicist Henning Genz
even goes a step further; declaring that The laws of Nature are of a
stronger and more explicit reality than the objects to which they refer9.
In the present book we argue for a realistic position, according to
which matter, forces, laws and spacetime are all real and exist
independently of the human mind; with the additional proviso, however,
that none of these four entities can exist by itself, without the other three,
that is.
Here is why that proviso is necessary. According to relativity theory,
space and time are inseparably unified; simply representing different
aspects of spacetime10. Furthermore, spacetime is also intimately
connected with matter, so that neither spacetime nor matter can exist
independently of each other. In the words of Einstein; Formerly, people
thought that if matter disappeared from the Universe, space and time would
remain. Relativity declares that space and time would disappear with
matter.11
Similarly, the fundamental laws are inextricably connected with
matter, as it is meaningless to formulate laws of Nature in the absence of
any Nature. Neither spacetime nor the laws can be thought of as existing
without the coexistence of material objects.
On the other hand, it is clear that material entities also cannot be
pictured to exist, in any way, in the absence of spacetime or the natural
laws. Material entities can be said to exist only if they can be observed; for
53
example, by measuring their gravitational effects on other material objects.

According to relativity theory this requires both the existence of spacetime
(which is curved by gravity fields) and the laws describing the degree of
spacetime distortion due to the presence of the gravitational force.
Scientific realists are thus correct in saying that the fundamental laws
of Nature are part of the basic furniture of the world12; the other basic
components being matter, forces and spacetime. But this is not all. It needs
to be added that the four components belong together, and that none of them
can be thought of as existing by itself; without the coexistence of the other
three.
Whereas the normal particles and their aggregates (atoms, molecules
etc.), as well as the virtual messenger particles of the forces, are material
entities, the laws of Nature are immaterial. This raises the question of how
immaterial entities could possibly relate to material particles. How do the
two fit together?
In the view of the general information cycle, the Universe consists of
information-processing events. The compatibility of material entities and
immaterial laws results from the fact that both have an informational aspect,
and form inseparable parts of the unified information cycle. The four items
of the cycle are given exclusively in terms of information: potential
information, factual information and law-like information, leading to a real
effect, which again constitutes potential information with which further
cycles begin. The differentiation between material and immaterial entities
thus arises only at a secondary level of description.
This is in line with the thinking of John A. Wheeler, as Brian Greene
has recently reported13. The two physicists lunched together at Princeton in
1998 and Green asked Wheeler, what he thought the dominant theme in
physics would be in the decades going forward. After a surprisingly long
silence, Wheeler looked up and said a single word: Information. As
Greene explains, Wheeler was suggesting that things matter and
radiation should be viewed as secondary, as carriers of a more abstract
and fundamental entity: information.From this perspective, the universe
can be thought of as an information processor. It takes information
54
regarding how things are now and produces information delineating how
things will be at the next now, and the now after thatthe physical
environment itself is emergent, it arises from the fundamental ingredient,
information.
The Emergence of Law-Like Information

The fundamental laws are considered to be universally applicable and, for
all we know, they were set right at the beginning (at the Big Bang that is)
and are not subject to change. All other law-like entities (rules, habits,
norms etc.) have emerged at some stage of universal evolution and are
subject to change.
The concept of emergence acquired prominent attention within the
scientific community when Nobel Laureate P.W. Anderson published his
now-famous paper More is Different14; arriving at the well-founded, and
much cited, statement to the effect that in complex systems new and totally
unexpected laws may emerge15.
According to physicist and Nobel Laureate Robert B. Laughlin16,
Emergence means unpredictability, in the sense of small events causing
great and qualitative changes in larger ones. Since principles of organization
or, more precisely, their consequences can be laws, these can
themselves organize into new laws, and these into still newer laws, and so
on. In short, emergence refers to the appearance of novel laws and
ordering principles (law-like information) that describe the behavior of
collective systems, and which cannot be anticipated; starting with the
properties of the individual components of the systems, that is.
The importance accorded by Laughlin to the concept of emergence
can be seen from his prognosis that science has now moved from the Age
of Reductionism to an Age of Emergence [emphasis by Laughlin]. The
Nobel Laureate notes that microscopic law is rendered irrelevant in
many circumstances by its children and its childrens children, the higher
organizational laws of the world17. The theoretical biologist Stuart
55
Kauffman argues along similar lines and predicts the arrival of a new arena
of science, a science that will grow in the coming decades toward some new
view of emergence and order18.
The theoretical physicist Hermann Haken has studied the emergent
properties of complex dynamic systems. Dynamic systems consist of a set
of interconnected variable components; the properties of each component
depending, at any given moment, upon the properties exhibited by all the
other components at this moment of time. The properties of the individual
components and those of the system as a whole both are dynamic, i.e. they
vary from moment to moment.
The prime example of a complex dynamic system is the neural
network of our brain, which consists of about 100 billion electrically-active
interconnected cells; the degree of activation of each cell depending upon
the state of activation of all of those cells to which it is connected. The
overall state of activation of the whole system thus varies from one moment
to another.
The laws and principles guiding the workings of such dynamic
systems constitute a new field of scientific research, called synergetics
(Haken); a denomination that emphasizes the interdependence of both the
laws characterizing the behavior of the individual elements and the behavior
of the system as a whole. On the one hand, the interactions between the
individual elements of a complex system result in the emergence of new
(collective) laws but, on the other hand, these higher laws also influence
the way in which the individual elements interact with each other; thus
incorporating them into the higher order.
Haken here speaks of emerging ordering parameters that guide the
interactions of the elements of a complex system; and of a slaving
principle according to which free elements (e.g. individual atoms) are
bound into the higher order of an emergent system (e.g. a crystal structure).
The ordering parameters have the same status as laws and rules, which we
have subsumed above under the concept of law-like information. The
synergetics approach emphasizes the holistic (top-down) aspect of the
workings of complex systems; arriving at the conclusion that it is
56
impossible to deduce the emerging higher-order laws, starting with the rules
and principles acting at the lower level of the individual elements (bottomup that is)19.
There are two properties that are especially typical of this type of
process. For one thing, an emergent process has its own autonomous
identity and, for another, it constrains and regulates in some way the lowerlevel processes from which it is emerging. According to the autonomy
condition, even though the emergent process requires the existence of the
lower level for its eventual emergence, its properties are not completely
determined by the lower level. Conscious processes (thinking, planning,
sensing), for example, have their own autonomous identity with respect to
the neural system from which they emerge.
The second characteristic refers to the top-down effects via which
emergent processes integrate the lower-level processes into the higher order.
As the higher order emerges from the lower level, and then causes the lower
level processes to change in accordance with the higher order, we can speak
in this connection of some sort of circular causality. As Haken has
pointed out, the emerging higher-order parameters somehow act like
puppeteers that inform the individual puppets (elements) how to behave. As
these information processes take place at various locations of the system in
question, one can speak here of an information field 20 (H. Haken).
Biological Events
The emergence of life, and the subsequent evolution process, is governed by
the fundamental laws of physics, the restrictions which they impose and the
freedoms that they permit. But this is not all. With the advent of life,
additional rules and principles establish themselves and begin to shape
further developments. The highly ingenious complex systems of forms and
functions in the realm of biology require well-working feedback rules and
hierarchical ordering principles. There are irreversibility, cost-benefit and
optimization principles, as well as rules of specialization, ecological
57
conformity etc.; with each species developing its own set of particular
habits, rules and principles. At the higher levels of life, we meet entirely
new principles of order and ways of behavior; connected with such
phenomena as qualitative feelings and the conscious reflection of action
alternatives.
Virtually every part of a living organism has some function that, in
one way or another, serves the survival of the individual or its species. One
can always ask, What is this part good for? or Why does this happen in
exactly this way? This implies some sort of teleology (goal-directedness),
even though nobody has purposely installed these functions of course. They
are due rather to (unconscious) Darwin-type trial-and-error evolution.
Nevertheless the concept of function can hardly be eliminated from the
biological vocabulary. The philosophers Michael Esfeld and Christian
Sachse speak in this connection of a naturalized concept of function that
is meant to emphasize the biological aspect of the term, and to deemphasize its philosophical-teleological meaning21.
On the other hand, as philosopher Reiner Wiehl rightly points out,
the term function is embedded in a fabric of causes and consequences,
so that the dimension of the consequences, and, with it, the question what
for? acquires new weight. Wiehl suggests that we have reached the point
at which the concept teleology, after its banishment, has returned to be an
acceptable term in the cognitive sciences22.
We shall choose here a middle position and denominate biological
processes as being unconsciously intentional, or better still quasiintentional; positioned, as they are, halfway between aimless physical
events on the one hand, and consciously-intentional ones on the other.
Generation, encoding, storage and retrieval of biologically-relevant
information are the central concerns of all living organisms. Biological
evolution generates information. In the words of physicist and philosopher
Bernd-Olaf Kppers; The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically
equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information23.
The ability to monitor the environment, as well as the application of
the required rules of action, determines whether an organism will survive or
58
not. Both the structural features that enable an organism to perceive features
of interest in the environment, and to choose the appropriate behavior, are
positively selected-for by the evolutionary process.
The most important rule here one that all living organisms seem to
follow almost all of the time is; Try to stay alive for as long as you can.
The survival imperative requires a set of sub-rules which help the organism
to manage the multitude of tasks that need to be addressed; e.g. preventing
the decomposition of its highly complex aggregates, keeping up the cellular
chemistry and avoiding external dangers.
But organisms normally have no deliberate stay-alive-strategy. They
do not consciously pursue this goal. Rather, they are wired in a way that
requires them to act as if they exhibited goal-directed behavior. The
philosopher Daniel C. Dennett therefore describes the biological processes
taking place in Nature in terms of an (unconscious) intentional stance
asking, for example, what Nature had in mind when it equipped giraffes
with exceptionally long necks. Nature had nothing in mind here; the long
neck is simply the evolutionary response to the fact that a large portion of a
giraffes potential food source is to be found high up in the trees. Dennett
shows convincingly that any functioning structure carries implicit
information about the environment in which the function works24.
According to the general information cycle, it takes both factual
information and corresponding law-like information to lead a given
processor (IPE) to act, and thus generate a real effect. Living organisms, in
order to follow the (unconscious) stay-alive-strategy, must discover the
relevant factual information in their environment (e.g. gradients in
nutritional materials), and act accordingly. The capabilities of sensing the
environment for important pieces of information, and enacting the proper
response, are acquired by trial-and-error evolution and encapsulate
(unconscious) knowledge about the world. Life has to do with the
physical representation of knowledge, mathematical physicist David
Deutsch has pointedly formulated25.
In this view, living organisms may be defined as systems that (1) are
equipped to sense important pieces of information in their environment, and
59
(2) act upon this information in accordance with a set of rules aiming at
survival. There are two additional features, to the effect that these systems
(3) are bounded, and (4) take part in a reproductive system capable of
adaptive evolution.
Living organisms must take up certain substances and energy from the
environment in order to prevent their complex structures from decaying,
and they must be able to avoid external dangers. They can do so only by
sensing the environment (actively or passively) and reacting appropriately;
the former corresponding to the acquisition of factual-information, and the
latter referring to the applicable rules of action.
The rules and instructions involved here differ from physical laws in
that biological rules are quasi-intentional, and imply a goal (Try to
maintain the functionality of the system). This is in line with the definition
of life as autonomous systems that can specify their own laws (Humberto
R. Maturana and Francisco J. Varela26).
Biologically-relevant law-like information is directed towards goals
(survival and reproduction). The corresponding processes are therefore best
understood if we regard them as being quasi-intentional; i.e. from the
viewpoint of an intentional stance (Dennett). The decisive point here is
that the goal-directed rules and rule systems are emergent and cannot be
anticipated from the level of physics.
The designation quasi-intentional is not meant to be a synonym for
actually unintentional. It refers rather to something half way between
unintentional and consciously intentional. Living organisms have constructed themselves by means of trial-and-error evolution; (unconsciously)
aiming at their survival and that of their species. It is this objectively
observable fact that leads us to term biological behavior quasi-intentional.
In the absence of a better term, the designation quasi-intentional is thus
meant to refer to something that is half way between unintentional and
consciously intentional.
60
Conscious Events
Many have thought about the miracle of consciousness, and are still doing
so. The biologist and philosopher Thomas Huxley made the point already in
1868, stating a truth that is still valid today; how it is that anything so
remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating
nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when
Aladdin rubbed his lamp27.
What we do know is that the brain consists of various functional
regions and sub-regions (modules); each specializing in certain tasks such
as hearing, seeing, focusing attention, sensing touch or planning actions.
Various groups of neurons usually combine temporarily to form
communicative systems that handle a given task. The input for performing
such tasks may come from the environment, or from other parts of the brain.
Our experiences are encoded in the specific structure of the 100
billion neurons of our brain, as well as in the respective weights (strengths)
of the 1014 connections between them. It is important to note that the
experiences do not pertain only to information, but also especially to the
sentiments and emotions connected with them. Both information and the
emotional feeling associated with it are retrieved from memory and guide
our actions. We see everything only through our private spectacles,
Pppel has pointedly summarized the situation; we experience everything
from a highly subjective point of view. This cannot be avoided, but we can
know about it; we can use our knowledge and our brains to guard us against
the negative effects of our prejudices28.
Pppel likens the private spectacles through which we perceive the
world to a frame, and formulates a general law: What we perceive, or
think, a decision or a judgment is either an affirmation or a rejection of a
hypothesis (a prejudice) within a mental reference system existing at a
given moment. The contents of this metaphorical frame are formed by our
genetically encoded biological needs, as well as by the individual
experiences that we have made in our lifetime. Mental hypotheses, the
individual frames, belong to us as the breathing of life.29
61
We are still far away from fully understanding the nature of conscious
events. This is due mainly to the fact that consciousness cannot be observed
and measured objectively; i.e. we cannot study it scientifically in the same
way that we can study brain structures, neural cells, states of excitation, etc.
Conscious awareness is a subjective phenomenon and what a person feels
cannot be fully conveyed to others. This state of affairs will not change in
the future.
The general information cycle cannot solve all of the problems
encountered in cognition research, but it does yield some suggestions
regarding the moment at which information processing is likely to be
accompanied by the first traces of consciousness, and why consciousness is
needed in the first place: i.e. why we cannot do without it. The form of the
cycle is:
The potential information that is encapsulated in a given situation is
interpreted by an information processing entity (IPE) in terms of the factual
situation at hand (as understood by the IPE), and the corresponding action
to undertake (law-like information). The combination of the factual
interpretation of the situation, and the application of the pertinent law-like
information, yields a real effect which represents potential information for
other cycles to begin with. It is the observable effect that lets the cycle
become reality.
Simple factual situations can be adequately handled by (unconscious)
reflex-type reactions. A seal, at the sudden appearance of a shark, does not
need much analysis in order enact the correct rule of action; Try to
escape. However, if the number of data or the applicable rules of action
exceed a certain threshold, or the potential information is not clear enough
and the rules require a certain degree of judgment, a subtler method of
information processing is required.
If a given situation is too ambiguous to be clearly understood at first
sight, the initial semantic analysis can yield only an approximate
understanding; a factual interpretation with a question mark, that is. The
62
algorithm that the IPE is well advised to use in such a case is, Factual
information with a question mark is to be treated as potential information
for another cycle to begin with. In other words, the IPE does not do
anything except subject the preliminary factual information (with a question
mark) to renewed analysis (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2 The general information cycle for conscious events. An

information cycle must yield an observable effect; or it does not come
about. Conscious experiences seem to be due to repeated information
cycles. If the analysis of a given situation does not yield a clear-cut result, it
will be used as potential information for another cycle to start with. As in
this case the (preliminary) analysis does not result in an objectively
observable effect (e.g. flight), it must at least lead to an internally (i.e.
consciously) observed effect, or the information cycle cannot take place.
63
The general information cycle requires that an information process

yield an observable effect. In the case of unconscious information
processing, this real effect refers to an action that can be observed
objectively, such as the movement of the legs. However, as long as the
information processing is restricted to the internal rational, and emotional,
analysis of the situation at hand, there is no effect that could be observed
externally. Such processing must thus be perceived internally, i.e. by the
respective animal (or human) itself, or it cannot come about.
The fact that the general information cycle can assign an important
function to the phenomenon of consciousness, confirms the principle that
we have stated to be fundamental to all information processing;
information processes must yield an observable effect, or they cannot be
realized.
This description of the sequence of events agrees with the fact that, in
the case of lower animals, the sensory data reach more directly those brain
areas that are responsible for enacting objectively observable reactions;
such as flight. Conscious information processing, in contrast, involves a
number of different brain areas that receive their input not directly from the
sensory organs (eyes, ears etc.), but instead indirectly via primary brain
areas (e.g. the thalamus) which have already pre-processed the primary
data30. In the words of neurophysiologist Wolf Singer; When the results of
primary cognitive processes are subjected to renewed analysis, this is
equivalent to the reflection of ones own cognitive perceptions31.
In advanced information processing, various brain areas are involved;
and the resulting data are fed back to the primary regions of the brain, thus
influencing the acquisition of further sense data from the outside. That
consciousness somehow originates from such cyclic reprocessing operations
is widely conjectured. The open question here is only why such processes
cannot simply take place unconsciously. After all, there are many other
information-processing feedback loops in our organism that are not in need
of conscious awareness. We shall come back to this question later.
A given situation needs to be analyzed until it becomes clear how to
react to it. It is therefore to be expected that conscious deliberations set in
64
when (unconscious) reflex-type data-processing have exceeded a certain

time limit. We know that conscious awareness needs 200 to 1000
milliseconds to emerge, whereas unconscious processing can lead to
observable reactions within much shorter periods of time32.
The general information cycle thus suggests that all conscious events
begin unconsciously and that conscious information processing sets in only
if a given situation is not clear enough to be responded to automatically; in
which case it must be re-analyzed over repeated information cycles. This reprocessing does not analyze only the data coming from the sensory organs
but also involves the whole repertoire of experiences that the organism
stores (unconsciously) in its memory. The unconscious, i.e. the sum of all
past experiences and motivations, always plays an important role even if we
are not aware of this.
If no decision has been reached within a certain time limit,
unconscious processing is held to be insufficient and the brain generates a
first rough picture of the situation. This mental picture is now at the
beginning of a renewed information cycle and will be refined over
successive cycles until the situation has been cleared up. This may be
followed up by a corresponding action (noticeable in the environment), by
shelving the result of the conscious processing in memory (for later use) or
by simply dropping the subject-matter (which also leaves some memory
traces).
This analysis emphasizes the dynamic process-oriented character of
conscious experiences. It is in line with various arguments that aim at
explaining consciousness in terms of some type of feedback loop 33. It is
these recursive processes that enable the animal to evaluate rationally a
given situation prior to performing an action. This correlates well with the
findings of Nobel Laureate Francis Crick according to whom, Consciousness depends crucially on thalamic connections with the cortex. It exists
only if certain cortical areas have reverberatory circuits () that project
strongly enough to produce significant reverberations34.
Once Nature has invented subjective information processing by means
of conscious looping, evolution will tend to make the process more
65
effective. Required is (1) a high synaptic efficiency optimizing the data

transfer between neurons35, as well as (2) a large and versatile neural
workstation that can handle large sets of data simultaneously. The second
point is probably the major precondition for consciousness to emerge
because the conscious brain processes not only factual information
(FactInfo) but also FactInfo?, FactInfo??, FactInfo??? etc. That is, it
keeps in focus not just one interpretation of a factual situation but two, three
or even more.
In concrete terms, one can imagine that each question (FactInfo with
one or more question marks) corresponds to a synchronously pulsating
neural pattern of excitations; thus combining those groups of neurons into a
dynamic system that are in some way relevant to the question. All systems
(questions) are related to each other and form an overarching meta-system
from which consciousness emerges.
It follows from the above that the sine qua non condition for
conscious awareness is a large neural workstation; with the cerebral cortex
of humans offering the best conditions for the establishment of such metasystems. It is well known that our cerebral neurons do not differ much from
the neurons of animals. The material basis is, by and large, the same in all
neural systems. It is only that the human brain continues to grow for a
longer period of time, and is thus able to form a more extensive cortex.
It is reasonable to assume that the conscious looping process would
end as soon as the situation has been clarified to the point where it allows
the animal to react in a sensible way. The brain thus becomes free to divert
attention to something else. This agrees with the fact that humans are unable
to hold in conscious focus a perception that has been fully understood; the
mind simply flits away to something else.
As there will always be situations that cannot be fully analyzed in all
their detail, or that are simply not understandable and remain enigmatic, the
brain must have a way of concluding the looping process. The easiest way
to do so is to stop the process automatically after a certain period of time
has elapsed, even if the situation at hand has not yet been fully understood.
66
We know that such a time limit exists for the human brain, which has been
shown to be unable to sustain conscious focus for more than three seconds.
It may also be that a person responds automatically (unconsciously) to
a given situation by enacting an externally observable movement but, if the
situation is interesting enough to warrant closer attention, conscious looping
also sets in. You are driving a car and, suddenly, a boy appears in the road;
150 milliseconds (msec) later you hit the brakes, according to Libet, but it
takes another 350 msec for you to become aware of the situation 36. The
unconscious action and, the conscious rationalizing of the situation, are two
different events that have the same origin.
This sequence of events is quite in line with the conscious feedback
looping outlined above. An unconscious reaction can be realized much
faster because it requires only one information cycle. Conscious looping
requires more than one cycle. In urgent cases, such as a boy jumping in
front of your car, reactions must be enacted as fast as possible, i.e.
unconsciously. Even if the main action has already taken place (hitting the
brakes), such a situation is certainly interesting enough also to start, in
parallel, the conscious looping process.
All of this is fully in line with the above suggested recycling of
preliminary information in terms of the general information cycle. But
could such reprocessing of primary data by the cerebral cortex not be
performed just as well unconsciously? Why did Nature invent
consciousness if, as it seems, any conceivable action of the conscious
animal could just as well be performed unconsciously? This is the essence
of what the philosopher David Chalmers calls the hard problem of
consciousness37.
The answer which we are offering here is based upon the fact that
conscious information processing does not result in any immediate action
that could be objectively observed. The general information cycle requires
that events must conclude with an observable effect, or no information
processing comes about. Thus, if an action consists only of the internal
pondering of options, it must at least be observed internally if it is to
succeed.
67
The private feeling (awareness) associated with consciousness thus

represents the noticeable effect that is the prerequisite for information
processing events to take place. Subjective consciousness, rather than being
an epiphenomenon, constitutes the logical requirement that enables animals
to consider various aspects of a situation prior to performing an objectively
observable action, such as attacking another animal.
It is true that conscious experiences are always associated with
corresponding neural excitation patterns which in principle can be
studied objectively. However, it is widely accepted that knowledge of these
patterns does not allow us to obtain information on what exactly the
conscious person under study is actually thinking or feeling. Analytical
techniques such as magnetic resonance tomography and positron emission
tomography allow us to determine which brain areas are active at any given
moment, but the actual thoughts and feelings cannot be revealed by such
methods. The analytical techniques stick at the neural level and cannot
reach the emergent level of conscious deliberations.
Conscious information processing thus succeeds in combining
unconsciously-stored memories with higher cognitive deliberations at the
emergent level; both together influencing the decision process. The higher
deliberations can be seen as being a selection process in which several
possible alternatives (e.g. escape, attack or wait-and-see) compete with each
other. Each possible alternative initially corresponds to a specific neural
excitation pattern at the material level; each pattern suggesting a different
type of action, so that we have a typical case of over-determination. If the
animal were not capable of conscious information processing, one of the
three alternatives would have to be selected by chance. For a more sensible
selection between the alternatives, information processing at a higher
(conceptual) level must be inaugurated in which such concepts as flight,
wait-and-see and attack compete with each other.
The circular sequence of events, involving neural activities, cognitive
deliberations at the emerging higher level and subsequent retro-action at the
neural level, can be repeated over and over again until it leads to a final
decision; initiating either flight or attack, or adopting a wait-and-see
68
attitude. The final decision is reached at the transient conscious level,

whereas the action itself is initiated at the neural level; the latter also being
responsible for the incorporation of the respective memory traces into the
synaptic connections.
Mental Causation
This chain of events is supported by Haken, Libet and others, but it is not
undisputed. In particular, it is occasionally objected that this type of
argumentation is a relapse into Cartesian duality, which is generally and
rightly considered to have been disproved. According to Descartes, there
are two different substances; one is corporeal material and extended in
space, whereas the other is immaterial mind-stuff (ideas, feelings etc.) and
not extended in space. Each of these two substances exists by itself, but they
can also interact with each other.
In contrast to Cartesian duality, however, the higher ordering
parameters mentioned above cannot exist on their own. They instead
emerge from the neural level; forming what might be called a mental field
(Libet) or an information field (Haken). The important point is that the
neural basis and, the emerging field, do not exist apart from each other;
rather, they are inseparably interlinked by the phenomenon of circular
causality that we have discussed above.
We do not know of any mental functions (perceptions, feelings,
memories etc.) that would not disappear if the appropriate parts of the brain
were destroyed. Brain processes are thus obviously a prerequisite for the
appearance of mental phenomena. But they are not sufficient for
understanding the phenomenon of conscious awareness 38. As we have
suggested above, conscious awareness involves a circular loop between
neural and mental events, both of which have their proper place in the
overall process. This requires that the results of mental information
processing should somehow retroact on the (material) neural level but this
is still controversial.
69
We agree with Pppel with regard to the following: The main

function of the brain is a reduction of the complexity of information that is
almost overwhelming us; so that we on the cognitive level do not drown
in the quagmire of millions and millions of individual data. This reduction
in complexity is effected by means of abstraction, and leads to a mental
level of categories and concepts; this mental level is associated with, but not
identical to, the neural level. Psychic events can be understood only if the
interaction of both levels is taken in consideration39.
The idea that the mental can influence neural processes in the brain is
often seen as a violation of the principle of causal closure of the world,
according to which all physical effects are due to sufficient physical
causes; this seems to exclude mental causation. In this view, the fact that
we are all convinced that we act in line with our thoughts and feelings thus
becomes an illusion, and conscious perception is reduced to a negligible
epiphenomenon.
The situation changes, however, if we as we do here conceive the
world as consisting of information processing events. In the new view, the
Universe no longer consists merely of material objects; rather, these are
now considered to represent syntactic units of information that need to be
interpreted semantically for each event. But this is not all; for the
description of an event we need to consider not only the semantic
interpretation of the situation at hand, but also the pragmatic effect to which
the information processing is leading; as described by the corresponding
laws, ordering parameters and other forms of law-like information.
Reality is thus no longer defined as being that which can cause
physical effects, but as that which is associated with observable changes in
the world. The principle of causal closure (physical effects are due to
sufficient physical causes) must now be re-worded to the effect that
observable effects are due to sufficient reasons. The body-mind
controversy thus takes a new turn; as both concepts are now seen simply to
represent different aspects of a unified Nature which is predicated in terms
of information.
70
The Conceptual Level

There is no consciousness at the level of neural excitation patterns. Rather,
consciousness takes place at a (higher) emergent level consisting of
categories and concepts that are closely connected to the neural events,
without being identical to them. According to Haken, the higher level
emerges from the neural processes, and leads to the establishment of higher
ordering parameters that are capable of retro-acting on the neural
activities. In this way the mental achievement and the material states
presuppose each other40.
Information processing at the higher level involves mental entities
(ideas, wishes, perceptions, feelings etc.), and the respective (preliminary)
results retro-act on the lower level with its cells, synapses and electrical
impulse patterns. They here lead to the recall of pertinent memory traces
that earlier experiences have left in the brain. It is therefore not surprising
that, when we think and speak, ever-new ideas find their way into the
conscious deliberations taking place at the higher level.
In principle, the level of consciously-perceived ideas and feelings
simply represents an enlargement of the organism by a higher cognitive
system. This additional system aims at helping the animal to survive and
reproduce; just as do all of the other systems of the organism, e.g. the
circulatory system, the system of hormones and the immune system and, of
course, also the neural system.
The putative problem here is that the higher cognitive system refers to
immaterial items (perceptions, concepts, feelings, etc.), whereas all of the
other systems consist of material things. This problem will vanish from
the scene once we fully understand that the stuff of the Universe is
information (A. Zeilinger) and that we need to understand and express all
of physics in the language of information (J.A. Wheeler). We shall then
have learned that the world consists of information processing events that
can be described in terms of the general information cycle; the latter
connecting that which is materially given to the pertinent (immaterial) lawlike information. It will then become clear that the distinction between
71
material and immaterial items is much less important than we had hitherto
presumed.
The decisive fact here is that the material and the immaterial are
inseparably connected to each other like the two faces of a coin. We can
separate these two aspects only mentally; thus enabling us to understand the
world analytically in scientific terms. One can study both faces of a coin
and arrive at interesting conclusions for each of them, but it is not possible
actually to separate the two sides without destroying the coin altogether.
The two sides of the metaphorical coin here refer to the neural material, and
the (immaterial) mental. On the one hand, there are the neural synapses in
which all of the information which the person has accumulated from his
autobiographical experiences is stored. On the other hand, there is the
transient higher level at which conceptual information processing takes
place.
At the higher level, various action alternatives are weighed against
each other, taking into consideration all of the personal experiences that
have left their mark on the synaptic structures of the brain. Pppel and
Ruhnau refer here to the concept of complementarity as generative
principle. The authors insist that psychic processes can be analyzed only if
monocausal thinking is abandoned, and the interaction of both bottom-up
and top-down processes is taken into consideration; combining both views
into an inner harmony41.
The ontological interdependence between material and immaterial
aspects of reality can also be shown by reflecting upon the nature of
elementary particles, which in the materialistic view are the stuff of
which the Universe is composed. Let us consider an electron, which is one
of the three particles of which atoms are made. We know that an electron
has mass (or energy). There thus cannot be any doubt that electrons are
material objects. There are, however, other fundamental properties that we
generally connect with material objects: their position, and state of
movement, in space and time. In this regard, an electron can no longer be
said to be material in the usual sense of the word.
72
All that we know about the position of an electron at a given moment

of time is that there is a certain probability of finding it here or there; if we
conducted a corresponding experimental measurement, that is. This is one
of the key insights of quantum mechanics; the most successful of all
physical theories. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
physics, a given particle does not have a definite position in space and time,
nor does it travel with a definite speed. All that we know is that there is a
certain probability that a particle is traveling at a given speed, or that it
could be located at a given position in space.
The concept of probability is, for the description of an electron and its
behavior, just as important as the concept of mass. The particle thus exhibits
both material and immaterial attributes. In this sense, the physicist and
philosopher Carl F. von Weizscker writes; The essence of Nature is not
subjectively mental; but it is objectively mental. Nature can be thought of as
being mathematical. This may be the deepest insight we can have about
it.42
Rather than being a material object as we normally understand the
term, an elementary particle is some unimaginable entity that must be
viewed as having both material and immaterial aspects. Immanuel Kant
would recognize here his unknowable thing-in-itself (Ding an sich). If
something can be simultaneously both material and immaterial the question
arises as to whether it can truly be accorded the status of being real. This
leads us to the realism debate: To what extent do scientific concepts and
laws exist in reality?
In view of the unquestionable success in understanding, and
mastering, Nature it would be very difficult to deny scientific concepts and
laws the status of reality. All of these concepts and ideas are intricately
interconnected; forming an extensive system which, here or there, may need
some corrections but can hardly be invalidated in its entirety.
Nobody has studied the perception, and the question of existence, of
scientific concepts more competently than did Kurt Gdel 43. In his view,
they are just as real as physical objects. We perceive the latter with our
senses, and the former by means of rationality and intuition. We approach
73
theoretical concepts in the same way as a forest; it is only when we have

come very close that we are able to discern the multitude of trees and
bushes. It often takes decades or even centuries, according to Gdel, before
we recognize the true nature of a concept and its interconnections with other
theoretical entities in conceptual space (Gdel).
This shows us the way in which we must approach without any
prejudice the notion of emergence, which we presently try to understand
by employing concepts such as circular causality, interactive loops,
complementarity and ontological interdependence. We are only at the
beginning of a true understanding here, as is confirmed by scientists who,
for many years now, have thought about order and emergence in collective
systems.
The Category of Conscious Events

In conscious information processing, the concepts of knowledge and
intentionality are of primary importance. This is different in the case of
purely physical and unconscious-biological events. Physical processes can
be described without considering these two aspects at all. In the case of
biological events, one can speak metaphorically of embodied knowledge
and quasi-intentionality, but these aspects are here more implicit than
manifest.
Conscious information processing, in contrast, can best be understood
by employing concepts such as thinking, learning and knowledge; and
intentionality here is no longer a metaphor but (self-) observable reality.
Conscious events, and the laws and principles by which they abide, thus
represent a third category of information processing; differing principally
from physical and unconscious-biological events.
Many animals are capable of conscious information processing, but it
is only in human culture that individuals interconnect to form epistemic
(knowledge-relevant) systems in which the subjective limitations of the
74
individual persons can be overcome by the objective knowledge generated

by social groups.
Cultural Events
The present book is based upon the conjecture that the world consists of
information processing events. We have so far established three categories
of such events: (1) Physical events (zero intentional; no learning effects);
(2) biological events (quasi-intentional; unconscious trial-and-error learning
leading to genetically encoded knowledge concerning the environment); and
(3) conscious events (consciously intentional; conscious acquisition of
subjective knowledge).
A fourth, and last, category pertains to those events that take place in
human culture. As we shall see, these are characterized by collective
intentionality and the accumulation of objective knowledge.
While physical and biological evolution involved billions of years,
and conscious information processing may be as old as two hundred million
years, human culture is a newcomer to the Universe. According to Steven
Mithen44, Homo Sapiens began, some 200,000 years ago, to split up the
holistic communications of early hominids into separate words which could
then be combined to form new messages; thus setting the stage for human
language to evolve. With this, the foundation was laid for the development
of socio-cultural communities, and the rules by which they work.
Cultural phenomena can be described, and analyzed more easily, if
they are given a name; such as culturgen (C.J. Lumsden and E.O. Wilson)
or meme (R. Dawkins). The latter neologism has become widely
accepted. It can be defined to be an information packet comprising human
ideas and other mental constructs. Meme is simply the name that we give
to a specific unit of the cultural world. It may designate such diverse items
as myths, artistic designs, tunes, judicial laws, philosophical schemes,
scientific concepts, technical innovations or the idea of cooperative labor.
75
Memes are normally not isolated entities. The idea of an electron, for
example, requires considerable knowledge of physical concepts such as
mass, charge, quantum uncertainty etc.; all these items being combined in a
complex system of memes, sometimes also called a memeplex. The
common denominator of memes and memeplexes is that they inhabit a
socio-cultural environment, much in the same way that organisms live in an
ecological sphere.
Memes can be passed on laterally, within groups and societies, but
also vertically, from generation to generation. They share that latter aspect
with genes, which also pass on information from one generation to the next.
Biological and cultural evolution both proceed in line with Darwins
theory of natural selection, which is based upon the concepts of heredity,
variation and competition for limited resources. Memetic heredity (the
passing-on of cultural information) is based mainly upon linguistic
communication, whereas competition between memes is due to the limited
space that is available in human brains for such items as attention,
perception, memory and information processing. The space available for
memory can be very much increased by means of books and data banks, but
for memes to be effective in shaping the outcome of events it is decisive
that they be present in the conscious awareness of as many persons as
possible: this space is very limited, and subject to much competition.
The decisive difference between human beings and other animals
capable of conscious information processing lies in the fact that we are
embedded in a human cultural system. The most important feature of this
system is our complex language; and the versatile ways of communication
and acquisition of knowledge which it permits. Language constitutes the
medium of the so-called infosphere at the base of culture. As the
psychologists Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom45 have noted, the evolution of
language has its roots in the need for communication; just as the evolution
of the eyes can be explained by the need to see. Merleau-Ponty46 compares
our use of language to the acquisition of a further sense organ. Without
linguistic capabilities, human societies could never have organized
themselves.
76
The upshot of this is that humans, with their feelings and ways of
thinking, are the product of both their genetically determined predisposition
for cognitive abilities and the personal experiences acquired during life; the
former restricting what can be acquired in principle, and the latter shaping
the individual implementations of language, concepts, ideas, norms and the
like that make up the individual.
Humans are characterized by four clearly distinct, but complementary,
aspects. We are (1) material systems which are subject to the laws of
physics, (2) evolving living systems functioning in accordance with
biological rules and principles, (3) psychic systems capable of conscious
information processing and (4) dynamically-interacting psychic systems
(persons) whose thinking, feeling and acting are characterized by the views,
and norms, of the socio-cultural environment in which we live.
Understanding a socio-cultural system means understanding its rules
and laws; and their underlying values and ethical principles. This is also the
premise upon which social rule systems theory is based47. The principal
idea behind this theory is that all human actions are governed by sociallylegitimized rules. Individuals, groups and communities, in this view, are
bearers, interpreters and potential producers of norms, codes, habits, judicial
laws, routines, conventions, taboos, traditions, etc.: which we have
subsumed in the present book under the designation of law-like
information.
Social rules do not simply state how to act in a given situation. Rather,
the body of rules and regulations is a precondition for understanding the
situation properly in the first place. It is the rules whether adhered to or
not that impart meaning to an act. In order to understand the acts of
others, their goals, strategies and expectations, we need to interpret and
classify them within the framework of the prevalent rule system. Scientists
talk here of the social grammar which connects social roles, acts and
ways of thinking. Knowledge of the social grammar is especially important
in complex situations in which various actors, with diverse goals and
strategies, try to influence events. Knowing the social grammar aids us in
77
putting ourselves in the position of others, and assessing their room for
maneuver.
Events in the socio-cultural realm are usually much more complex
than are those which we encounter in physics and biology. The general
information cycle describes events in terms of a given potential situation, its
factual interpretation by an agent and the resulting reaction in line with
pertinent rules of action. In the area of physics, this is a very simple
procedure. An electron receives information about the presence of another
electron (factual information) and reacts to this information in accordance
with the pertinent physical laws; with the result that it changes its direction
of flight. Quite similar is the reaction of a frog in sight of some potential
prey. The animal notices a moving object of the right size (factual
information) and snaps at it (applying an inherited rule of behavior).
Conscious information processing of animals is based upon the
necessity to study a complex situation in more detail prior to acting on it.
The subsequent action (flight, attack, ingestion etc.) then proceeds within
the framework of the applicable law-like information.
In social contexts, in contrast, it is usually not possible to separate the
factual situation and the applicable rules of action. The social grammar, i.e.
the overarching system of social rules, is useful not only in selecting the
proper answer to a situation that has been interpreted in one way or the
other; rather, the grammar is already needed for correctly understanding a
given potential situation in the first place.
There seems to be a general trend towards a reduced predictability of
the results of events. Physical events are fully predictable: in terms of
precise probability statements, that is. In the biological realm, in contrast, it
is no longer possible to state with mathematical accuracy the probability
with which a frog will snap, or not.
This tendency toward increased unpredictability is even more
pronounced when it comes to events taking place in cultural contexts. Not
only is the social rule system highly complex, and a potential situation
much more difficult to analyze, the norms and habits can also vary from
person to person; making it almost impossible to predict how a given agent
78
will factually interpret a certain situation and how she, or he, will react to
such an interpretation.
The Four Categories of Law-Like Information

All that we know of material entities is the fact that they behave in specific
ways. We assign to a given particle the status of being an electron if it
behaves, in suitably devised experiments, just like all electrons do; if it
follows the same type of laws that is. The same can be said about living
entities and humans: What we do defines what we are (attributed to Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe)48.
We need to know what an object does, i.e. which laws and rules it
obeys, in order to classify it and give it a name. In the case of particles and
atoms, these laws and rules are given by the fundamental, and universally
valid, laws of physics. When it comes to complex entities as we encounter
them in the realm of life, these laws need to be supplemented by such
emergent items as habits, algorithms, norms, ordering principles etc.;
subsumed here, together with the fundamental laws, under the heading of
law-like information.
As we have discussed above, the emergent law-like entities are
usually not predictable from the set of fundamental laws that govern simple
physical processes. According to Nobel Laureate R.B. Laughlin, laws can
organize themselves to form new laws, these leading to further laws and so
on; the microscopic law being rendered irrelevant in many circumstances
by its children and its childrens children, the higher organizational laws of
the world49. Laughlin proposes that we should make an effort to classify
these higher organizational laws. But how does one go about classifying
laws and law-like entities?
Whereas material particles are characterized by such qualities as mass,
charge and spin, the classification of law-like entities is based upon quite
different criteria: intentionality, learning capability and freedom-of-action;
79
as associated with the respective processes under consideration. This type of

analysis indicates that all law-like entities can be clearly grouped into four
categories pertaining to physical, biological, conscious and socio-cultural
events.
(1) Physical events: physical laws and algorithms are neither
intentional, nor do they result in the acquisition of any knowledge. Any
freedom of action is limited to probability effects that follow strict
mathematical rules.
(2) Biological events: Biological rules and principles are historydependent and seem to aim at a goal; preserving and reproducing life. In
addition to this (unconscious) quasi-intentionality, they are capable of
acquiring (by trial-and-error learning) genetically-encoded adaptive
knowledge about their environment, and show a certain degree of freedom
of action (nobody knows what a fly will do next).
(3) Conscious events: conscious processes are fully (i.e. consciously)
intentional and accord an organism a completely novel type of
(autobiographical) learning aptitude. Furthermore, consciousness permits an
animal to evaluate (subjectively) a given situation rationally and
emotionally, prior to initiating an action. This results in a much enhanced
degree of freedom of action.
4) Cultural events: In human societies emerges the phenomenon of
objective rationality, i.e. the astounding ability of humans to transcend the
subjective limitations that are due to their evolutionary past and autobiographical history. Moreover, a potent collective intentionality is seen to
arise (e.g. in science and politics), as well as a practically unlimited
potential for the acquisition of knowledge (including knowledge in the
realms of ethics and aesthetics), and a degree of freedom of action (due to
division of labor, and specialization) that can hardly be surpassed.
It is generally believed that, at the time of the Big Bang, the chargecarrying fundamental forces were unified, and that the strong nuclear force,
the weak force and the electromagnetic (EM) force, in that order, emerged
as the expanding Universe cooled from roughly 1032 K to 1014 K. In a
similar way, it seems, the various categories of law-like information
80
emerged during the evolution of the Universe; the decisive criterion no

longer being the decreasing temperature but the increasing degree of
complexity of the evolving structural systems. Stuart Kauffman has
conjectured, in this connection, a fourth law of thermodynamics which
describes the natural tendency for complexity to increase; independently of
natural selection processes, that is50.
Figure 4.3 The four categories of law-like information.

Odd-one-out: The laws and rules that are related to conscious events.
Triplet: The three categories of law-like information that refer to
objectively observable events.
Upper Doublet: Conscious and cultural events
Lower Doublet: Biological and physical events
81
Figure 4.3 shows the four categories of law-like information. The four
parameters follow the same structural scheme that is characteristic of all
tetrads of the Tree of Everything (odd-one-out; unified view of the
remaining triplet; two couples of closely related and, in some way,
complementary parameters).
Odd one out: Conscious events
The square peg parameter of the tetrad refers to events involving
consciousness. Conscious processes are subjective, i.e. private in character,
and thus cannot be studied scientifically.
Triplet: Cultural, biological and physical events
The common feature of the other three types of events is, in contrast, that
they are objective in nature and can be analyzed in terms of the scientific
method. They make up the triplet of parameters.
1st Doublet: Conscious and cultural events
The upper doublet of complementary parameters is formed by the laws and
rules that guide conscious processes, and cultural events, respectively. As
has been shown above, conscious appraisals take place at a conceptual
level, i.e. they cannot occur without the availability of concepts. Concepts,
on the other hand, are memes that are primarily produced within the realm
of human culture. Both conscious awareness and concepts (memes) imply
each other. The conscious deliberations of higher animals are also thought
to be based upon concepts (danger, prey, shelter etc.) and it may well be
that they acquire these by observing the reactions of other animals in
corresponding situations. Of course, we know next to nothing about the
conscious states of animals; they are private (just as in the case of humans)
and the animals cannot tell us about them.
2nd Doublet: Biological and physical events
The lower doublet of parameters refers to the laws and rules that guide
physical and biological events, respectively. The two parameters can be said
to be complementary to each other: biological entities could not exist if
82
there were no (physical) atoms and molecules, and alternatively, nobody

would know anything about the physical entities if there were no living
beings; in which case the atoms could just as well be regarded as
nonexistent.
Both physical and biological events are quite similar to each other.
This type of similarity of parameters is typical of all parameter sets with
which a given tetrad concludes: (1) the tetrad of the material particles
concludes with two inseparable quarks at the bottom, (2) the forces tetrad
concludes with the EM force and the weak force, both forces being different
aspects of the electroweak force; (3) as we shall see below, the spacetime
tetrad concludes with two spatial dimensions that seem to be
indistinguishable from each other. Furthermore, the Tree of Everything
concludes with two sets of material particles that differ only in the masses
of their respective particles. It is as if no further splitting processes can take
place if the difference between a given set of parameters is very small.
The tetrad of the four types of information processing events, and their
respective categories of law-like information, are of key importance in the
construction and interpretation of the Tree of Everything. We have
presented here only a summary of the more detailed description and
argumentation given in the book The Tree of Nature51. Before
establishing the existence of this four-parameter set of law-like information
we knew only that Nature is made up of four sets of particles, four types of
forces, four dimensions of spacetime and an unknown number of
fundamental laws. It was only with the classification of these laws (and
other law-like entities) into four categories that the particular structure of
Nature became visible; thus leading to the discovery of the Tree of Nature
(Fig. 1.1) and, by extension, to the construction of the Tree of Everything.

Chapter 5
Universal History
Real is the order of the

events in the Universe.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
We are now turning to the history triad of the Tree of Everything, which
comprises the three parameters, law-like information, spacetime and
subjectivity (Fig. 5.1). The four categories of law-like-information have
been discussed in the preceding chapter. We now turn to spacetime, which
we expect to be, in some way, complementary to law-like information. At
first glance, such a complementarity is not obvious. What exactly do we
know about spacetime?
84
Figure 5.1 The history triplet of the Tree of Everything.
85
Spacetime
The common-sense view is that space simply exists everywhere,
constituting, in a way, the stage on which things happen. Time, in contrast,
is not stationary but flows from moment to moment; having started with the
Big Bang, that is, and ticking away at the same rate everywhere in the
Universe. When Big Ben strikes twelve oclock, in this view, it is twelve
oclock everywhere, even on the most distant stars. This is the picture upon
which Newton based his considerations when he initiated the scientific era.
But the assumption of such an absolute time is wrong; as is the picture
of space as an empty stage upon which things happen. According to
Einsteins radical theory of special relativity, published in 1905,
simultaneity is relative. The mathematician Hermann Minkowski, a former
teacher of Einstein, realized that Einsteins relativity could be understood
geometrically as a theory of four-dimensional space-time. Since then, we
know that time cannot be thought of as existing, distinct and separate, from
space. It is spacetime that exists; a single entity of which space and time are
but different aspects. In the words of Minkowski: Henceforth, space by
itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and
only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.1
The concept of a unified spacetime entity helped Einstein to
formulate, ten years later, his general theory of relativity which refutes the
idea that space is a stage upon which things happen. It is not only that space
and time exist as a unified entity, spacetime is also dynamically
intertwined with matter and its gravitational field; the latter being equivalent
to warped (or curved) spacetime. In other words, the warped spacetime
structure contains information on the presence of matter and energy.
In addition to redefining our notions of space, time and gravity,
Einstein succeeded, in his special relativity theory, in uniting energy and
matter, which used to be considered as being quite different entities.
Contrary to our intuition, the famous E=mc2 equation [E = energy, m =
mass, c = speed of light] reveals matter and energy to represent two aspects
of one fundamental substance: matter-energy. Matter is a form of energy,
86
and vice versa. Whenever we refer to matter, this actually stands for
matter-energy.
Before the formulation of relativity, physics was a science concerned
with space, time, matter, energy, Newtons gravity and Maxwells
electromagnetic field. Einstein reduced the first four parameters of Nature
to two, spacetime and matter-energy, and then went on to interpret gravity
as being curved spacetime. Although we can easily picture curved space,
e.g. in the form of a distorted card box, it is quite a strain on our
imagination when Einstein tells us that it is spacetime that warps in the
presence of matter. Gravity fields are equivalent not only to distorted space
dimensions, but to curved time as well.
It must be added here that we have not yet arrived at a physical theory
that would combine relativity and quantum mechanics. Both theories have
been confirmed by every experiment that has ever been conducted. There
can hardly be any doubt that they are both correct. But, at least in their
present forms, they are not compatible with each other. The general opinion
is that it must be possible to combine the two theories into an overarching
view; that is, an ultimate theory of the nature of Nature. A good candidate
for such a theory is called quantum gravity, which tries to combine
quantum mechanics with relativity. Nobody knows, however, whether this
approach will eventually be successful.
The Spacetime Tetrad

As shown in Figure 5.2, the spacetime tetrad consists of three spatial
dimensions (x, y and z) and time (t) and exhibits the same structural features
as the other tetrads of individual parameters of the Tree of Everything:
(1) an odd-one-out parameter, (2) a triplet of closely-related parameters and
(3) two doublets of complementary parameters.
87
Figure 5.2The spacetime tetrad of the Tree of Everything.

Odd one out: The dimension of time (t).
Triplet: The three spatial dimensions (x, y, z).
1st Doublet: Time and spatial dimension x
2ndDoublet: The spatial dimensions y and z.
Odd-one-out: Time
Time clearly constitutes the odd-man-out parameter of the four dimensions
of spacetime; the remaining triplet being made up of the three spatial
dimensions which seem to be indistinguishable from each other, at least in
the geometrical sense.
88
1st Doublet: Time and spatial dimension x

The upper doublet of parameters refers to time and the spatial dimension x;
each implying the other (as Einstein has taught us): time cannot be defined
without the existence of distances, and distances cannot be measured
without the parameter of time.
2nd Doublet: Spatial dimensions y and z
The lower doublet of parameters consists of the spatial y and z dimensions.
These can be said to be complementary in that they form surfaces, or
interfaces, which have become important aspects of some recent advances
in physics research. We refer here especially to the so-called holographic
principle which, physicists working in this area are convinced, is just as
fundamental as Einsteins relativity theory and Heisenbergs uncertainty
principle2. The holographic principle rests upon the discovery of the socalled Bekenstein bound, which states that the maximum amount of
information that can be gleaned from any given region of space is limited
by the surface of this region, rather than by its volume.
Consider a 1000-page book that is wrapped in plastic foil. The
Bekenstein bound states that the maximum amount of information that we
can get out of this volume is limited by the size of the foil wrapped around
it, rather than by the 1000 pages of text contained within the book. We can
get only that much information from the book as can be fitted onto the foil
surrounding it. It turns out that the amount of information which an
observer can glean from a given spatial region cannot be greater than 10 66
bits per square centimeter of its surface3. This allows a good deal of
information to be obtained from a given interface but, intuitively, it is still
hard to swallow that the information that we can get out of a region should
be limited by its surface, rather than by the extent of the region itself. The
physicist Leonard Susskind thus concludes; So it seems that the idea that
information has a definite location in space is wrong4.
The Bekenstein bound has inspired Susskind and quantum physicist
and Nobel Prize Laureate Gerardus (Gerard) tHooft to conjecture a
holographic principle, according to which information is in some sense
89
stored at the boundary of a system instead of the bulk 5. Susskind concludes

that the bits have a location, but theyre not at all where you think they
are6. If the world consists of information processes, and information is in
some sense stored at the boundary of a system: what boundary are we
talking about here?
The theoretical physicist Raphael Bousso suggests that it is the
boundary of the biggest region which anyone in our Universe could ever
observe7; this would mean a region that is about 14 billion light years
across. Another surprising implication of this research is that quantum
gravity may not admit a single, objective and complete description of the
Universe. Rather, its laws may have to be formulated with reference to an
observer no more than one at a time (R. Bousso8). This would confirm
in a rather spectacular way the supposition that it is observers who, in the
end, play the decisive role in the workings of the Universe.
Coming back to the structural characteristics of the Tree of
Everything, the doublet of parameters formed by the x and y dimensions
confirms an additional characteristic that we have already referred to above:
The splitting processes always seem to come to an end as soon as the two
parameters of a given doublet are very similar to each other. This has been
shown to be true for the tetrads of individual parameters of matter, forces
and law-like information, as well as for the two parameters with which the
Tree of Everything ends (Matter II and III). This is also true for the x/y
doublet; and we shall see that the same principle also holds for the
remaining two tetrads at the top of the tree; subjectivity and essential
dimensions.
Spacetime and Law-like Information

Let us now turn to the complementary doublet that forms the base of the
history triplet of the fundamental structure of the Tree of Everything (Fig.
5.1). This doublet connects spacetime and law-like information. At first
sight, it is difficult to see how these two parameters could be
complementary to each other. But they are, and in a very important way.
90
The majority of todays scientists are convinced that spacetime

represents the complete history of the Universe; the sum of all events that
have ever taken place. In the words of The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy: Events in the Universe correspond to the dimensionless points
of familiar spatial geometry. Just as a geometric point is a particular spot in
a geometrical space, an event is a particular point in a cosmological space at
a particular time"9.
Spacetime can be imagined to consist of a sequence of spaces that are
separated by a fraction of a second. However, spacetime per se does not
exist in the form of an empty geometrical entity, as it were. It is instead
made up of the events that have taken place in the Universe. Spacetime is
not a mere stage upon which things happen: it is inextricably and
dynamically intertwined with the events, and would not exist without them.
In the words of Lee Smolin, space and timehave meaning only to the
extent that they stand for the complexity of the relationships between the
things that happen in the world10.
The events in which a given object has been engaged are said to
constitute a world-line of this object in spacetime. Each point on the worldline of an object refers to an event in which the object has been involved. A
world-line thus is composed of distinct events that occur at identifiable
points or regions in spacetime.
It is not only that events can be individualized by their spacetime
position (Donald Davidson and W.V.O. Quine11). They also define, for their
part, the spacetime region in which they take place; in relation to all other
events that have ever taken place, that is. We are especially interested in the
question of what kinds of relationships are involved here.
To begin with, we have the picture of spacetime as a sequence of
spaces that are defined by the events taking place in them. From this point
of view, spacetime comprises the full evolutionary history of the Universe:
the sum of all events that have ever taken place. It is, of course, an
unfinished story, an opus in development or, in the words of John A.
Wheeler, a work in progress. The events are fundamental because they
define the various spacetime regions. In the words of Gottfried Wilhelm
91
Leibniz, Real is the order of the events in the Universe; and time is an
abstraction extracted from them12.
Not surprisingly, Lee Smolin defines spacetime as The history of a
Universe, comprising all its events and their relationships13.
Metaphorically speaking, it is the text of the evolutionary story that
constitutes spacetime; its structure and its texture. In the light of this
metaphor, the complementary relationship that exists between spacetime
(the history of the Universe) and the law-like information parameter
becomes manifest.
Law-like information comprises the laws of physics, as well as all
other law-like entities which have developed during the course of the
evolutionary process. The events are causally interconnected by means of
this law-like information; without the existence of such laws and rules they
would not make any sense. If spacetime represents the history of the
Universe, then law-like information constitutes the grammar of which
the author of the story, the Universe, is making use. Some of the
grammatical rules were (apparently) set out right at the beginning (the
fundamental laws), whereas others have arisen during the course of this
developing epic and are still subject to change and extension.
The events are the real components of Nature; each being indexed in
relation to all other events in terms of the four spacetime coordinates. They
constitute the words, sentences and paragraphs of the evolutionary story.
Within the framework of this text-metaphor, the elementary particles can be
seen to be the letters of the narrative; letters that become meaningful and
attain the actual status of being letters only in connection with other parts of
the text and the respective grammatical rules. We take the story (or text)
metaphor very seriously. For one thing, metaphors are the conceptual
glasses through which we can understand the world, according to
Immanuel Kant, and, for another, Metaphors have a way of holding the
most truth in the least space (Orson Scott Card: Alvin Journeyman).
The conclusion then is that spacetime and law-like information are
indeed complementary to each other; the essence of the relationship
between the two parameters being equivalent to the relationship that exists
92
between the text of a story and its underlying grammar. On the one hand,
the text cannot be understood without knowing the applicable grammar. On
the other hand, the grammar is implied by the sentences of the text. Neither
of the two parameters can be thought of as existing without the other.
The History Triplet of the Tree of Everything

As we have just seen, spacetime and law-like information form a
complementary doublet on the Tree of Everything. Judging by the general
structure of the tree, we anticipate that there must exist a third parameter
from which the doublet is derived.
The base doublet of the matter triad at the bottom of the tree (Fig. 5.1)
implies the existence of a common source for Matter II and Matter III
(which feature material particles that differ solely in their masses, with all
other properties being equal). This source parameter is Matter I, from
which the two sets of parameters (seem to) arise by means of a simple
splitting process. In other words, Matter II and III are simply variations of a
common source; Matter I. Looked at in this way, it is quite understandable
why the Matter II and III particles should be as similar to each other as they
actually are.
As to the information processing triplet of the tree (second triplet from
the bottom), the base doublet here is formed by Forces and Matter I.
These parameters are strongly complementary to each other, with each
implying the other: force particles are generated by matter particles, and
matter particles can be said to exist only if their presence is communicated
via force particles to the rest of the world. We identify a particle as being
an electron if it behaves as electrons do, i.e. if it follows the same laws. It is
the law-like behavior that identifies a particle as being an electron. The
complementary doublet therefore implies the existence of laws that lead
these communication processes toward observable effects.
The third triplet from the bottom of the tree, the history triplet,
features as its basis law-like information and spacetime. The two
93
parameters are strongly complementary to each other, insofar as the events

that make up history can be fully understood only if both parameters are
known. Whereas law-like information describes the causal background of a
given event, spacetime describes where the event is situated, with respect to
all other events, in terms of distance (space) and order (time). The two
parameters together give a full description as to why, where and when a
given event has taken place.
The question now is whether a common source parameter can be
identified that must be in place before events can actually begin to take
place and which forms, together with spacetime and law-like information, a
meaningful whole. Such a source parameter is easily identified by taking a
look at the general information cycle, which describes the structure of
events (Chapter 4):
The denomination IPE here indicates that the respective information
depends upon a given Information Processing Entity (IPE). The potential
information of a given situation is interpreted by an IPE in terms of the
factual situation at hand (as understood by the IPE) and the corresponding
action to take (as guided by IPE-specific law-like information). The three
items together yield an observable, i.e. real, effect (which constitutes new
potential information for further cycles to begin).
Observable changes in the Universe thus imply the existence of one or
more information processing entities. We can easily identify countless
numbers of potential IPEs, ranging from elementary particles to the billions
of animals and persons that live on Earth. In light of the structural features
that we have discovered so far in our discussion of the lower parts of the
Tree of Everything, it comes as no surprise that these innumerable numbers
of IPEs can be classified into exactly four categories, no more and no less.
94
Subjectivity
An information processing entity is a subject, in the broadest sense of the
word; an entity that acts on the grounds of the information that it picks up
from its surroundings. All entities that are outside of a given subject are
objects (to the subject). But each of those entities (objects) must also be
regarded as being a subject in itself; if we change our focus of investigation
accordingly, that is.
How about physical objects, such as elementary particles, atoms or
molecules? Can we consider them to be subjects that act on their own? Or
are they simply pushed around by the forces arising from other particles?
Newton and others thought that God had created material entities and space
first; subsequently imposing the natural laws upon them14. According to this
line of thought, physical entities would simply be objects that moved around
in the world in accordance with the laws imposed upon them from outside.
Modern scientists take a different view. They tend to follow the
thinking of Spinoza, Schelling and others who were convinced that Nature
itself is productive and creative, and that the natural laws are immanent to
physical entities15. In this view, it is in the very nature of material particles
to behave in the way that we describe in terms of fundamental laws. Such
phenomena as self-organization and emergence imply that the law-like
behavior of complex material entities results from their internal structural
features; rather than being imposed on them from outside.
According to the general information cycle, information processing
entities (IPEs) do not only process information; they are also subjects that
are actively engaged in the world. It is this latter aspect that allows us to
classify IPEs into four clearly distinguishable categories.
As outlined above, material entities can be classified in terms of
properties such as mass, charge and spin. The proper criteria for the
classification of law-like information have been shown to comprise degreeof-intentionality, learning capability and freedom-of-action. Subjects, for
their part, are characterized by (i) their degree of individuality, (ii) the way
95
in which they perceive the world around them and (iii) how they translate
such information into action. This will be the topic of the next chapter.

Chapter 6
Subjectivity
There are three

absolutely irreducible faculties
of the mind, namely,
knowledge, feeling, and desire.
Immanuel Kant
The basic tenet of the present book is that reality is made up of

information-processing events. This presupposes the existence of
information-processing entities (IPEs). Because IPEs receive information
from their surroundings and react to it in their own specific way, they may
also be called subjects; thereby emphasizing their active participation in
what happens in the world. Thus we use here the concept of subjectivity in a
very general form, rather than limiting it to the psychic states and
experiences of human beings.
98
In this general form, subjectivity refers to four characteristic features that

differ from each other in the way that information is perceived and reacted
upon: (i) physical perceptions, (ii) elementary feelings, (iii) propositional
perceptions (acquisition of knowledge) and (iv) volitions (will, desire); the
latter differing from the other three aspects of subjectivity in that they do
not generate factual information but rather translate propositional
knowledge into willed action.
Physical perceptions involve the passive assimilation of communications
which reach a given (physical) subject from outside sources. The reaction to
this information is performed unconsciously and unintentionally. An
electron, for example, may passively absorb virtual messenger particles
(emitted by other particles) and thus take up a message of the form another
electron is coming close. In the case of physical entities, such a message is
taken at face-value, i.e. without checking its truth. The subject (the electron)
responds to such information in an automatic and statistically predetermined
way by changing its direction of flight.
According to quantum mechanics, there is some degree of freedom-ofaction involved here because it is of the average particle alone that we can
say with high accuracy which direction an electron will actually take in a
given situation. The individual subjects (electrons) have a remarkably high
degree of freedom in choosing the change in flight direction that they will
initiate.
Physical subjects do not acquire any knowledge. They react to the
perceived information in accordance with the fundamental laws of physics,
but the reaction does not change them in any way; there are no learning
effects. This is different for living subjects, because these tend to learn
something about the environment with which they interact. Electrons react
in accordance with unchanging fundamental laws, whereas living entities
act in accordance with rules that have been acquired during the evolution of
99
the species. The acquisition of knowledge is a sine qua non feature of all
forms of life.
Elementary Feelings
There are a number of affective states (feelings, emotions, etc.) that
influence the reaction of a (living) subject upon receiving a given type of
information. The most basic of them are elementary feelings, such as the
feelings of hot or cold, light or dark or fear. The general information cycle
(Chapter 4) requires that feelings (like perceptions and volitions) require to
be acted upon if they are to attain the status of being feelings (perceptions,
volitions).
The actions of even the simplest of living subjects are suggested to be
due to some type of elementary feelings. We do not know what a simple
animal may actually feel but, when we come close to say a spider, it
will move away (or sit still) as if it were in a state of fear or quasi-fear. We
are using here the word fear in a metaphorical way; this is the only way in
which we can describe, and make sense of, the behavior of entities with
which we cannot communicate at the linguistic level. Important to our
classification purpose is also the fact that simple living beings do not
actively look for this type of information; rather, they are overcome by
such feelings. In other words, just as in the case of physical subjects, the
information is taken up passively, i.e. without any prior intentional focus on
the part of the animal.
Once a living subject has taken up such information from its
surroundings, it will react automatically (or quasi-automatically), but in
contrast to purely physical subjects the reaction will have a direction and
effectively aim at survival (of the living subject or its species or both).
Again, we speak metaphorically here. We do not imply that a spider aims
consciously at survival. The reaction most likely proceeds without any trace
of conscious awareness, but it is practically undisputed that the objective
result of such reactions is an increase in survival probability.
Whereas physical particles (e.g. electrons) cannot be distinguished
from each other, it can be said that all living subjects exhibit some sign of
100
individuality in terms of both structure and behavior. Because of their

inherent complexity, even the most primitive creatures will have some
individual features that other creatures of the same kind will not have; such
individual features can develop from inaccurate molecular copying or
disturbed growth processes, for example.
As to behavior, it is likely that two spiders will react quite differently
to the same information (e.g. the nearing of a large moving object); one
spider may run away, another may try the stay-still-and-dont-move
approach. Arguing again at the metaphorical level, the latter approach may
allow the subject to verify whether fear is really warranted here, or if it is
a false alarm. Physical entities never question the truth value of the
information that they receive via messenger particles; simple animals in
contrast may well do exactly that.
Affective states are principally evaluative in character. This is in
contrast to physical perceptions, which are not evaluated prior to a reaction;
neither with regard to their truth value, nor with respect to what they could
possibly mean to the subject in question. Closely connected with the
evaluative aspect of affective states is their motivational component, i.e. the
tendency to react to a given situation in line with the subjects interests; e.g.
a tendency to avoid high temperatures or other perils.
Elementary feelings are not considered to be connected with
conscious states as we know them. However, in addition to these
elementary types of feelings, we know of a wide variety of other affective
states that are felt consciously and can strongly influence our actions; e.g.
anger, envy, guilt, shame, pride, pity, hate, disgust, sexual desire,
embarrassment and compassion. Such feelings and emotions not only arise
from our general way of thinking, they also influence our thoughts. In other
words, they are complex aggregates that are inextricably interlinked with a
persons autobiographical history and the truths, beliefs and desires that
have been assimilated along the way. This brings us to the third aspect of
subjectivity; involving propositional perceptions and attitudes (knowledge,
belief, etc.).
101
Propositional perceptions are based upon propositions of the type, Peter
believes (thinks, knows, is convinced ) that dinner is ready. Propositions
generally aim at presenting facts. They have what philosophers call a
direction of fit. Aiming at providing true statements about the world, they
are said to fit the world (or parts of it).
Propositions can be true or false, but they can also be partly true and
partly false. Dinner may be ready, yes, but actually John has not yet opened
the bottle of wine. Dinner is almost ready would have been the more
fitting proposition. Not everything in the world is wrong or right, good or
bad, beautiful or ugly; the truth is often somewhere in between. Both the
content of a given proposition, and its estimated truth value, influence a
subjects thinking and acting.
According to the general information cycle, a subject must interpret a
given situation in terms of the factual situation at hand before enacting a
proper response. The factual situation may be stated as one or more
propositions. But this is not all, because the interpretation also includes the
subjects evaluation of the situation in terms of her specific set of attitudes.
A proposition may be accepted simply at face value, but it can also be
contested, doubted, appreciated, rejected, etc. There is a lot of room here for
highly personal information processing, reflecting the specific attitudes of a
subject as they have evolved during her autobiographical lifetime.
Conscious animals, and especially humans, thus show a very high degree of
individuality.
The philosopher Charles Larmore gives the following definition of the
term subject: To be a subject means to have a relation to ourselves
that is expressed in all our thoughts and actions and which is responsible for
the fact that they are indeed ours1. To have beliefs or convictions, Larmore
explains, is equivalent to committing ourselves to think and act in
accordance with their presumed truths2. This normative committing
ourselves is not just one, of a number of aspects of subjectivity; rather, it
represents its quintessence.
102
It is well known that a person can believe only that which she holds to
be true. We cannot be forced or coaxed into believing a proposition of
whose truth we are not convinced.
Physical subjects have no means of questioning the truth value of the
information which they receive by way of messenger particles. Simple
animals, in contrast, may well try to evaluate the truth value of the
elementary feeling that a given situation invokes in them; e.g., does the
dark object really represent a danger for me? In the case of conscious
subjects, however, the question of truth is of primary concern.
All three types of subjective behavior that we have discussed so far
can be said to be located along the dimension of truth: (1) Physical subjects
have zero interest in evaluating the truth value of the information that they
receive; (2) The behavior of simple living subjects seems to indicate that
they do have some interest in the topic of truth; (3) Conscious animals, for
their part, are fully engaged in truth-finding. They can act only in line with
what they think is true; and desirable. This latter aspect refers to the
fourth, and last, of the primary aspects of subjectivity: volition.
Volitions
Immanuel Kant has taught us, in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), that
There are three absolutely irreducible faculties of the mind, namely,
knowledge, feeling, and desire. Today, we still understand the workings of
the mind in terms of these three aspects; subsuming that is desires, will,
wishes etc. under the heading of volitions.
Volitions are normative and motivational in character, and are usually
based upon the interpretation of a given situation, thus leading a subject to
act in a way that she considers to be a good response. In a similar way that
our beliefs are limited to those propositions that we hold to be true, our will
can instantiate only those actions that we hold to be good and desirable.
103
The action to be performed must not only aim at a desired goal,

however; it must also seem possible that the good end can actually be
achieved.
In other words, the subject must be free to act in accordance with her
will, and she must think that the action may indeed produce the desired
result. What a desired result, or a good end, actually means can be highly
subjective and may not necessarily be in line with generally accepted
standards of ethical conduct.
Volition is the decisive element that commits a subject to act as she
sees fit. It is directed towards a desired effect, but will normally be
instantiated only if the person believes that she can succeed in achieving her
goal. Once the person initiates a selected course of action she takes full
responsibility for her so doing. Understanding a situation (acquisition of
propositional knowledge or belief) is one thing, and the way we feel about it
(affective state) is another; but once we begin to act, and effect observable
changes in the world, we become accountable for what we think, feel and
actually do. It is this lasting responsibility that makes us persons: thus
reaching the highest form of individuality of which we know.
Four Aspects of Subjectivity

As we have seen above, subjects can be differentiated and classified in
terms of four aspects that characterize the way in which a subject perceives,
and reacts to, the outside world: (i) physical perceptions, (ii) elementary
feelings, (iii) propositional perceptions (acquisition of knowledge, beliefs,
convictions) and (iv) volitions (will, desire). The actions of a given subject
are due to one or more of these characteristic features.
These four aspects are clearly ordered in terms of their degree of
intentionality and subjective involvement. Physical perceptions (i) do not
involve any intentionality and the reaction of, say, an electron absorbing a
virtual phonon emitted by another electron is limited to an automatic change
in the direction of flight. Elementary feelings (ii), in contrast, involve some
104
type of quasi-intentionality, and lead (unconsciously) to actions that are in

the subjects best interest; e.g. when a living entity tries to avoid
dangerously high temperatures. Propositional perceptions (iii) are clearly
intentional and show a strong subjective involvement, in that they are
concerned with what a conscious subject holds to be true. The ultimate
degree of intentionality and subjective involvement pertains to will and
desire (iv) which lead to actions for which the person takes full
responsibility.
Figure 6.1 The individual parameters of the subjectivity tetrad.

Odd one out: Volitions.
Triplet: Physical perceptions, elementary feelings and
propositional perceptions.
Upper doublet: Volitions and propositional perceptions.
Lower doublet: Physical perceptions and elementary feelings.
105
Here is how these four aspects of subjectivity fit into the general
structure of the Tree of Everything whose tetrads of individual parameters
have so far been found always to feature (1) an odd-man-out parameter, (2)
a triplet of closely-related parameters and (3) two doublets of
complementary parameters. Figure 6.1 shows these structural relations for
the subjectivity tetrad.
Odd-one-out: Volitions
The parameter volitions must be accorded the odd-one-out position,
because it results from internally-produced attitudes, whereas the other three
parameters are mainly due to external information uptake. Even more
importantly, it is the acting out on account of her own will and desires that
makes a person fully responsible for her deeds.
Triplet: Physical perceptions, elementary feelings and propositional
perceptions
Physical perceptions, elementary feelings and propositional perceptions are
closely related to each other insofar as all three refer to the acquisition of
factual knowledge concerning a subjects surroundings.
1st Doublet: Volitions and propositional perceptions
The upper doublet features the closely correlated parameters volitions and
propositional perceptions. Although known facts and beliefs
(propositions) clearly differ from will and desires, they usually occur
together. Even those events that are strongly guided by will and desires
begin with a propositional perception of the situation at hand. Will and
desire are based upon what a given subject holds to be true and of value.
Stating the content of a given will, or desire, represents a proposition and,
vice versa, any will implies a propositional situation upon which the will to
act is based in some way. The parameters of the upper doublet are thus
clearly complementary to each other; each implying the existence of the
other.
106
The upper doublet refers to those two parameters that make us

humans. In contrast to animals, human beings are interested not only in
survival and reproduction, but in the full range of mental, intellectual and
spiritual phenomena that the world has to offer. Events taking place at this
level are best described in terms of a desire for truth, goodness and beauty,
as well as by a longing for freedom (of thought and action). These are the
four ideals of mankinds higher thoughts, feelings and ambitions. They will
be the subject of the following chapter.
2nd Doublet: Physical perceptions and elementary feelings
The lower doublet of correlated parameters refers to physical perceptions
(e.g. when an electron enters the field of another electron) and elementary
feelings (e.g. when a bacterium feels high temperatures). As was the case
with all other tetrads of individual parameters that we have discussed so far,
these two parameters are very similar to each other; both referring to
unintentional perceptions that lead to a rather automatic response. They
have in common that the perceptions are forced, by the outside, onto a
given subject. The information is not sought; rather, it is received without
any prior intentional focus. The two types of perceptions can be said to
complement each other. On the one hand, feeling (i.e. living) aggregates
are composed of non-feeling entities (particles, atoms) but, on the other
hand, if there were no living beings nobody would know anything about the
material aggregates, which could thus just as well be said to be non-existent.
In a Universe made up of information, nothing can be said to exist that
cannot be known to exist.

Chapter 7
Our values are

real features
of the universe
Stuart A. Kauffman1
The general information cycle requires subjects to evaluate a given

situation prior to performing an action. Among the dozens of values that
come to mind, four are clearly dominant: freedom and the triad of ideals
referring to the good, the true and the beautiful. These are the four
dimensions in which we think, feel and act. They have been known since
antiquity and have dominated our philosophical thoughts up to the present
day. Nobody knows for sure why these ideals are of such great value to us,
but they certainly are. The philosopher Thomas Nagel sees the
development of value and moral understanding, like the development of
knowledge and reason and the development of consciousness in terms of
the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming
aware of itself2.
108
Freedom
Freedom allows us to engage in reflective decision-making and to take on
responsibility for our deeds. According to 19th-century English philosopher
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), freedom is the first and strongest want to
human nature.3 One can, in principle, differentiate between two types of
freedom: (i) Freedom of action, which is of relevance to all types of
subjects, and (ii) freedom of thought, which pertains solely to conscious
subjects.
Purely physical entities (particles, atoms etc.) show the lowest degree
of freedom of action. The laws of quantum mechanics describe only the
probability of what an individual particle will do in a given situation. This
indicates some minimal degree of freedom-of-action; that is expressed as an
absence of full determination.
In the realm of life, the decisive phenomena are (i) maintaining the life
of the individual and (ii) contributing to the evolution of the species. The
latter requires the availability of chance effects that introduce arbitrary
changes into the genetic material; favorable changes subsequently being
selected for in the evolutionary process. As is evident from the unbelievably
rich diversity of living beings, the evolutionary process entails a large
degree of freedom of development. But it is not only the dimension of
freedom that characterizes the realm of life; truth and beauty also begin
to show up. All living beings acquire the (mostly unconscious) knowledge
(truth) that is important for their survival. There also appear multitudes of
beautiful shapes and colors, e.g. in the forms of butterflies or flowers.
Conscious animals may have some proto-awareness of such Platonic
ideals, but it is in humans and human societies that notions of the good, the
true and the beautiful become the leading dimensions of thought and action.
Not only are we aware of these values, we consciously and deliberately
instantiate them in our daily activities. Scientists and philosophers may look
for truth, aficionados of art and nature for beauty, and all of us for goodness
and love.
For Spinoza, Einsteins favored philosopher, freedom is equivalent to
rational self-determination. In order to act freely, the rational part of our
109
personality must liberate its thinking from emotional constraints and crude
attitudes. The rational mind, rather than instincts or prejudices, must be in
control in order to think and act freely.
Our freedom of thought and action is not constrained only by our
affective attitudes and prejudices, but also by historically inherited and
autobiographically acquired patterns of thought and rules of conduct. As
Austrian idealist philosopher Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) has pointed out,
many of these constraining factors oppose each other; thus leaving much
room for rational evaluation to take control. Personal freedom thus requires
a good measure of what Steiner calls moral imagination.
The 20th-century existentialist philosophers de-emphasize the role of
rationality in favor of the concepts of personal freedom and responsibility.
Whatever we do, we are responsible for the effects to which our actions will
lead. According to existentialist Sartre, our values and ideals are implicit in
our actions, i.e. they do not exist outside, and somehow in addition to, our
deeds. The most fundamental of all values is freedom, which entails
responsibility for our choices and renders possible all other ideals.
Existentialists, like many other philosophers, are convinced that we always
choose to perform those actions that we regard as good; from our point of
view that is.
For 17th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose thought is still
highly influential in present-day philosophy, man is free as long as he is
subject to his own legislation. Furthermore, all morality is based upon
(theoretical and practical) reason and rationality. Sartre fully agrees that
self-legislation is at the basis of our ethics. His dictum, Man is condemned
to be free is well known. Why condemned? Because we have not created
ourselves. Rather, as Martin Heidegger pointed out, we have been thrown
into this world without having had any choice in the matter. And yet, once
we are here, we are responsible for all that we do.
Our thoughts, hopes and fears do not count, according to Sartre. What
counts are our actions, realized reality that is. In this sense man is
indistinguishable from his path through life; he is the integrated ensemble
110
of his acts; including all the relationships that connect the individual acts to
a meaningful whole.
Summing up, freedom is widely considered to be our most important
and momentous value. This may be true, but it begs the Why? question. In
order to live and multiply, we need food, shelter and defences against
dangers. Animals in a zoo, and humans in well-managed prisons, could
have that. But they want freedom, and many are willing to die for it. Why?
We do not know why. The longing for freedom is a brute fact; something
that just exists and is a fundamental dimension of the Universe in which we
live. The same seems to be true for the other three fundamental ideals; the
true, the good and the beautiful.
Truth, Goodness and Beauty

According to American philosopher Mortimer J. Adler (1902-2001), the
founder of the Great Books of the Western World series, the ideals of the
true, the good and the beautiful are sometimes called transcendental
because everything that is is in some measure or manner subject to
denomination as true or false, good or evil, beautiful or ugly. Truth is
generally concerned with thought and logic, whereas the good is connected
with our actions and morals, and the beautiful with enjoyment and
aesthetics. It is easy to see, according to Adler, why these three values
form a triad of terms which have been discussed together throughout the
tradition of western thought.4
The philosophy of western thought is widely considered to have begun
with Thales of Miletos (624-546 BC) who seems to have been the first to
fathom the origin of the world and the true nature of its constituents;
without taking refuge in mythology that is. Thales is also often called the
Father of Science, because he was the first to discover general principles
and formulate hypotheses on the workings of Nature.
A century later, Parmenides of Elea (ca. 520-460 BC) conjectured that
there is a more fundamental reality behind the world of appearances; that
111
ultimate reality is actually a changeless and timeless one. Parmenides thus

introduced for the first time the concept of Being into European
Philosophy. This idea, as well as Socrates (469-399 BC) patient quest for
truth, virtue and goodness have greatly influenced the thinking of Plato
(427-348 BC), who was to become one of the two cornerstones of
philosophy for more than two thousand years; the other one being Aristotle
(384-322), Platos student, and teacher of Alexander the Great.
Plato was convinced that goodness really exists. It is not just a word,
or a concept; it is real. The philosopher was well aware that, in the realm of
mathematics and geometry, there are abstract objects (points, circles, lines)
and mathematical principles which can be shown to have the status of
being without actually belonging to the world of physical phenomena. He
had visited Euclides of Megara (430-360 BC), who had combined the
essential concepts of Socrates (the good) and Parmenides (Being) into the
notion of the supreme good as that which is always the same. It is likely
that Euclides also inspired Plato to use the word idea in his philosophy;
the meaning of the word here referring to some abstract type of reality
which lies behind the things that appear to our senses.
In what is known today as Platonic Idealism, the good is just such
an idea; something that one can grasp only intuitively and approximately
by extracting it from what is common to all good acts. All virtues are seen
to participate in some way in the idea of the good. A circle also exists as a
mathematical idea, and is considered by Plato to be more truly real than any
circle that can ever be drawn on paper. Circles in the material world are
always to some degree imperfect, whereas the idea of a circle is
absolutely perfect. Circles appearing in the physical world participate in
the idea of an ideal mathematical circle.
Platos idealism is not fully dualistic. It does not necessarily imply the
existence of two different worlds; one pertaining to what is physically
given, and the other to an idealistic realm. On the one hand, the idea of
circles shows itself in its physical instantiations, and on the other, circles in
the physical world participate in the idea of circles. Similarly, works of
art (at least at the time of Plato) participate in the idea of beauty. The
112
physical world and the realm of ideas are complementary to each other. The
former participates in the latter and, vice versa, the latter is known to us
only insofar as it reveals itself in the physical phenomena of the world in
which we live. We have seen above that this type of complementarity is also
one of the key structural features of the Tree of Everything.
Unfortunately, Plato was so overwhelmed by his discovery of the
world of ideas that he emphasized or over-emphasized the immense
chasm between the physical world of appearances and the idealistic realm
of ultimate truth, beauty and goodness. Aristotle later modified Platos
theory by insisting that the material things and their forms (ideas) are
interlaced with each other; each requiring the other in order to exist in the
world. Aristotle also conjectured that it all began with an (unmoved and
eternal) first mover who initiated the movements in the world and whom
he also called the highest good and highest being.
There is another interesting conclusion here. That which lets us strive
for the true, the good and the beautiful is our soul (our self). But, Plato
insists, it would not strive for these realms of being if it could not
participate itself in these eternal ideas. Due to this participation in the realm
of eternal and unchanging ideas our soul becomes immortal or, in Platos
words, attains self-perpetuation and completion5. We shall keep this view
in mind when interpreting the Tree of Everything in terms of mans place in
the universe.
More than two millennia after Plato, Immanuel Kant devoted most of
his life to the study of truth, goodness and beauty. His first great book,
Critique of Pure Reason, was devoted to the question, What can we
know?
At that time, enlightenment philosophy had resulted in two main lines
of thought: (i) the rationalists tried to model the world in a mathematical
way by starting from undisputable facts and deducing other verities by way
of logic. This approach goes back to Ren Descartes (1596-1650) whose
starting point was the famous cogito (I think), from which logically
follows ergo sum (therefore I am). (ii) The empiricists distrusted human
rationality and relied solely on empirical observations. This line of thought
113
is due to John Locke (1632-1704) and seemed to be irrefutable; until it

came under devastating attack by David Hume (1711-1776), that is, who
argued that even our notion of causality is an illusion.
Kant found a solution to the impasse by proposing a synthesis of the
two lines of thought. Normally it is assumed that all of our knowledge must
conform to the objects that we sense around us. Kant reversed this stance by
suggesting that the objects must conform to our knowledge. This switch of
viewpoint became to be known later as the Copernican Revolution in
Philosophy. Our knowledge has empirical roots. For scientific research,
Kant says, it is not important what a given object (a cat for example) is, but
how it appears to our senses. The thing-in-itself is not knowable and does
not need to be known.
What we need to know is how the object appears to our senses; not
only to our senses that is, but to the senses of humans in general. In other
words, empirical observations of, say, a cat then lead to scientifically useful
knowledge only if we generalize the observations to an abstract cat, one that
belongs to the category of cats and has the properties that all cats normally
have. Such general ideas can then be handled rationally (in terms of logical
deliberations) because that which is subjective in our perceptions has been
generalized to what is equally apparent to all humans; that is, to objective
knowledge.
Our mind is concerned with empirical observations. What transcends
such observations is unknowable, according to Kant. But our mind also has
ideas of its own, such as the idea of the good. The good is not a fact, but
rather a regulative idea. It is not that the good is, but that it ought to be. The
mind is free to generate ideas of this kind. Moral ideas refer to general
truths and can thus be handled by our rational mind. This is the subject of
Kants second great book, Critique of Practical Reason, which is concerned
with the question, What should we do, and leads to Kants famous
categorical imperative; telling us to act in accordance with those maxims
that one could will to be universal law. In other words, we should act in a
way such that the world would still be a pleasant place to live in if
everybody else would but act in the same way.
114
The third book, Critique of Judgment, presents Kants theory of

aesthetics. When observing the things around us in a disinterested way, they
appear to us as if they existed for their own raison dtre and with their own
purpose. This leads us to feel disinterested enjoyment. Nature with its
functional configurations is just as beautiful as our best works of art.
According to Kant, aesthetics is to be located somewhere between science
and ethics; beauty is closely related to both truth and goodness. Art is a
creative work of the mind and can be experienced in a similar way as
Nature. Like our moral actions, art is also a result of our freedom to act; the
artist freely chooses its subject and the way she wants to portray it.
In summary, Kants philosophy is a complex system that
interconnects, in sometimes difficult to understand language and
nomenclature, all four human values which we call here essential
dimensions; freedom, goodness, beauty and truth.
Following the publication of Charles Darwins book On the Origin of
Species (1859), scientists and philosophers became increasingly engrossed
in the evolutionary aspects of the essential dimensions. The philosopher and
mathematician Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), well known for his
process philosophy, defines evolution as an increase in the capacity to
experience what is intrinsically valuable. German sociologist Max Weber
(1864-1920) notes that three value spheres began to evolve in the Age of
Enlightenment: science, morality and art; referring, respectively, to the
dimensions of truth, goodness and beauty. Sociologist Jrgen Habermas
refers to the evolution of the three value spheres as differentiations of
modernity, and Neoplatonist Ken Wilber here speaks of the historical
evolution of modernist consciousness.
Although todays philosophers are still very interested in these ideals,
they often do not accept their general validity. What we regard as being
good or beautiful is highly subjective and also depends upon the generally
accepted viewpoint of the society in which we grow up. Killing and eating
humans, generally regarded as horrible behavior, was standard good
practice in cannibalistic societies.
115
Modern philosophy had begun with the emergence of enlightenment,

which Kant famously defined as mans emergence from his self-incurred
immaturity. Enlightenment means that we must free ourselves from the
paternalism of others and make use of our reason, rather than continue to
rely on dogma and faith. By the late 19th Century, the enlightenment
movement had, by and large, eliminated religious doctrines from
philosophy and science; so that Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) declared
the death of god and, with it, the end of ethics and goodness. Man has
become free, according to Nietzsche, to leave behind all conventions and do
literally what he wants. The existentialist movement, due mainly to Martin
Heidegger (1876-1976), Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) and Jean-Paul Sartre,
acknowledged mans freedom, but emphasized the responsibility that comes
with it.
The ideals of freedom, goodness, truth and beauty have all intrinsic
value, i.e. they are not good for something, but simply good in, and for,
themselves. They are brute facts; in a similar way as the existence of the
Universe seems to be a brute fact. The astonishing point about these ideals
is that we all value them so highly. Our top scientists are no exception here.
Albert Einstein has given the following account: The ideals which have
guided my way, and time after time have given me the energy to face life,
have been kindness, beauty and truth6.
The Four Essential Dimensions

It seems that the world as we experience it could not exist without what we
are calling the four essential dimensions. Here is how these dimensions fit
into the general structure of the Tree of Everything, whose tetrads of
individual parameters have so far always been found to show the following
features: (1) an odd-man-out parameter, (2) a triplet of closely-related
parameters and (3) two doublets of complementary parameters. Figure 7.1
shows these structural relationships for the essential-dimensions tetrad.
116
Figure 7.1 The essential-dimensions tetrad of the Tree of Everything.

Odd one out: Freedom (of thought and action).
Triplet: Goodness, the True and the Beautiful.
Upper doublet: Freedom and the Goodness.
Lower doublet: The True and the Beautiful.
117
Odd one out: Freedom

Freedom is clearly the odd-one-out parameter because it can be seen as
being the precondition for the other parameters to exist. There cannot be
much doubt that good actions require some degree of freedom; anything one
does automatically by way of mathematical necessity can hardly be called
an act with good intentions. Similarly, beauty and truth require some
freedom of thought. We must have a choice as to whether we shall see
something as being beautiful or ugly; otherwise, using the word beautiful
would simply make no sense. The same holds for judging something to be
true; without any choices, the word would be meaningless.
The important point here is that whether something is to be called
good or bad, beautiful or ugly or true or false is to be evaluated from the
subjects point of view. Nobody can make us hold anything to be good if we
know from our own evaluation that it is not good. Similarly, we cannot
believe in the truth (or beauty) of something that we personally hold untrue
(or ugly). Our own way of thinking and feeling is in charge of what we hold
to be good, true or beautiful.
Triplet: The Good, the True and the Beautiful
If freedom is the exceptional parameter of the four essential dimensions, the
triplet is given by the remaining three ideals. This makes sense insofar as
philosophers have always discussed these three ideals together; for more
than two millennia that is. In the words of Rudolf Steiner, Through all the
ages of man's conscious evolution the true, the beautiful and the good have
expressed three great ideals: ideals which have instinctively been
recognized as representing the sublime nature and lofty goal of all human
endeavor7.
The Good, the True and the Beautiful can be regarded as being the
three dimensions in which we are free to live. In a similar way that events
taking place at the physical level are thought to represent points and regions
in the dimensions of space and time, we may metaphorically picture our
thoughts and actions as generating points and regions in a realm whose
coordinates are defined by the four essential dimensions. Maybe, this is
118
what it is all about: Generating, with our lives and actions, an abstract
landscape in the essential dimensions of freedom, goodness, truth and
beauty. Why? Because these ideals need to be realized; maybe it is not
enough that they exist only potentially, they need to come out into the open
and become evident as realized reality (Sartre). This idea is not new. We
shall come back to it below.
1st Doublet: Freedom and Goodness
The upper doublet of complementary parameters refers to freedom and
goodness. In order to do a good deed there needs to be a free choice
among at least two alternative actions. Thus, goodness clearly requires the
existence of freedom. On the other hand the fact that good deeds are indeed
observed to be performed in our world is proof of the existence of freedom
of choice. The two parameters imply each other in every good act.
In his normativist theory of subjectivity, the philosopher Charles
Larmore notes that, All the elements of the mind have a normative
character insofar as they are defined by what they give us reason to say or to
do8. Humans are rational and responsible agents who are actively engaged
in a world that is full of contingencies, options and obligations. A given
situation contains their own reasons that should guide our thoughts and
actions. These reasons are part of the structure of reality and exist
independently of our opinions. Reasons, according to Larmore, are real and
resemble the Platonic ideas in that they constitute an essentially normative
dimension of the world that is connected to, but not identical with, the
physical and psychic realms of reality9.
Our beliefs and desires are formed by normative dimensions that are
part, initially not of our mind, but of the world in which we live. We orient
our thoughts and deeds by reference to world-immanent reasons which we
discover by way of intuition and which guide our thoughts (because we hold
them to be true) and our actions (because we regard them as to be good and
desirable). In the words of Larmore, We act freely insofar as our action is
determined by our best comprehension of the reasons that are relevant in the
situation at hand10.
119
2nd Doublet: Truth and Beauty

Truth and beauty constitute the second doublet of essential dimensions. The
literature is full of statements to the effect that truth is beautiful. Scientists
all over the world are thrilled by the beauty of the equations that they
discover in their research. Some even go so far as to state that the beauty of
the equations is more important than their fit to experimental data. In this
view, it is not only that truth is beautiful. Beauty is also considered to be
proof for the existence of truth. The two ideals are closely intertwined in a
complementary loop; at a highly abstract level, that is.
One of the general features of the Tree of Everything is that those
doublets of parameters with which the splitting process ends are either very
similar or very closely connected with each other. This is also the case for
the lower doublet pertaining to the four essential dimensions; truth and
beauty. The English Romantic poet John Keats (1795-1821) connects the
two ideals by saying that Beauty is truth, truth beauty that is all ye know
on earth, and all ye need to know. Often cited is the Latin phrase, beauty
is the splendor of truth (pulchritudo splendor varitatis).
German poet and novelist Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
goes one step further, suggesting that, Beauty is a manifestation of secret
natural laws, which otherwise would have been hidden from us forever. It
is indeed widely accepted that the fundamental equations of physics are
beautiful. As physicist and science writer Graham Farmelo explains, Much
like a great work of art, a beautiful equation has among its attributes much
more than mere attractiveness it will have universality, simplicity,
inevitability and elemental power.11
According to Paul Dirac, fundamental physical laws are described in
terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty. It seems that if one is
working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations one is
on a sure line of progress12. Famous among scientists is the episode that
occurred during a seminar held at Moscow University in 1955. Upon being
asked to summarize his philosophy of physics, Dirac went to the blackboard
and wrote, in capital letters, Physical laws should have mathematical
beauty. According to Farmelo, this piece of blackboard is still on display.
120
Hans Albert Einstein has reported about his father that he, had a
character more like that of an artist than of a scientist as we usually think of
them. For instance, [his] highest praise for a good theory or a good piece of
work was not that it was correct nor that it was exact but that it was
beautiful13.
In his bestseller Dreams of a Final Theory, Nobel Laureate Steven
Weinberg devotes an entire chapter to the strange fact that
mathematicians are led by their sense of mathematical beauty to develop
formal structures that physicists only later find useful, even where the
mathematician had no such goal in mind. Weinberg is convinced that a
final and all-encompassing theory of physics will be beautiful; Plato and
the neo-Platonists taught that the beauty we see in nature is a reflection of
the beauty of the ultimate, the nos. For us, too, the beauty of present
theories is an anticipation, a premonition, of the beauty of the final theory.
And in any case we would not accept any theory as final unless it were
beautiful14.

Chapter 8
We are all responsible for

what the future holds in store
It is our duty
to fight for a better world
Karl Popper1
In a now famous television interview2 on the Universe, its origins and mans
place in it, John A. Wheeler, one of the most visionary physicists of the 20th
Century, made the following remarkable statements: Some people think
that were just a little accident off in a far-away corner of the Universe, not
very important in the scheme of things, and that the machinery came into
being without any reference to life or consciousness. But to me thats
preposterous in some magic way as we get down deeper well find
ourselves at the bottom of things; the observer brought back and tied in at
the center of the picture One of the most interesting points of view that
has come to attention recently is the idea that the Universe is a kind of selfexcited circuit.
122
The Universe is seen as a self-excited circuit, with the Universe

giving birth to the observer and the observer giving meaning to the
Universe. So, one has a kind of closed circuit there, a meaning circuit if
you will. Along this line, can one summarize the way that we might think of
the observer as somehow being involved in bringing into being this
mysterious Universe of ours? Unfinished business, great work, great
questions, and a marvelous collection of clues, I think we are at a most
exciting time
This business of bringing man into the story: that is the most striking
feature of the quantum principle. As our Nobel prize-winning colleague,
Eugene Wigner puts it, No observation is completed until its result has
entered the consciousness. Or as Niels Bohr used to put it, No
measurement makes sense until you can communicate the result to others in
plain language. And this idea that giving meaning involves us in some
strange way seems inescapable. We just dont see a way to get out of it.
At this point, interviewer Paul Boynton asked: So you feel, perhaps
that one of the key issues is that somehow the Universe comes into being
and is the way it is because man is what he is? Is that a possible, though
perhaps rather extreme, summary? And Wheeler replied: That the two are
linked in some strange way, of course, is perfectly clear. From all we know
of evolution, man has properties governed by the chemical elements, carbon
and ever so many other details of physics, and yet on the other hand
there are strange features about the Universe that are very difficult to
understand unless life is somehow involved in it2.
The Universe as a Meaning Circuit

In Chapter 5, we have suggested that the workings of the Universe can best
be understood in terms of a self-unfolding story; metaphorically speaking
that is. The events (the sentences of the story) are indexed with respect
to all other events in terms of the four spacetime coordinates, and causally
related to each other by means of the pertinent laws and principles (law-like
123
information, or the grammar of the text). Can we make out any theme to
the story? Does it convey any deeper meaning and purpose? And what is
our place in the universal epic?
The Tree of Everything does not offer any final answers to such
ultimate questions. But it does have something to say on the matter and can
offer some hints for further study. We have finally arrived at the top triad of
the tree, comprising the parameters Subjectivity and Essential
Dimensions at its base, and Reality at its top (Fig. 8.1). Instead of
Reality we could also use other, more philosophical, expressions, such as
Being or Ultimate Reality; or simply the Real as it is called by
physicist and philosopher Bernard dEspagnat.
DEspagnats thinking about Nature is based fully on our physical,
especially quantum-physical, knowledge. He is widely known for his
Veiled Reality concept which refers to an Independent Reality identified
with Being itself3, and which he also calls mind-independent reality or
simply the Real; the upper-case R distinguishing it from the empirical
reality that is given to us by our experiences and observations, and by the
laws and rules we derive from them. The Real, according to dEspagnat, is
the ground from which everything emerges: space and time, mind and
matter and the laws of the empirical world.
The top of the Tree of Everything does indeed seem to constitute the
origin of everything or, better, the origin from which the fundamental
structure of Nature begins to unfold. Before any events can begin to take
place, some initial conditions have to be set, such as the number of
dimensions, the fundamental laws and their proportionality constants, the
energy context and the expansion dynamics of the original Universe. The
basic question is: how did all of this come about?
The advent of quantum mechanics (with its apparent potential to
create something out of nothing4) has led to the conjecture that the
Universe is the result of an initial quantum condition which switches by
way of a spontaneous fluctuation into a state of reality. At the beginning
of the emerging Universe, the potential for setting up such factors as the
number of dimensions, fundamental laws and other parameters must have
124
Figure 8.1 The Tree of Everything features four triplets of parameters,

referring to the material base, information processing events, universal
history and meaning.
125
been at a maximum. As soon as one or more of these items have been set,
however, the emergence of further parameters is limited by the prior
settings, if the resulting Universe is to be self-consistent and logically
unambiguous.
If, for example, we were to have a Universe featuring four spacetime
dimensions (as is the case in our Universe) the specification of all further
parameters would be restricted by the requirement that they must be in line
with such a four-dimensional architecture. The more parameters that are set,
the smaller will be the degree of freedom of choice for the setting of further
fundamental items. This process may go on until we reach a point at which
no further settings are possible (or feasible).
If each new parameter limits the freedom of choice of further
parameters, this is equivalent to a reduction in potentiality. In other words,
the creative potential must decline from top to bottom of the tree. This is
exactly what we find. The complementary parameters of the first two levels
from the top are quite different in character, whereas the entities at the
forces-and-matter level are much more similar to each other; both
parameters referring to (virtual and normal) material particles. At the
bottom level of the tree we find only a very small difference between the
two parameters; the two sets of (normal) material particles differing only in
their masses. The same decrease in creativity is also observed in the case of
the individual parameter sets of the substructure.
In other words, the top of the Tree of Everything has the highest
degree of freedom, and the creative potential decreases with each level as
we go down the tree. Once we have reached the bottom of these creative
splitting processes, the first events of the universal story can begin to take
place. At this point, right at the Big Bang that is, the Universe is an
unbelievably hot spot, consisting of the high-energy forms of matter.
Evolution starts from this ground level and, in a fraction of a second,
leads to the level of matter as we know it (M-I) and to the four forces
(which physicists assume to have emerged one after another from an
originally unified force). The fundamental laws and spacetime, at the third
level (from the bottom), become real entities with the instantiation of the
126
first events (before the first events took place, these parameters are thought
to have existed only potentially). The fourth level, constituted of the
essential dimensions and subjectivity, also began to be realized with the
first events (in terms of the freedom of action of the first particles and the
truth that is incorporated in the fundamental laws) but gain full visibility
(and objective reality) only with the evolution of life, humans and human
culture.
The tope node of the Tree of Everything represents the origin of the
unfolding process that leads to the ontological structure on which the
workings of the Universe is based. This structure is the logical prerequisite
for the beginning of the evolution process in which the various parameters
are filled with content and meaning.
The Superstructure of the Tree of Everything

Leaving aside the top node of the tree, the fundamental structure of the Tree
of Everything (Fig. 8.1) can be seen to consist of two tetrads; the lower one
consisting of material parameters, and the upper one of immaterial
parameters:
(i) The lower tetrad has Forces as its odd-one-out parameter;
whereas the three types of matter (Matter I, II and III) make up a closely
connected triplet; the material base of the tree.
(ii) In the case of the upper tetrad, the odd-one-out comprises the
Essential Dimensions, whereas the closely connected triplet is made up of
the history realm of Subjectivity, Spacetime and Law-like Information.
The tree in its entirety consists of four triplets of fundamental
parameters; each triplet referring to a well-defined aspect of reality: (1) the
material base at the bottom, (2) information processing events, (3) history
(sum of all events) and (4) meaning (or theme) at the top.
127
Figure 8.2 The four superstructure triplets of the Tree of Everything are
structured in the same ways as all of the other tetrads of the tree:
Odd one out: Meaning (theme).
Triplet: The three parameters forming the Universal Story.
Upper doublet: Meaning & History.
Lower doublet: Material Base & Information Processing Events.
The four triplets together offer a somewhat different view of the top
node of the tree. The first three triplets (from the bottom) refer, respectively,
to the material base (the letters and words of the metaphorical story),
information processing events (sentences and paragraphs) and the sum of
all events (the history) of the universal story. In line with the concept of a
self-unfolding epic, the fourth triplet (at the top) would be expected to refer
to the aspect of meaning and purpose (or the theme) of the opus. This
expectation is supported by the fact that the superstructure exhibits the same
structural features that have been observed for all other tetrads of the tree
(Fig. 8.2):
128
Odd one out: Meaning

Meaning is the odd one because, in a way, it transcends the story. It is
the overarching meaning (or theme) that unites the sum of the events into a
coherent opus.
Triplet: Material Base, Information Processing and History
The material base, the information-processing events and the sum of all
events (the history of the Universe) are connected to each other insofar as
all three together constitute the universal epic.
1st Doublet: Meaning and History
Meaning and history are complementary to each other. On the one hand, the
meaning of a story is implied by the complete text (sum of all events), and
on the other hand, in order to see a given set of sentences and paragraphs as
providing a coherent story, there needs to be an overarching meaning to it.
One cannot have a story without a comprehensive meaning, and vice versa,
meaning can exist only if there is a story that conveys it.
2nd Doublet: Material Base and Information Processing
Information processing is possible only if there are material entities
(particles, atoms, molecules etc.) that can encode information; and vice
versa, information-carrying entities are implied by the existence of
observable events. Without material objects, no information-processing
events can come about; on the other hand, it is through the observation of
such events that the material world becomes visible and thus real. Matter
and, information processing events, imply each other in an ontological loop.
Why Does the World Exist?

The fact that both the structure of the individual parameters, and the
overarching superstructure, of the Tree of Everything are congruent to each
other is an indication that the metaphor of a universal epic is a good one,
129
and that the top triplet of the fundamental structure does indeed refer to the
topic of meaning and purpose, or the theme, of the universal opus.
We now turn to the great question of Leibniz: Why is there
something rather than nothing? Leibniz bases his question upon the
principle of sufficient reason, noting that nothing takes place without a
sufficient reason nothing occurs for which it would be impossible for
someone who has enough knowledge of things to give a reason adequate to
determine why the thing is as it is and not otherwise. This principle having
been stated, the first question which we have a right to ask will be, Why is
there something rather than nothing?.... Further, assuming that things must
exist, it must be possible to give a reason why they should exist as they do
and not otherwise.5
From a philosophical point of view, the seemingly best answers to
Leibniz question go back to the thinking of Plato who was convinced that
essential values (ideal forms) have creative power. The Canadian
philosopher John Leslie and his followers concentrate their studies on the
conjecture that the existence of the Universe is due to the creative force of
the value of goodness. Leslie: I think if I would like to be remembered as a
philosopher for any one thing, that would be the thing I'd most like to be
remembered for6.
Thinking in broader terms, the American philosopher Thomas Nagel is
convinced that the concept of value must be seen as pluralistic. He argues
that the emergence of value is the emergence of both good and evil and
that no teleological principle tending toward the production of a single
outcome seems suitable. Rather it would have to be a tendency toward
the generation of multiple variations in the range of possible complex
systems7. In line with the thinking of British philosopher Derek Parfit8,
Nagel speculates that value is not just an accidental side effect of life;
rather, there is life because life is a necessary condition of value.
In this connection, we should also mention the three-world scenario of
mathematical physicist, and avowed Platonist, Roger Penrose. Penroses
starting point is the objectivity of mathematical truths. Mathematical objects
(circles for example) have their own manner of existence; an existence that
130
is both real and independent of our individual opinions. As Penrose

observes, mathematical existence is different not only from physical
existence but also from an existence that is assigned by our mental
perceptions. Yet there is a deep and mysterious connection with each of
those other two forms of existence9.
In his three-world-model of reality, Penrose thus differentiates
between the physical world, the psychic world and the Platonic world of
eternal ideas. Reality is made up of these three worlds, which are circularly
interconnected: (i) A small part of the physical World 1, the human brain,
connects to, and encompasses, the World 2 of psychic experiences; (ii) in a
similar way, a small part of World 2, the one involving processes of
scientific thinking, connects to the mathematical truths of the ideal Platonic
World 3; (iii) a small part of World 3, in turn, the part involving certain
mathematical concepts employed in the formulation of the fundamental
laws of physics, connects to the physical World 1; thus concluding the
circle.
Being a mathematician, Penrose concentrates especially on the
existence of mathematical truths and their connection with the other two
worlds. But, as he readily admits, such existence could also refer to
things other than mathematics, such as morality or aesthetics10. Penrose
speaks of deep and mysterious connections between the Platonic ideals
and the world we live in. This is close to the thinking of Plato (the good is
what bestows existence upon things), Leslie (the ethical requiredness of
the cosmos accounts for its existence) and Nagel (we exist in a world of
values11).
Here is what the Tree of Everything has to say on this matter. To
begin with, there are two aspects to be differentiated:
(1) The setting of the ontological preliminaries (before the Universe
can begin to function) originates at the top of the tree and involves
consecutive branching processes which yield a series of parameter doublets;
each doublet featuring two parameters that are complementary in some way,
and become ever more similar to each other. At a certain threshold of
131
similarity, the branching processes stop, thus completing the setting of

preliminaries.
(2) The second aspect refers to the evolution process which begins at
the bottom of the tree and involves the filling of the various parameters with
content.
Leibnizs question (Why is there something rather than nothing?)
thus clearly refers to the first aspect, the emergence of the fundamental
structure of reality. The question of who or what is the ultimate source from
which this emergence begins to take place thus leads to the very top of the
Tree of Everything. The first parameter doublet refers to subjectivity and
the four essential dimensions; the latter including Goodness (Leslie) and
other values (in line with Nagels conjecture that the concept of value must
be seen as pluralistic). This parameter doublet and, the top node of the tree,
make up the meaning triad, or the theme, of the universal story.
The Top Node of the Tree of Everything

The top node of the Tree of Everything represents the source from which
the parameters subjectivity and essential dimensions derive by way of
logical (or ontological) necessity. In a way, the essence and nature of the
top node of the tree are implied by the doublet of subjectivity and
essential dimensions; just as the parameter Matter I is implied by the
existence of Matter II and Matter III, as law-like information is implied
by the parameters Matter I and Forces, and as the parameter
subjectivity is implied by Spacetime (sum and order of the events) and
Law-like information (causal relations between the events).
Interestingly enough, the top node of the Tree of Everything can be
viewed from two different aspects; the first referring to the origin of the
fundamental structure (Fig. 8.1), and the second to the starting node of the
superstructure tetrad (Fig. 8.2). The top node of the tree is thus not only
132
implied by the parameters subjectivity and essential dimensions of the

fundamental structure, but also by the first doublet of the superstructure
tetrad; history and meaning. As has been shown above, the superstructure can be understood metaphorically in terms of a self-unfolding
story (history) of the Universe.
It would be in line with the story metaphor, if we identified the top
node of the superstructure (Fig. 8.2) as being equivalent to the author of
the work. But of course, it would be a very special author; namely the
Universe itself undergoing a process of gradually waking up and becoming
aware of itself (Thomas Nagel12).
This makes sense not only from the point of view of the superstructure
tetrad and its metaphoric-story interpretation, but is also in line with the top
triplet of the fundamental structure (Fig. 8.1) which refers to the theme, or
meaning, of the work in progress (Wheeler). History (the story of the
Universe) is due to (i) the multitude of subjects acting in the world, and (ii)
the essential dimensions in which these actions take place. The theme that
the author (the Universe) is portraying is given by the essential dimensions,
whereas the subjects instantiate events in these dimensions.
There is another, and ultimate, doublet of complementary items
involved here, each implying the other. Without the top node of the Tree of
Everything (and the parameter doublets emerging from it) no Nature can
begin to function and evolve to the level of human societies and their
capacity to ponder those ultimate questions that we are concerned with here.
On the other hand, in the absence of conscious beings, nobody would ever
know anything about the existence of the presumed top node of the tree,
which then could just as well be regarded as non-existent. The two items
imply each other in a complementary ontological loop.

Chapter 9
Any hypothesis that does not

make testable predictions
is simply not science.
Attributed to Karl Popper
As shown in the previous Chapter, the fundamental parameters of the Tree

of Everything arise from the top node by way of four consecutive splitting
processes. Each of the fundamental parameters splits twice again, thus
generating the substructure of what we have called the individual
parameters of the tree. In all cases, the two parameters produced by any
such splitting turn out to be complementary to each other; the character of
the complementarity being related to the properties of the node from which
they emanate. The figure on the next page presents these results in a
comprehensive way. If beauty is a criterion for truth, we seem to be on the
right track.
134
135
Figure 9.1 (on the opposite page) shows both the eight fundamental, and
the 32 individual, parameters of the Tree of Everything in a unified view:
there are four complementary pairs of fundamental parameters (red), and
sixteen complementary pairs of individual parameters (green). The
complementary parameters are connected by broken lines.
Furthermore, the fundamental structure of the Tree of Everything is
seen to feature a superstructure of four triplets of parameters, each of which
refers to a well-defined realm of reality: (i) Matter (Material Base), (ii)
Events, (iii) History (sum of the events) and (iv) Meaning. As shown in the
previous Chapter (Figure 8.2), the four realms are interrelated in the same
way as are the tetrads of the individual parameters of the substructure.
The general features pertaining to all three types of structure can be
used to make two testable predictions, as well as four comprehensible
conjectures which may not be provable but which are worth considering in
more detail: There remains a lot of work to be done here; a lot of aspects to
consider in more detail, and from various angles.
Prediction 1
A correct quantum-gravity theory will encompass the notion of a
complementary relationship between gravity and, the strong nuclear
force, according to which each force implies the existence of the other.
The problem is this: Einsteins Relativity Theory is based upon a
continuous-spacetime concept. This works well at large scales but breaks
down when applied to the small dimensions of the quantum world, which
requires a quantized model of spacetime. The general feeling among todays
physicists is that there must exist an overriding quantum-gravity theory
which would encompass both relativity (suitable for describing large-scale
gravitational events) and quantum physics (especially useful in the microworld of particle interactions) as complementary ingredients. As they stand,
the two theories are presently not compatible with each other at the small
scales that are typical of nuclear, atomic and chemical processes.
136
One of the most striking features of the Tree of Everything (ToE) is

that it consists of a consecutive series of pairs of complementary
parameters. This state of affairs is true for all three types of parameters
pertaining to the fundamental structure (Table 1), the superstructure (Table
2) and the substructure (Tables 3 and 4) of the tree. There is, however, one
parameter doublet that does not readily show such a complementarity;
gravity and the strong nuclear force (Table 4).
Our first prediction thus suggests that such a complementarity must
exist because there is no reason why this couple of parameters should differ
from all others in this respect. If the nature of the presumed
complementarity between gravity and the strong force is discovered, this is
quite likely to help solve the quantum gravity problem, which is arguably
the most important problem upon which physicists are presently working.
There are indications that Prediction 1 is not altogether improbable:
(i) String physics, for example, began with the mathematical modeling of
the strong nuclear force and led, rather surprisingly, to the discovery of a
hypothetical particle having properties that exactly match those which the
graviton is expected to have; the hypothetical messenger-particle of the
gravitational force1.
(ii) Michael Byrne has proposed a quite different theory according to which
the strong nuclear force would (indirectly) cause the spatial contraction
known as gravity2.
There are also a number of other approaches that aim to solve
the quantum-gravity problem. Nobody knows, at the present time,
what the final solution will actually look like.
137
Table 1. Parameter Doublets of the Fundamental

Structure of the Tree of Everything (ToE)
Immaterial Parameters
Essential Dimensions (odd one out)
Subjectivity
A subject can be defined by the essential dimensions in which it lives and acts,
and vice versa, the essential dimensions become real (i.e. perceivable) only
insofar as there are subjects expressing them in their actions.
Spacetime
Spacetime results from the sum of all events, the latter being causally defined by
the applicable law-like information. In the absence of events (characterized by
law-like information) there is no spacetime, and vice versa.
Material Parameters
Forces (odd one out)
Matter I
Forces originate from matter; but matter becomes real only if its presence is
communicated to the world by means of forces. Forces and matter imply each
other.
Matter II
Matter III
The structure of the ToE requires that if there are to be variations of a given
parameter (Matter I), they need to come in couples. In this sense, Matter II
implies the existence of Matter III, and vice versa.
Table 2. Parameter Doublets of the Superstructure of

the Tree of Everything (ToE)
Meaning (odd one out)
History (Sum of the Events)
A story requires an overarching meaning (a theme), and vice versa, meaning can
exist only if there is a real (i.e. perceivable) story that conveys it.
Material Base
Material objects are required for any encoding, and processing, of
information. On the other hand, it is through information-processing events
that the material world becomes visible and thus real.
138
Table 3. Immaterial Parameters of the Substructure of

the Tree of Everything (ToE)
Essential Dimensions
Freedom (odd one out)
Goodness
Goodness requires freedom of choice, and vice versa, freedom becomes real (i.e.
perceivable) through good acts. The two parameters complement each other.
The True
The Beautiful
Since ancient times the parameters of truth and beauty have been discussed
together; they are often, and with good reasons, said to imply each other.
Subjectivity
Volitions (odd one out)
Volitions are based upon propositional perceptions, and vice versa, it is through
the existence of volitions that propositional perceptions gain their relevance.
Elementary Feelings
Feelings are undoubtedly based on physical perceptions. On the other hand,

nobody would know anything about the physical world if there were no subjects
capable of registering (perceiving) feelings. The physical becomes known, and
thus real, through the phenomenon of life.
Spacetime
Time (odd one out)
Spatial Dimension x
Time can be defined only in terms of spatial distance, and vice versa. The two
parameters imply each other.
Spatial Dimension y
Spatial Dimension z
The spatial dimensions y and z complement each other in forming surfaces

(interfaces) which are essential in understanding phenomena such as those
connected with the holographic principle.
Conscious Events (odd one out)
Cultural Events
Conscious events (in humans) are based upon concepts; the latter being generated
within the linguistic sphere of human culture. Human consciousness and culture
complement each other.
Physical Events
Biological Events
Living entities are based upon material (physical) aggregates, but the latter
become real (i.e. observable) only through the advent of life. The two types of
events imply each other.
139
Table 4. Material Parameters of the Substructure of the

Tree of Everything (ToE)
Forces
Gravity (odd one out)
Strong Force
The relationship between gravity and the strong force is not yet fully understood.
The ToE predicts that the two parameters will be shown to be complementary to
each other, each implying the other.
Electromagnetic Force
Weak Force
The two forces are complementary to each other insofar as they represent
different aspects of the electroweak force.
Matter I
Electron Neutrino (odd one out)
Electron
The complementarity of e-neutrinos and electrons is due to the fact that their
decisive forces (the weak force and the electromagnetic force, respectively)
represent different aspects of the electroweak force.
up-Quark
down-Quark
Quarks cannot be separated from each other, and none of them can exist without
the other.
Matter II (Higher-Mass Variation of Matter I)
Muon Neutrino (odd one out)

charm-Quark
Muon
strange-Quark
Matter III (Higher-Mass Variation of Matter I)
Tau Neutrino (odd one out)

top Quark
Tau
bottom-Quark
140
Prediction 2
Neutrinos will be shown to play an important part in explaining one or
more of the unsolved problems in cosmological research.
The second prediction is based upon the fact that the neutrino is the odd one
out among the three matter tetrads (Table 4). We know that the odd-one-out
parameters of all of other tetrads always play a very important (and
generally not yet fully understood) role in the workings of the Universe.
This is true for the essential dimension of freedom, the phenomenon of
volitions (wills, desires), the dimension of time, the appearance of
consciousness, and the force of gravity (Table 5).
Prediction 2 suggests that it is also true of the curious neutrino
particles of which we know so little. As neutrinos are by far the most
abundant of the elementary matter particles, it is likely that they play a
greater role in the cosmological development of the Universe than we
presently imagine.
Cosmology is still burdened with large explanatory problems, such
as the missing dark matter and energy, the early development of the
Universe (cosmic inflation), the baryon asymmetry (why is there more
matter than anti-matter in the observable Universe?) and the cosmological
constant problem (why is the vacuum energy density so extremely small?).
Neutrinos seem to be too light to play a major role in explaining the missing
dark matter in the Universe.
But there is a good chance that they may help us in understanding
why there exists more matter, in the observable Universe, than antimatter.
As physicist Boris Kayser of Fermilab (Chicago) explains3, the great
preponderance of matter over antimatter may well be due to the decay of
heavy neutrinos in the early stages of the Universe. This is especially so if it
can be shown that antineutrinos oscillate (change to other types of
neutrinos) differently from neutrinos. The necessary research is in progress.
141
Table 5. The Odd-One-Out Parameters of the

Substructure Tetrads of the Tree of Everything (ToE)
Freedom
Freedom of thought and action is undoubtedly one of the most prominent human
values. Many are willing to die for it. Since the discovery of quantum physics and
its uncertainty principle we know that individual freedom of action is also a
fundamental principle governing the material world at the atomic level.
Volitions
It is one thing to see the world in terms of interactions of material entities, each
entity reacting to the information it receives from the surrounding world, but
quite another to discover entities that have their own will to change the world in
accordance with their own ways of thinking.
Time
Time is often said to be the most basic, and most difficult to understand, aspect of
Nature. It is hard to imagine a world without time.
Conscious Events
No human would like to live without conscious awareness. If time is difficult to
understand, the emergence of consciousness from unconscious matter is almost
unthinkable.
Gravity
Gravity is of similar importance to the workings of the Universe as are the other
four parameters listed above. Without gravity, there would be no galaxies, stars
or planets; no living entities that could take notice of the world.
Neutrinos
The nature and properties of the three types of neutrinos are far from being fully
understood. Since they hold the odd-one-out position in the three tetrads of matter
particles it is anticipated that they play a similarly important role in the workings
of the Universe as do the other odd-one-out parameters listed above.
142
Conjecture 1: Why does the World Exist?

The world exists because there is a fundamental tendency for the essential
dimensions (freedom, goodness, truth and beauty) to have their
potentialities realized (by the actions of subjects that is).
The world as we know it is potentially possible. It is realizable. If it
were otherwise, we would not be here to ask the question. But why does it
actually exist in the tangible ways by which we experience it? The four
conjectures that we are making here all have in common the fact that they
refer to questions which, although of utmost importance to us, cannot be
answered with scientific rigor. Nevertheless, as our scientific and
philosophical knowledge advances, we can begin to make comprehensible
inferences and conjectures that make (some) sense within the limits of what
we (seem to) know.
The above conjecture is in line with the philosophy of John Leslie
according to whom the world exists because it should or the worlds
existence and detailed nature are products of a directly acting ethical
necessity4. It is also in line with Thomas Nagels natural teleological
hypothesis according to which the workings of Nature may be determined
not merely by value-free chemistry and physics but also be something else,
namely a cosmic predisposition to the formation of life, consciousness, and
the value that is inseparable from them.5
Nagel also points out that value must be seen as pluralistic: The
domain of real value, if there is such a thing, is as rich and complex as the
variety of forms of life, or at least of conscious life6. This becomes
especially clear if we include in our considerations the behavior of animals;
these, obviously, act in line with quite different values than humans do. Our
concept of essential dimensions (and essential space) allows for such a
multitude of positive, and negative, value realizations.
It is important to note, however, that the Tree of Everything has not
been derived by philosophizing about values or ethics. Rather, it has been
deduced from the similarities and dissimilarities of the properties of
material particles and forces, and their scientifically well-established
143
interrelations and interactions. This analysis has led to the Tree of Nature
which is based upon the parameters of matter, forces, laws and spacetime7.
The structural features of this tree are such as to permit its extension into the
realms of subjectivity and essential dimensions. Thinkers such as Leslie
and Nagel start from the top (from ethics or values, that is), whereas we
begin at the bottom (the material base). The first analysis is based upon
philosophy, the second upon physical science. It is reassuring to find that
both approaches lead to quite similar conjectures.
Conjecture 2: Why does Life Exist?

Life is a necessary phenomenon because reality requires the existence of
subjects that are able to acquire information about the world around
them, and assign meaning to such knowledge.
According to quantum mechanics, an electron behaves quite
differently if we know which path it has taken in the past, as compared with
the case where we do not possess such knowledge. Moreover, an electron
becomes a real particle only at the moment when an observation is made
that tells us exactly where the particle is at a given moment.
This is difficult to comprehend, but if we understand the workings
of Nature in terms of information, and information processing events, as we
do here, it comes as no great surprise that knowledge is so important a
factor. Information must be knowable if it is to be information (Remember:
we are using here the concept information not in the blind mathematical or
thermodynamic sense, but in in the active life/observation/meaning sense).
Information must be known and mean something to somebody (or
something) if it is to be part of the real world.
In the words of physicist Andre Linde: The Universe and the
observer exist as a pair. Its not enough for the information to be stored
somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. Its necessary for
somebody to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the Universe. In
the absence of observers, our Universe is dead. How about the time before
144
life existed? Linde has an answer to that question too; You may ask
whether the universe really existed before you start looking at it. And my
answer would be that the universe looks as if it existed before I started
looking at itwhen we look at the universe, the best we can say is that it
looks as if it were there 10 billion years ago."8
For the Universe to fully exist this is the lesson of quantum
mechanics there need to be subjects (observers) that are able to acquire
knowledge about it. As only living beings can do this, life is a necessary
phenomenon for the world to exist in reality, rather than only potentially.
This is fully in line with the thinking of John Wheeler, whom we
have cited above; there are strange features about the Universe that are
very difficult to understand unless life is somehow involved in it....A lifegiving factor lies at the center of the whole machinery and design of the
world"9.
Leslie explains the existence of the Universe on the grounds of
ethical necessity, Wheeler sees a life-giving factor at the center of the
world and Nagel speculates that what explains the appearance of life is in
part the fact that life is a necessary condition of the instantiation of value,
and ultimately of its recognition10.
All three positions are fully in line with the Tree of Everything
which features, at the first level from the top, the parameters essential
dimensions (values, incl. ethics) and subjectivity (incl. living beings). As
already stated above, Leslie and Nagel argue philosophically, whereas our
approach begins with the physical aspects of reality. Both approaches agree
with Wheelers conjecture that there must be a (hitherto not fully
recognized) life-giving factor at the center of the world.
145
Conjecture 3: What is Our Place in the Universe?

Mans place in the Universe is determined by the fact that our thoughts
and actions make the essential dimensions become real and objectively
knowable.
Upon being asked whether he believed that somehow the Universe comes
into being and is the way it is because man is what he is, John Wheeler
replied: That the two are linked in some strange way, of course, is
perfectly clear This business of bringing man into the story: that is the
most striking feature of the quantum principle9.
Wheeler is well known for what he has called a self-excited
meaning circuit according to which the Universe gives birth to the
(human) observer and the observer gives meaning to the Universe. This
corroborates fully with the Tree of Everything which constitutes the basic
structure of preliminary settings with which the universal evolution process
can begin. This process then fills the various parameters of the tree with
content, and ultimately leads to the various forms of life, humans and
human cultures; all of which are engaged in inducing meaning into the
value-oriented essential dimensions. We exist in a world of values and
respond to them through normative judgments that guide our actions
according to Thomas Nagel11.
The evolution process can be understood metaphorically in terms of
a self-unfolding epic in which living beings, especially humans, are the
main performers and which is concerned with the topics of freedom,
goodness, truth and beauty. Here is the essence of Conjecture 3: We are the
protagonists of a play that takes place on a stage of four essential
dimensions, or better, which is realized in the four essential dimensions.
The events taking place in the Universe not only generate spacetime,
they generate essential space as well. In a way, the Universe realizes its
potentialities; Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the
universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself (Thomas
Nagel12).
146
One can also say that the universe is in the act of constituting itself.
We are all part of this process, created by it, creating itif one cannot find
spirituality, awe, and reverence in the unfolding, one is nuts, writes
biologist Stuart Kauffman13.
Conjecture 4: Is there Some Justified Hope for an Afterlife?

All of the events that constitute the lifetime of an individual are, and will
remain, part of the universal epic, forever.
Information, once generated, cannot be taken back. What's done cannot be
undone (Macbeth). Or, in the words of Brian Greene, one of todays most
noted physicists, reality encompasses all of the events in spacetime Just
as we envision all of space as really being out there, as really existing, we
should also envision all of time as really being out there, as really existing,
too Events, regardless of when they happen from any particular
perspective, just are. They all exist. They eternally occupy their particular
point in spacetime14 [Greene Italics].
Death is the completion of a lifetime; the latter incorporating all
events in which the respective person (the Self) has taken part. Death is
not the end of it all. The Universe as a whole continues to live and grow;
not only directed outwardly (in the dimensions of spacetime), but also
inwardly (in the essential dimensions). And in some way, the lifetime of
each individual will forever remain part of this universal epic, throughout
all eternity.
This type of thinking goes back to Einstein and the deeper
implications of his relativity theory. When his life-long friend Michele
Besso died, he wrote to the bereaved, Now he preceded me also in saying
goodbye to this strange world. This means nothing. For us believing
physicists, the division between past, present and future has merely the
meaning of an illusion, albeit an obstinate one15. Einstein died one month
later.
147
Physicists, from Einstein to Greene, present their arguments for (some

sort of) immortality by pointing to the inseparable unity of spacetime. As all
the space that has been produced since the Big Bang by the expansion of the
Universe can be observed to be still here, the same must also be true for all
of the time; and all the events which have actually realized spacetime.
Rather than basing its arguments upon the imperishability of time, the
present book focusses directly on the information-processing events that
make up the Universe. These turn out to follow an additive logic of discrete
entities (events) that form a meaningfully-interconnected overall system,
comparable to the sentences and paragraphs of an overarching story.
Eliminating any one of these events would result in the destruction of one,
or more, of the interconnections, thus jeopardizing the coherence of the
opus. We thus arrive at the same conclusion as the one proposed by Einstein
and Greene: all events that have ever happened must remain in place,
forever.
Let us conclude with a recent statement by Canadian philosopher
Leslie Armour; The world is more like a book to be read and a book that
is being read than it is like a collection of bits of matter16 [Italics by
Armour].
To this wise proposition we would like to add that the readers of
this very special book also play a prominent role in composing the work;
each of us contributing to the unfolding of a unique landscape in the four
essential dimensions and their derivatives. Let us picture this metaphoric
landscape as being nurtured not by a distant sun, but by its own worldimmanent spirit.

Causal Closure
Observable effects are due to sufficient reasons. This formulation of causal
closure covers not only physical effects (all physical effects are due to sufficient
physical causes) but includes also the issue of goal-directed events in the realms
of life and the mental (e.g. the pursuit of ethical values).
Causality
The world consists of causally-connected information-processing events.
Causality here appears as a triad involving (1) the potential information
encapsulated in a given situation, (2) the factual understanding of the situation
(factual information) by a given information processing entity (IPE) and (3) the
pertinent laws and law-like entities (law-like information) that lead the
information cycle to an observable effect.
Complementarity
Two items (A and B) are said to be complementary to each other if they form
together a whole (AB), or if they mutually imply each other (in the sense that A
cannot exist without there also being B, and vice versa). The psychologist Ernst
Pppel has coined the concept of complementarity as a generative principle
which is suited to describing and understanding a number of phenomena in
biology and the neurosciences. The fact that the Tree of Everything is constituted
of a set of 20 pairs of complementary parameters indicates that the conjectured
creative principle extends even to the very beginning of everything.
There are two different types of elementary particles; (i) matter particles and (ii)
force particles. For most particles there also exists an antiparticle which has the
same mass as the corresponding particle but opposite values of other properties
(charge, parity, spin, and direction of magnetic moment).
(i) There are four sets of matter particles: (1) electron-neutrino, muonneutrino, tau-neutrino; (2) electron, muon, tau, (3) up-quark, charm-quark, topquark; (4) down-quark, strange-quark, bottom-quark. The particles in each group
differ only in their masses.
(ii) There exist four types of forces: (1) strong force, (2) weak force, (3)
electromagnetic force and (4) gravity. The corresponding force fields are
associated with one or more of the following particles: gluons, photons, three
types of known bosons (Z, W, Higgs) and (possibly) the still hypothetical
graviton.
Emergence
The concept of emergence refers to the fact that new and unpredictable behavior
can result from collective systems of events. It seems that the new, or higher,
rules and ordering principles emerge from the lower level of the individual
systems (bottom-up), and then cause the lower level processes to change in
accordance with the new higher-order level (top-down); one can speak in this
connection of some sort of circular causality.
Essential Dimensions
The essential dimensions refer to the values that we associate with the events that
make up the history of the Universe. There are four values (or essential
dimensions) that stand out and are suggested to form the basis of all other values
that we know of; they are known from antiquity and are still at the center of our
philosophical thought: freedom, goodness, truth and beauty.
Events
Reality consists of information-processing events (or information cycles). These
are discrete entities that lead to observable changes in the Universe. The events
taking place in the Universe can be classified by (i) their degree of intentionality
and (ii) their aptitude to acquire knowledge. Four categories of events can be
identified: (1) physical events (zero intentionality, no acquisition of knowledge),
(2) biological events (quasi-intentionality, unconscious acquisition of
knowledge), (3) consciously performed events (conscious intentionality,
conscious acquisition of subjective knowledge) and (4) cultural events (collective
intentionality, acquisition of objective knowledge).
Factual Information
Factual information results from sensing, and understanding, a given situation
in some way. It refers to the meaning that the potential information encapsulated
in a given situation has for a given information processing entity (IPE) within the
context at hand. Factual information can be questioned as to its truth value (true
or untrue?). There is no need for such information to be true (e.g. for other IPEs),
but it is always possible to question its truth value. The adjunct factual thus
does not refer to some absolute truth; rather, it refers to what the processor holds
to be true at the time of action.
Free Will & Personal Will
What is normally called free will is limited by mankinds evolutionary past, and
the autobiographical history of each individual. It is therefore better, and less
ambiguous, to speak of our personal will rather than of a free will. The
attribute personal comprises all of a persons biological and cultural
background, as well as his autobiographical history; pointing to the uniqueness of
the persons thinking and acting, and granting that this will remain subject to
change throughout his lifetime. As this unique Self is based upon three and half
billion years of biological evolution, at least 40 thousand years of cultural
development and a lifetime of personal history, one may well feel a good deal of
pride.
Immaterial Entities
Almost nobody doubts that material things exist. How about immaterial entities,
such as laws (law-like information) and spacetime? In the present book we argue
for a realistic position according to which matter, forces, laws and spacetime
are all real, and exist independently of the human mind; with the additional
proviso, however, that none of these four entities can exist by itself; without the
other three, that is.
Information Cycle
Nature is made up of causally-related, information-processing events which can
be described in terms of the general information cycle:
The potential information of a given situation is interpreted by an information

processing entity (IPE) in terms of the factual situation at hand (as understood by
the IPE) and the corresponding action to take (as guided by IPE-specific law-like
information). The three items together yield a real effect, i.e. an observable
physical or mental change in the Universe; thus producing potential information
with which further cycles can begin.
Information Processing Entity (IPE)
An Information Processing Entity (IPE) is any entity that is capable of sensing
information, and reacting accordingly. The simplest processors are elementary
particles, e.g. electrons and quarks. These can combine to form physical
aggregates, such as atoms and molecules. The most complex processors that we
know of are found in the realm of life; living cells, multi-cellular organisms and
humans.
Law-Like Information
Law-like information refers to such entities as laws, rules, algorithms, norms,
habits or ordering principles that guide, or describe, the actions of an information
processing entity (IPE), once a given situation has been understood in one way or
another. Law-like information is given by an if-then structure. The concept is of
key importance for the classification of the events that can take place in the
Universe.
Potential Information
Potential information is indeterminate latent information that yields factual
information once it is taken up and understood, in some way, by a given
information processing entity (IPE). Potential information is communicated by
material entities, such as photons (light) reflected from a traffic sign. Its actual
meaning, in a given event, depends upon both the IPE and the situation at hand.
Prior to being charged with meaning, all kinds of interpretations of a given
situation are available. It depends upon the receiver of the information (the IPE)
and the corresponding context, which actual semantic information will be
generated from a given potential setting.
Real Effect
All events must yield an observable, i.e. real, effect, or they cannot be realized.
The real effect may thus be regarded as being the most important aspect of an
information cycle. It represents potential information for other information
processes to begin with.
Reality
The world consists of discrete entities. These are not elementary particles per se
but events which can be described by the general information cycle.
Self
The personal self is unique in as much as it represents a singular combination of
attitudes, norms, cognitive abilities and emotional characteristics that the person
has acquired in his, or her, autobiographical experiences. This unique system,
called I, incessantly undergoes new experiences; thus changing all the time in
its characteristic attitudes and norms. It is therefore no wonder that we identify
ourselves with these personal characteristics and feel responsible for what we do.
Spacetime
Spacetime is made up of all of the events that have ever taken place in the
Universe. It refers to the distance, and the sequential order, of each event in
relation to all other events. The three spatial dimensions and time form an
inseparably unified entity. Spacetime is not an empty stage on which things
happen. Rather, it is intimately connected with matter. Neither spacetime nor
matter can be envisioned to exist independently of each other.
Subjectivity
Information-processing entities are subjects insofar as they react, in their own
specific way, to the information that they receive from their surroundings.
Subjectivity refers to four characteristic features that are characterized by their
degree of intentionality and subjective involvement: (I) Physical perceptions
(zero intentional; zero subjective involvement), (II) elementary feelings (quasiintentional, unconscious actions that are in the subjects interest); (III)
propositional perceptions (consciously-intentional, acquisition of subjective
knowledge) and (IV) volitions (ultimate degree of intentionality and subjective

involvement, including personal responsibility for performed actions).
There exist four categories of subjects: (1) Purely physical entities show
only type I subjectivity (zero rationality, no aims), (2) unconscious living beings
are characterized by both type I, and type II, subjectivity (quasi-rational, aiming
at survival), (3) conscious animals show the first three types of subjective
behavior (including subjective knowledge and rationality) and (4) humans base
their actions on all four types of subjectivity (including such remarkable features
as objective rationality, personal will and responsibility).
Tree of Everything
The Tree of Everything represents an extension, of the Tree of Nature, by
adding two additional fundamental parameters: essential dimensions and
subjectivity. These additional parameters are implied by the general structural
features of the Tree of Nature and are suggested to refer to the theme, or
meaning, of the universal story.
Tree of Nature
The Tree of Nature comprises the ontological parameters upon which Nature is
built: (1) The four dimensions of spacetime, (2) the four categories of law-like
information, (3) the four sets of elementary particles of matter and (4) the four
types of forces. All parameters derive from the top of the tree by means of
consecutive splitting into a total of 15 sets of complementary parameters.
Universal Story
The story of the Universe comprises all events that have ever taken place. These
are related to each other by their spacetime coordinates (distance and sequence)
and by their causal connections in terms of law-like information. Spacetime and,
law-like information, are metaphorically referred to as being the text, and the
grammar, of the universal story. The metaphorical interpretation of the Tree of
Everything points to a universal epic in which we all take part, and which
comprises the whole evolutionary story of the Universe; beginning with the Big
Bang and continuing into the future.
Notes
Preface and Chapter 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Paul C.W. Davies, John Archibald Wheeler and the Clash of Ideas. In:
John D. Barrow, Paul C.W. Davies and Charles L. Harper, Jr. (Eds.),
Science and Ultimate Reality, Cambridge University Press 2004, p. 23
Fred H. Whlbier, The Tree of Nature, Trans Tech Publications, DurntenZurich (Switzerland) 2013
Anton Zeilinger, Einsteins Schleier [Einsteins Veil], C.H. Beck, Munich
2003, p. 217
John. A. Wheeler: Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links",
published in Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information, ed.
Wojciech H. Zurek, Addison-Wesley, New York 1990, p. 5
Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Phoenix, Orion Books,
London 2000, p. 52-56
David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity, Penguin Books, New York 2011,
p. 304
Chapter 2
1
2
Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton and Matthew Sands, The Feynman

Lectures on Physics, Basic Books 2011
This is a letter that Wolfgang Pauli sent to a physicists meeting in Tbingen,
Germany, in December 1930. Translated from German by Kurt
Riesselmann;
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdfs/200703/lo
gbook_letter_translation.pdf
[viewed January 2014]]
3
4
Actually, this refers to the mass of the heaviest of the three types of
neutrinos.
Brian Greene , The Elegant Universe, Vintage, London 1999, p.9
Chapter 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
See also Key Concepts and Definitions (page 148): Elementary Particles.
Richard Hamblyn, The Art of Science ["Newtonian Apples: William
Stukeley"]. Pan Macmillan, London 2012
James Clerk Maxwell: A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field.
In: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 155
(1865) p. 459512
Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, A.A. Knopf, New York 2004, p.
353)
Fred Hoyle, D.N.F. Dunbar, W.A. Wensel, and W. Whaling: A state of C12
predicted from astrophysics evidence, Physical Review, vol. 92 (1953) p.
1095
Fred Hoyle, Religion and the Scientists, SCM, London, UK, 1959
John A. Wheeler, Foreword. In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,
eds. John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK,
1986, p. vii
Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, Vintage, London, UK, 1999, p.124
John A. Wheeler, Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links".
In: Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information, ed. Wojciech H.
Zurek, Addison-Wesley, New York 1990
Chapter 4
1
Holger Lyre, Informationstheorie Eine philosophisch-naturwissenschaftliche Einfhrung [Information Theory a philosophical and scientific
introduction], Wilhelm Fink, Munich 2002, p. 16-22
Fred H. Whlbier, The Tree of Nature, Trans Tech Publications, DurntenZurich (Switzerland) 2013, p. 6-26
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Jeremy Campbell, Grammatical Man, Simon & Schuster, New York 1982, p.
269
Holger Lyre, Informationstheorie Eine philosophisch-naturwissenschaftliche Einfhrung [Information Theory a philosophical and scientific
introduction], Wilhelm Fink, Munich 2002, p. 209
Hans Christian Baeyer, Information The New Language of Science,
Phoenix, Orion Books, London 2004, p. 33
Michael Hampe, Eine kleine Geschichte des Naturgesetzbegriffs [A short
history of the concept of natural law], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 2007
history of the concept of natural law], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 2007, p. 176.
Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books 1994, p. 46
Henning Genz, Gedankenexperimente [Thought Experiments], Wiley-VCH,
Weinheim 1999, p. 244-245
In relativity theory, it is assumed that the speed of light in a vacuum is a
fundamental constant and represents the maximum speed that is possible in
the Universe. From this assumption it can be deduced that space and time
cannot exist independently from each other but are combined in a unified
spacetime continuum.
Harald Fritzsch, Raum Zeit Materie [Space Time Matter]. In: Ernst
Peter Fischer and K. Wiegandt (Eds.), Mensch und Kosmos [Man and
Cosmos], S. Fischer, Frankfurt 2004, p. 98
D.J. Chalmers, Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness, Journal of
Consciousness Studies Vol. 2, Nr. 3 (1995) p. 200-219.
Brian Greene, The Hidden Reality, Vintage Books, Random House, New
York 2011, pp. 273-4
Philip W. Anderson, More is Different, Science Vol. 177 (1972) p. 393
Hans Christian Baeyer, Information The New Language of Science,
Phoenix, Orion Books, London 2004, p. 57
Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe, Basic Books, New York 2005, p.
7 & 200
208 & 221
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe, Oxford University Press 1995,

p. 303
Hermann Haken and Maria Haken-Krell, Erfolgsgeheimnisse der Wahrnehmung Synergetik als Schlssel zum Gehirn [Secrets of Perception;
Synergetics as Passport to the Brain], Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart
1992
Hermann Haken, Information und Bedeutung aus der Sicht der Synergetik
[Information and Meaning in the View of the Theory of Synergetics]. In:
Walter G. Saltzer, P. Eisenhardt, D. Kurth and R.E. Zimmermann (Eds.),
Die Erfindung des Universums? [The Invention of the Universe?] Insel
Verlag, Frankfurt 1997, p. 170
Michael Esfeld and Christian Sachse, Kausale Strukturen [Causal
Structures], Suhrkamp, Berlin 2010, p. 149
Reiner Wiehl, Subjektivitt und System [Subjectivity and System],
Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 2000, p. 383
Bernd-Olaf Kppers, Der Ursprung Biologischer Information [The Origin
of Biological Information], Piper, Munich 1990, p. 18
Daniel C. Dennett, Darwins Dangerous Idea, Touchstone, New York 1996,
p. 197
David Deutsch, Fabric of Reality, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth,
Middlesex, UK 1997, Chapter 7.
Humberto R. Maturana and Francisco J. Varela, The Tree of Knowledge,
Shambala, Boston 1998, p. 48
T.H. Huxley, Lessons in Elementary Physiology, Macmillan, London 1886
Ernst Pppel, Der Rahmen [The Frame], Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag,
Munich 2010, p.77
Munich 2010, p.116
Gerhard Roth, Worber drfen Hirnforscher reden und in welcher Weise?
[About what are brain scientists allowed to speak and in what way?]. In:
Christian Geyer (Ed.), Hirnforschung und Willensfreiheit [Brain Research
and Free Will], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 2004, p. 66-85
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Wolf Singer, Verschaltungen legen uns fest: Wir sollten aufhren, von
Freiheit zu sprechen [We are determined by neural network circuitry: We
should stop speaking of freedom]. In: Christian Geyer (Ed.), Hirnforschung
und Willensfreiheit [Brain Research and Free Will], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt
2004, p. 30 & 42
Gerhard Roth, Worber drfen Hirnforscher reden und in welcher Weise?
[About what are brain scientists allowed to speak and in what way?] In:
Christian Geyer (Ed.), Hirnforschung und Willensfreiheit [Brain Research
and Free Will], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 2004, p. 71
Erich Harth, The Creative Loop: How the Brain Makes a Mind, Perseus
Books, New York 1995
Gerald M. Edelmann, The Remembered Present, Basic Books, New York
1989
Nicholas Humphrey, A History of the Mind, Springer, New York 1999, p.
193
Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis, Touchstone, New York 1995, p.
243-253
Munich 2010, p.349
Benjamin Libet, Mind Time, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 2004, p.
91
Jonathan Shear (Ed.), Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem, The
MIT Press, Cambridge 2000
Munich 2010, p. 249
Munich 2010, p. 113
Hermann Haken, Erfolgsgeheimnisse der Wahrnehmung [Secrets of
Perception], Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt 1992, p. 247
Ernst Pppel and Eva Ruhnau, Psychologie als eine auf Modelle
angewiesene Angelegenheit ohne Taxonomie eine Polemik [Psychology as
a business that depends on models a Polemic]. (Personal Publication
Platform). Cited in: Fred H. Whlbier, The Tree of Nature, Trans Tech
Publications, Durnten-Zurich (Switzerland) 2013, p.115
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
C.F. von Weizscker, Die Geschichte der Natur [The Story of Nature],
Hirzel, Stuttgart 2006
Fred H. Whlbier, The Tree of Nature, Trans Tech Publications, DurntenZurich (Switzerland) 2013, p. 40-42
Steven Mithen, The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language,
Mind and Body, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Orion 2005
Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom, Natural Language and Natural Selection,
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 13 (1990) p. 707-84
Dermont Moran, Introduction to Phenomenology, Routledge, London 2000,
p. 405
Tom R. Burns and Helena Flam, The Shaping of Social Organization: Social
Rule System Theory with Applications, Sage Publications, London 1987
Helena Flam and M. Carson, Rule System Theory: Applications and
Explorations, Peter Lang, Berlin/New York 2008
Nicholas Rescher: The Promise of Process Philosophy, in Columbia
Companion to Twentieth-Century Philosophies, ed. Constantin V. Boundas,
Columbia University Press, New York 2007, pp.143-155
221
Melanie Mitchell, Complexity, Oxford University Press 2009, p. 286
Chapter 5
1
2
3
Hermann Minkowski, "Space and Time". In: Hendrik A. Lorentz, Albert

Einstein, Hermann Minkowski, and Hermann Weyl (Eds.), The Principle of
Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General
Theory of Relativity, Dover, New York 1952, pp. 75-91
Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Phoenix (Orion) London
2001, p. 169-178
Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Phoenix (Orion) London
2001, p. 104
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape, Back Bay Books, New York
2006, p. 336-341
Leonard Susskind, Twenty years of debate with Stephen. In: G.W. Gibbons,
E.P.S. Shellard and S.J. Rankin (Eds.), The Future of Theoretical Physics
and Cosmology, Cambridge University Press 2003, p. 334
Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape, Back Bay Books, New York
2006, p. 337
Raphael Bousso, The Hollow Universe, New Scientist, 27 April 2002
Raphael Bousso, Adventures in de Sitter Space. In: G.W. Gibbons, E.P.S.
Shellard and S.J. Rankin (Eds.), The Future of Theoretical Physics and
Cosmology, Cambridge University Press 2003, p. 545
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Hole Argument: Modern
Spacetime Theories,
http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/archives/fall2000/entries/spacetimeholearg/
[viewed January 2014]
Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos, Oxford University Press 1997, p. 214
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Events
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/events.htm [viewed January 2014]
Harald Fritzsch, Raum Zeit Materie [Space Time Matter]. In: Ernst
Peter Fischer and K. Wiegandt (Eds.), Mensch und Kosmos [Man and
Cosmos], Frankfurt 2004, p. 101
Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Phoenix, Orion Books,
London 2000, p. 218
history of the concept of natural law], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 2007, p. 76
history of the concept of natural law], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 2007, p. 82
Chapter 6
1
2
Charles Larmore, Vernunft und Subjektivitt [Reason and Subjectivity],

Suhrkamp, Berlin 2012, p. 57
Charles Larmore, Vernunft und Subjektivitt [Reason and Subjectivity],
Suhrkamp, Berlin 2012, p. 66
Chapter 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Stuart A. Kauffman, Reinventing the Sacred, Basic Books, Perseus, New

York 2010, p.8
Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, Oxford University Press 2012, p. 85 &
117
Cited by Brink, David, "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy", The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta
(ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/mill-moral-political/
Mortimer J. Adler , Ed., Great Books of the Western World, Encyclopaedia
Britannica 1952
Dorothea Frede, "Plato's Ethics: An Overview", The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/plato-ethics/
Albert Einstein: What I Believe, Forum and Century 1930, no. 84, pp.193194
Rudolf Steiner: Truth, Beauty and Goodness, Lecture given in Dornach,
Switzerland, Jan. 19, 1923, St. George Publications, Spring Valley NY,
1986
Charles Larmore, The Practices of the Self, University of Chicago Press
2010, p.97
Charles Larmore, Vernunft und Subjektivitt (Reason and Subjectivity),
[translated from German] Suhrkamp, Berlin 2012, p.45-55
Charles Larmore, Vernunft uns Subjektivitt (Reason and Subjectivity),
[translated from German] Suhrkamp, Berlin 2012, p.33
Graham Farmelo, It Must be Beautiful, Granta Books, London 20003, pp.
xiv-xv
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
James W. McAllister, Beauty and Revolution in Science. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca NY. 1996, p. 96
Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books 1994, Chapter
6, p.157 & 165
Chapter 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework. In: Defence of Science and
Rationality, Ed. M.A. Notturno, Routledge, London 1994
TV Interview of John A. Wheeler by Paul Boynton:
www.astro.washington.edu/courses/astro211/CosmicPersp/Chapter20.pdf
Bernard dEspagnat, On Physics and Philosophy, Princeton University Press
2006, p. 388
Vacuum is usually defined as space that is void of matter. In quantum
field theory, however, vacuum is defined as the state with the lowest
possible energy. In the view of quantum physicists, vacuum consists of
spontaneously appearing and disappearing virtual particles. It is definitely
not nothing.
Nicholas Rescher, G.W. Leibnizs Monadology, University of Pittsburgh
Press 1991, p. 116
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Leslie
Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, Oxford University Press 2012, p. 122123
Derek Parfit, On What Matters, Oxford University Press 2011
Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, New York 2005, p.
17
Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, New York 2005, p.
13
Chapter 9
1
2
Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, Vintage, London 1999, p.136-140

Michael Byrne, The Cause of Gravity, 1999
arXiv:physics/9902044v2 [physics.gen-ph]
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Boris Kayser, Are We Descended From Heavy Neutrinos? Physics and

Astronomy Colloquium, Texas A & M University, May 02, 2013,
http://physics.tamu.edu/calendar/talks/colloquium/posters/Kayser050213.
pdf
John Leslie, The Theory That the World Exists Because It Should, American
Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 7, No. 4 (1970) p. 286-298
Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 123
Andre Linde, cited in: Tim Folger, Does the Universe Exist if Were Not
Looking? Discover Vol.23, Nr. 6 (2002)
TV Interview of John A. Wheeler by Paul Boynton:
www.astro.washington.edu/courses/astro211/CosmicPersp/Chapter20.pdf
Stuart Kauffman, At Home in the Universe, Oxford University Press 1995, p
304
Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, A.A. Knopf, New York 2004, p.
139
Jrgen Neffe, Einstein Eine Biographie [Einstein A Biography],
Rowohlt, Reinbek/Hamburg 2005, p. 443
Leslie Armour: Metaphysical and Moral Idealism. In Columbia
Companion to Twentieth-Century Philosophies, ed. Constantin V. Boundas,
Columbia University Press, New York 2007, pp.63-77
Index
Accelerator, 15
adaptation, 74
Adler, Mortimer J., 110
aesthetics, 79, 110, 114, 130
affective states, 99-100, 103, 109
afterlife, 146
Age of Emergence, 54
Age of Enlightenment, 114
Age of Reductionism, 54
Alexander the Great, 12, 111
algorithm, 47, 62, 78-79, 151
amber, 16-17, 29
Ampre, Andr-.Marie, 29
analytical techniques, 67
Anderson, P.W., 54
anger, 100
animals, 50, 63, 65, 67,73, 75, 77, 81,
101-102, 106, 108, 142, 153
anthropic principle, 34-39
anti-matter, 140
antiquity, 107, 149
Aristotle, 12, 111-112
Armour, Leslie, 147
array, molecular, 14
art, 108, 111, 114, 119-120
asymmetrical relations, 1
atom, 11-22, 30-38, 46, 51, 53, 55, 71,
78, 82, 94, 106, 108, 128, 135, 151
attack, 67, 77, 113
attention, 54, 60, 65, 66, 75, 121
attitude, 68, 100, 101, 105, 109, 152
attractiveness, 119
autobiographical experience, 71, 79,
109
autobiographical history, 100, 101, 150,

152
autonomous behavior, 5
autonomous identity, emergence of, 56
autonomous systems, 59
B
Bacon, Roger, 4
bacterium, 106
Baeyer, Hans Christian, 50
barometer, 12
baryon asymmetry, 140
beast, 50
beautiful, 101, 108, 110-120, 138
beauty, 106-120, 138, 142, 145, 149
Bekenstein bound, 88
belief, 100-105,118
Bernoulli, Daniel, 12
Besso, Michele, 146
beta-decay process, 18, 30
Big Bang, 31, 38, 51, 54, 79, 85, 125,
47, 153
Big Ben, 85
Binnig, Gerd, 14
biological behavior, 59
biological event, 57, 73, 74, 75, 77, 7982, 138, 149
biological evolution, 57, 74, 149
biological information, 57, 59, 60
biological processes, 57, 58
biological rules, 59, 76, 79
biology, 56, 77, 148
bit (of information), 42, 88-89
bitterness, 12
Bloom, Paul, 75
body-mind controversy, 69
Bohr, Niels, 122
Boltzmann, Ludwig, 13
boson, 41, 149
bottom-up organization, 56, 71, 149
Bousso, Raphael, 90
Boynton, Paul, 122
brain, 36, 55, 60-61, 63-71
Brown, Robert, 12
Brownian motion, 13
butterfly, 108
buzzard, 46-47
Byrne, Michael, 136
C
Campbell, Jeremy, 46
car, 46-47, 66
carbon, 36-38, 122
Cartesian duality, 68
cat, 113
categorical imperative, 113
categories, mental level of, 69-70
categories of events, 74, 149
categories of existence, 9
categories, of laws and rules, 1, 7, 7884, 153
categories of subjects, 93-94,113, 152153
category of conscious events, 73
causal closure, 69, 148
causality, 91, 93, 113, 122, 131, 148,
150, 153
causality, bottom-up, 56, 71, 149
causality, circular, 73, 149
causality, top-down, 9, 55-56, 71, 149
cause, 50, 56-57, 69, 136, 148-149
cell, living, 4, 46, 55, 70
cell, neural, 61, 70
cellular chemistry, 58
cerebral cortex, 65-66
Chalmers, David, 66
chance, 35, 37
chance effects, 108

charge, 14-20, 33, 39, 41, 75, 78-79,
94, 149
charge, electric, 15-20, 33, 41
charged particles, 14, 16-17, 39, 41, 48
chemistry, 17, 35, 58
chronological order, 10
circle, 111, 129-130
civilization, 4
classification criteria, 7, 78.82, 94, 99,
151
code, 76
cogito, 113
cognitive abilities, 76, 152
cognitive data processing, 63, 67
cognitive level, 69
cognitive perception, 63
cognitive sciences, 57
cognitive system, 70, 76
collective intentionality, 74.79, 149
collective systems, 54, 73, 149
collisions, high energy, 15, 23
color, 12, 108
communication, 41, 75, 98
communication, linguistic, 74-75, 83
communication processes, 92
compassion, 100
complementarity, 32-33, 41-42, 71, 73,
112, 133, 136, 139, 148
complementary parameter sets, 20-21,
31-33, 81, 83, 86, 88-93,105, 112,
115, 118-119, 125, 128, 130, 132133, 135-136, 139, 148, 153
complex (living) systems, 78, 100, 151
complex language, 75
complex processes, 77
complex situations, 76-77
complex structures, 14, 17, 35-37, 5859, 94, 100
complex systems, 46, 54-55, 75, 114,
129
complexity, degrees of, 80, 142
complexity, of information, 69
complexity, of relationships, 90
complexity, reduction of, 69
comprehension, 118
concepts, 67, 69-70-74, 76, 81, 109,
111, 138, 148
concepts, information cycle, 46-47
concepts, nature of, 72-73
concepts, objective existence, 72-73
concepts, perception of, 72-73
conceptual glasses, 91
conceptual level, 70-73, 81
conceptual space, 73
conscious events, 59-68, 73-74, 79, 81,
138, 141, 149
conscious information processing, 5657, 71, 73-74, 76-77
conscious intentionality, 57-59, 74, 99,
149, 152
conscious perception, 69-70.81, 100
conscious subjects, 101-102, 104, 107108, 132, 142
consciousness, 5, 7, 10, 34, 68, 70, 99100, 106, 114, 117, 121-122, 138,
140
constants, fundamental, 34, 123
contingencies, 118
convention, 12, 76
conviction, 101, 104
Copenhagen interpretation of QM, 72
Copernican revolution, philosophy, 113
Copernicus, Nicolaus, 4
cortex, 65-66
cosmic inflation, 140
cosmological constant, 140
creativity, 125
Crick, Francis, 64
crystal, 15, 18, 55
cultural events, 73-81, 138, 149
culture, evolution of, 75
culture, human, 34-35, 73-81, 126, 138,
145, 150
culturgen, 74
D
Dalton, John, 13
danger, 50, 58-59, 81, 100, 102, 104,
110
dark matter and energy, 140
Darwin, Charles, 57, 75, 114
Davidson, Donald, 90
Davies, Paul W.C., 1
Dawkins, Richard, 74
death, 115, 146
Debye, P.J.W., 18
decay process, 18, 23, 30, 35, 37, 59,
140
decision field, 47
decision tree, 7, 21
Democritus, 11-12, 14
Dennett, Daniel, 58-59
Descartes, Ren, 68, 112
desire, 97-98, 100, 102-106, 118, 140
Deutsch, David, 5
dimensions, essential, 1, 89, 102, 107120, 123, 126, 131-132, 137-138,
140, 142-147, 149, 153
dimensions of meaning, 20
dimensions, spacetime, see spacetime
Dirac, Paul, 119
disgust, 100
DNA, 14, 35
dogma, 115
duty, 121
dynamic systems, 55, 65
E
ears, 63
Earth, 4, 19-20, 28, 36, 38, 93, 119
ecological conformity, 56
ecological sphere, 75
Einstein, Albert, 5, 13, 30, 52, 85-86,
88, 108, 115, 120, 135, 146-147
electricity, 17, 29-30

electromagnetic (EM) force, 15, 27, 2935, 39, 41, 82, 139, 149
electromagnetic field, 39, 48, 79, 86
electron, 14-23, 31, 33, 35. 37, 39, 41,
46, 48, 71-72, 75, 77-78, 92, 98-99,
103, 106, 139m 143, 149, 151
electron shell, 17, 20, 22
electroweak force, 31-32, 34, 82, 139
elementary feelings, 98-100, 102-106,
138, 152
elementary particles, 7, 14-24, 27, 34,
36, 38-39, 46, 51-52, 71-72, 91, 9394, 140, 148, 151-152
elementary particles, sets of, 148
elements, chemical, 14, 36-37, 55-56,
122
Ellis, George F.R., 1
embarrassment, 100
emergence, 54, 74, 78, 123, 125
emergence, age of, 154, 131-132
emergence of consciousness, 64-70,
123, 141
emergence of enlightenment, 115
emergence of fundamental forces, 7980, 125
emergence of law-like information, 5456, 78, 94, 123
emergence of life, 56, 123
emergence of matter, 141, 149
emergence of objective rationality, 79
emergence of order, 55-56, 94
emergence of the universe, 123
emergence of value, 129
emergence of volitions, 141
emerging rules and principles, 50, 54
emotion, 60, 99-100
emotional analysis, 63, 79
emotional characteristics, 152
emotional constraints, 109
energy, 59, 115, 123, 141, 162
energy and matter, 71, 85-86, 140
energy, high-energy effects, 6, 9, 15,

23-24, 31-32, 125
energy, law of conservation of, 18
energy of vacuum, 140
energy sources, 35-37
energy spectrum, 18, 37-38
enjoyment, 110, 114
enlightenment, 112, 114-115
environment, 47-48, 54, 57-60, 64, 79
environment, high-energy, 24
environment, meaning of, 74, 98
environment, monitoring of, 57-59
environment, socio-cultural, 75-76
envy, 100
epiphenomenon, 67, 69
epistemic systems, 73
Esfeld, Michael, 57
Espagnat, Bernard d, 123
essential dimensions, 1, 89, 107-120,
123, 126, 131-132, 137-138, 140,
142-147, 149, 153
essential space, 142, 145
essential values, 129
eternal ideas, 112, 130
eternity, 35, 146
ethical principles, 76, 103, 130, 142,
144, 148
ethics, 79, 109, 114-115, 142-144
Euclides of Megara, 111
events, 7, 9, 46-47, 51, 54, 90, 93, 105106, 117, 122-123, 125-128, 132,
137-138, 145-153
events, biological, 56-59, 73-74, 79-82,
138, 149
events, causation of, 50, 91, 131
events, categories of, 73, 78-79, 138,
149, 151
events, conscious, 60-74, 79-81, 138,
141, 149
events, cultural, 74-77, 79-81, 138, 149
events, gravitational, 135
events, information processing, 1, 5, 7,

27-43, 45, 47, 50,53, 67, 69-70, 73,
82, 97, 127-128, 135, 137, 143, 148,
149
events, neural 68, 70
events, observable, 46
events, order of, 10, 67-68, 91, 93, 125126, 131
events, physical, 7, 57, 73-74, 77, 7982, 138, 149, 150
events, reality of, 83, 91, 151-152
evolution, 4, 10, 24, 34-37, 51, 54, 5659, 63, 81, 90-91, 108, 114, 122,
125-126, 131, 142, 145, 153
evolution, biological, 4, 35-37, 56-59,
74, 98, 108, 114, 126, 150
evolution, chemical and physical, 34,
36-37, 74, 125
evolution, conscious, 117, 126, 150
evolution, cultural, 75, 79-80
excited circuit, 121-122, 145
excited state, 37-38
existence, 5, 9, 15, 19, 29, 35, 39, 42,
48, 52-53, 55-56, 72, 82, 88, 91-93,
97, 105, 111, 115, 118-119, 128132, 135, 137-138, 142-144
existentialism, 109, 115
expectation, 76, 127
experimental data, 29, 119
experimental verification, 5, 13, 15, 1719, 31, 33, 38
eyes, 63, 75
F
faith, 115
families of particles, 22-26
Faraday, Michael, 17, 29
Farmelo, Graham, 119
fear, 99-100, 109
feedback loop, 63-64, 66
feedback rules, 56
feeling, 57, 60, 67-70, 76, 97-100, 102,

106, 117, 135, 138
feeling, elementary, 98-100, 102-106,
138, 152
Fermi, Enrico, 19
Feynman, Richard, 11
field, decision, 47
field, electromagnetic, 29, 30, 39, 48
field, force, 42
field, gravity, 53
field, information, 56, 68
field, mental, 68
field, quantum, 39
first principles, 11
Fisher, David J., 2
flavor, of quarks, 15
flight, 48, 50, 62-63, 67, 77, 98, 103
flower, 108
fly, 79
food, 58, 110
force, creative, 129
force particles, 26, 27, 148
forces, fundamental, 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 15,
20, 27-42, 51-53, 79, 82, 89, 92, 94,
125, 126, 131, 135-7, 139-140, 142143, 149-150, 153
forces, types of, 1, 4, 7, 31-34
fourth law of thermodynamics, 80
free will, 150
freedom, degree of, 125
freedom of action, 56, 78-79, 94, 98,
107-110, 114-118, 125-126, 138,
140-142, 145, 149
freedom of choice, 98, 106, 125, 138
freedom of thought, 106, 107-110, 114118, 142, 145, 149
frog, 77-78
function, 42, 56-60.63
function, mental, 68-69
fusion processes, 30, 35
future, 61, 121, 146, 153
G
galaxies, 4, 31, 36, 38, 141
Galilei, Galileo, 4
gas, 12-13, 36
Gauss, Carl Friedrich, 29
Gell-Mann, Murray, 15-16
general information cycle, see
..information cycle
genes, 17, 75, 108
genetic knowledge, 60, 74, 76, 79
Genz, Henning, 45, 51-52
geometry, 38, 85, 87, 90, 111
giraffe, 58
Glashow, Sheldon, 31
gluon, 41, 149
goal-directed behavior, 58
goal-directed events, 148
goal-directed rules, 59
Gdel, Kurt, 72-73
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 79, 119
goodness, 106, 108, 110-118, 129,
131, 138, 142, 145, 149
grammatical rules, 91
graviton, 33, 41, 136
gravity, 4, 15, 27-28, 33-36, 41, 53, 8586, 89, 135-136, 139-141, 149
Greene, Brian, 24, 34, 41, 53, 146-147
guilt, 100
H
Habermas, Jrgen, 114
habits, 7, 43, 47, 54, 57, 76-78, 151
Haken, Hermann, 55-56, 68, 70
Hampe, Michael, 51
harmony, 71
hate, 100
Hawking, Stephen, 3
hearing, 60
Heidegger, Martin, 109, 115
Heisenberg, Werner, 88
hereditary information, 75
higher organizational laws, 54, 78
history, autobiographical, 71, 79, 100101, 109, 150

history dependent rules, 79
history, of physics, 18
history, of the concept of law, 51
history, of the universe, 7, 51, 83-93,
100, 124, 127-128, 132, 135, 137,
149
holistic aspects, 55, 74
holographic principle, 88, 138
hominids, 74
homo sapiens, 74
hope, 109, 146
Hooft, Gerardus (Gerard) t, 88
Hoyle, Fred, 37-38
humans, 4-5, 34-36 51-52, 63, 65-66,
72-81, 97, 101, 106, 108, 110, 112114, 117-118, 126, 130, 132, 138,
141-142, 145, 150
Hume, David, 113
Huxley, Thomas, 60
hydrogen, 14, 17, 30, 35-37
I
ideals, 106-119, 129-130
if-then rule, 47, 49-50, 151
immanence, 94, 118, 147
immaterial level, 6, 9, 42, 45, 53, 68,
70-72, 137-138, 150
immortality, 147
immune system, 70
individual, 57, 74, 98, 108, 146
individuality, 94, 100-101, 103
inevitability, 119
infinite number, 12
information as fundamental substance,
1, 5, 27
information, biological, 57
information, conscious, 60-73
information cycle , 1, 46-54, 61-82, 9394, 99, 101, 107, 149, 150-152
information, factual, 46-53, 58-59, 6282, 98-100-102, 105-106, 141, 143,

148, 150
information field, 56
information flow, 5
information, law-like,1, 6-7, 9, 42-83,
89-95, 122-123, 126, 131, 137-138,
148, 150-151, 153
information, location in space, 88-89
information, potential, 46-53, 61-82,
141, 148, 151-152
information processing entity (IPE), 46
-53, 61-82, 93, 97, 128, 151, 151152
information processing events, 1, 5, 7
27-82, 93, 97, 101, 124, 127-128,
135, 137, 146-147, 149
information, production of, 46-51
information, transfer of, 29
information, units of, 46-51
infosphere, 75
ingestion, 77
ion, 15, 17
instinct, 109, 117
intentional stance, 58-59
intentionality, 7, 57-59, 73-74, 78-79,
94, 98-99, 103-104106, 149, 152
intentions, 117
interaction of particles, 19, 27-30, 36,
39-42, 135, 143
interactive loops, 73
interdependence, 55, 71, 73
interface, 48, 88, 138
interpreter, 76
intuition, 72, 85, 118
irreversibility, 56,
J
Jaspers, Karl, 115
Joyce, James, 16
K
Kant, Immanuel, 72, 91, 97, 102, 109,
112-115
Kauffman, Stuart, 55, 80, 107, 146
Kayser, Boris, 140
Keats, John, 119
Kepler, Johannes, 4, 28
knowledge, 4-5, 34, 60, 67, 73, 75-76,
97, 100, 102, 113, 123, 129, 143
knowledge, acquisition of, 7, 75, 79, 9899, 103, 105, 108, 144, 149
knowledge, development of, 107
knowledge, embodied, 73
knowledge, genetically encoded, 74, 79
knowledge, objective, 7, 74, 113, 149,
153
knowledge, philosophical, 142
knowledge, propositional, 98, 103
knowledge, scientific, 11, 142
knowledge, subjective, 74, 149, 152153
knowledge, unconscious, 58
Kuo, Shen, 29
Kppers, Bernd-Olaf, 57
L
labor, cooperative, 74
Laming, Richard, 17
landscape, metaphorical, 118, 147
language, 75, 114
language, evolution of, 75
language, human, 74
language of information, 70
Larmore, Charles, 101, 118
Laughlin, Robert B, 54, 78,
law of conservation of matter and
energy, 18
law of gravitation, 4, 28
law of motion, 4
laws, see information, law-like
laws, electromagnetic, 30
laws, empirical, 4
laws, Faradays, 17
laws, higher.order, 56
laws, judicial, 74, 76
laws, Keplers, 28
laws of physics, 34, 38, 41, 51-53, 56,
59, 76-77, 79, 98, 108, 119, 125126, 130
laws of thermodynamics, 80
learning, 73-74, 78, 94, 98
learning autobiographical, 79
learning, by trial and error, 79
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 83, 91, 129,
131
Leslie, John, 129-131, 142-144
letters of an alphabet, 12, 46, 91, 127
Leucippus, 12
Libet, Benjamin, 66, 68
life, 1, 7, 10, 17, 46, 48, 57, 58, 60, 76,
78-79, 99, 108-109, 112, 115, 121122, 129, 138, 142-145, 151
life, definition of, 59
life, emergence of, 36
life, evolution of, 4, 34-39, 126
life, meaning of, 5, 58
lifetime, of humans, 60, 101, 146, 150
lifetime, of particles, 23
Linde, Andre, 143-144
living beings, 48, 76, 78, 82, 98-99,
102, 104, 106, 108, 138, 141, 144145
living cells, 4, 46, 151
living organisms, 35-37, 46, 57-59, 6364, 70, 75, 79, 151
Locke, John, 113
logic and thought, 110, 112-113, 125
logic, of the Universe, 147
logical necessity, 67, 131
logical reasoning, 50
Lumsden, C.J., 74
Lyre, Holger, 46, 48
M
Mach, Ernst, 13
machinery, of the world, 39, 121, 1441
magnetic resonance tomography, 67
magnetic northpole, 29
magnetism, 29-30
Mary, 8
mass, of matter, 28, 85
mass, of particles, 17-26, 33, 37-38,
71-71, 75, 78, 82, 92, 94, 125, 139,
149
mass, of the Universe, 15
material aggregates, 7, 20, 28-29, 31,
42, 46, 51-53, 68-72, 76, 78, 106,
112, 128, 135, 138, 141, 150-151
material base, 10-26, 65, 124, 127-128,
137, 143
materialistic view, 71
material level, 6, 67
material particles, see particles
materials aspects, 45, 68, 111, 137139,
mathematical beauty, 119, 129-130
mathematical concepts, 111-112
mathematical modeling, 136
mathematical necessity, 117
mathematical theory, 119
mathematical truths, 13, 52, 77, 79,
129-130
Maturana, Humberto R., 59
Maxwell, James Clerk, 13, 29-30, 86
meaning, of information, 1, 150-151
meaning (and purpose), 3, 5, 9-10, 20,
42, 46-48, 57, 7690-91, 93, 110111, 122-124, 126-129, 131-132,
135, 137, 143, 145-147, 153
mechanics, 4
mechanistic worldview, 51
memeplex, 75
memes, 74-75, 81
memory, 60, 64, 68, 70, 75
mental causation, 68-72
mental field, 68, 70

mental phenomena, 47, 60, 64, 74,
106, 130, 148 151
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 75
messenger particles, 33, 39, 41-42, 53,
98, 100, 102, 136
metaphors, 60, 71, 73, 91, 99-100, 117,
122, 127-128, 132, 145, 147, 153
meta-system, 65
microscope, 13-14,
Mill, John Stuart, 108
mind, 50, 52, 65, 68-69, 97, 102, 107,
109, 113-114, 118, 123, 142, 150
Minkowski, Hermann, 85
Mithen, Steven, 74
model, of spacetime, 135
model, standard of particles, 32-33
model, world, 112, 130
molecule, 13-17, 36, 46, 51, 53, 82, 94,
128, 151
monocausal thinking, 71
Moon, 28
morality, 107, 109, 113-114
motivation, 64, 100, 102
multiverse, 5
muon, 22-23, 139, 149
muon-neutrino, 23, 139, 149
mythology, 16, 110
myths, 16, 74, 110
N
Nagel, Thomas, 107, 129-132, 142-145
natural selection, 75, 80
Nature, 1, 4-15, 31, 47, 51, 58, 64, 69,
72, 82, 86, 110, 114, 123, 132, 141,
143
Nature, as a unified whole, 7
Nature, components of, 91, 94, 150
Nature, forces of, 34-35
Nature, laws of, 45, 51-53
Nature, structural features of, 3
Nature, Tree of, 1-2, 5-7, 20, 24, 31,

82, 143, 153
Neckam, Alexander, 29
neural cells, 61
neural excitation patterns, 67, 70
neural information processing, 65-71
neural network, 55-56, 65
neural synapse, 71
neurons, 60, 65
neutrino, 19, 48, 139-140-141, 155
neutron, 14, 16, 18-19, 22, 30, 35, 37
Newton, Isaac, 4, 27-28, 30, 85-86, 94,
141
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 115
nitrogen, 36,
normative aspects, 101-102, 118, 145
norms, 7, 43, 47, 54, 76-78, 151-152
nous, 120
nuclear forces, 27, 30, 34, 41, 79, 135136
nuclear processes, 32-34, 36
nucleus of atoms, 14, 17-18, 20, 30-31,
35, 37-38
nutritional materials,58
O
objective effects, 99
objective events, 81
objective knowledge, 7, 74, 113, 149
objective rationality, 79, 153
objective reality, 89
obligation, 118
observable effects, 13, 42, 47, 49-50,
59, 61-67, 69, 92-93, 103, 148-149,
151
observable events, 1, 46, 80, 128
observable reality, 42, 73, 140
observer, 88-89, 121-122, 143-144,
145
odd one out, 20-21. 31-33, 80-81, 8687, 104-105, 115-117, 126-128.
137-141
Oersted, Hans Christian, 29

ontological aspects, 71, 73, 131
ontological loop, 128, 132
ontological parameters, 9-10, 153
ontological preliminaries, 130
ontological structure, 10
ontology, 9
opinion, 86, 118, 130
optimization principles, 56
option, 66, 118
order, chronological, 10, 93
order, emergence of, 55-56, 73
order, higher, 55-56, 149
order, principles of, 7, 43, 54, 56-57,
78, 149, 151
order, state of, 47, 79, 83, 91, 93, 103,
131, 152
ordered structures, 50
ordering parameters, 55, 68.70
organism, 57-58, 63-64, 70, 79
organism and environment, 36
organs, 63-64
oxygen, 36
P
parameters, complementary doublets,
24, 33, 80-82, 86-90, 104-106, 115119, 125, 130, 132-133-139, 148,
153
parameters, fundamental, 1, 6-10, 25,
40-42, 83-84, 91-93, 123-126, 131-141,
143-144, 153
parameters, higher-order, 56, 62, 69-70
parameters, immaterial, 45, 137-138
parameters, individual, 1, 9-10, 16, 2024, 31-33, 38, 80-82, 86-90, 104106, 115-119, 128, 134-141, 145,
153
parameters, material, 137, 139
parameters, ordering, 55
parameters, superstructure, 127-128,
153
Parfit, Derek, 129

Parmenides of Elea, 110-111
participatory universe, 42
Pauli, Wolfgang, 18-19
Penrose, Roger, 129-130
perception, 63, 65, 68-70, 72, 75, 98106, 113, 130, 138, 152
Perl, Martin Lewis. 23
Perrin, Jean-Baptiste, 13
person, 51, 61, 66-67, 71, 74-77, 93,
100-105, 109, 146, 150, 152
personal experience, 30. 71. 76
personal freedom, 109, 150
personal information processing, 101
personal responsibility, 152-153
personal will, 150, 153
philosophical thought, 74, 107, 129,
142. 149
photon, 20, 39-41, 46, 48, 149, 151
Pinker, Steven, 75
pity, 100
planetary motion, 4, 28
planets, 4, 34, 38, 141
planning, 56, 60
Plato, 12, 111-112, 120, 129
Platonic ideals, 108, 111-112, 118, 130
Pppel, Ernst, 60, 69, 71, 148
Popper, Karl R., 121, 133
positivists, 52
positron, 41
positron emission tomography, 67
potential information, see information,
potential
potentiality, 125
power, creative, 129
power, elemental, 28, 119
pragmatic effect, 69
pragmatic information, 47
predictions, 5, 28, 133-135
prejudice, 60, 73, 109
prey, 77, 81
pride, 100
principle, anthropic, 39
principle, fundamental, 63, 89, 129, 148
principle, holographic, 88
principle, of causal closure, 69
principle, of sufficient reason, 129
probability, 38, 72, 77, 79, 99, 108
process philosophy, 114
propositions, 98, 100-105, 138, 147,
152
proteins, 14, 17, 35
proton, 14, 16-17, 22, 30, 35, 37, 48
psychic events, 69, 71
psychic states, 97. 118, 130
psychic systems, 76
Q
quantum field theory, 39, 162
quantum gravity, 33, 86, 89, 135-136
quantum mechanics, 5, 14, 72, 86, 88,
98, 108, 122-123, 135-136, 141,
143-145
quantum uncertainty, 75
quarks, 14-16. 20-21, 23, 30, 41, 46,
82, 139, 151
quasi-autonomous, 5
quasi-fear, 99
quasi-intentional, 57, 59, 73-74, 79,
104, 149, 152
Quine, W.V.O., 90
R
Rabi, Isidor Isaac, 22
radioactive processes, 18, 30
rational behavior, 47, 108-109, 113,
118
rational evaluation, 109
rationality, 72, 109, 112. 152-153
rationality, objective, 79
rationality, type of, 7
real effect, 47-51, 53, 58, 61, 63, 93,
152
realism, 72
reality, realms of, 1, 8

reality, status of, 9, 12-13, 39, 42, 45,
50-53, 69, 71-73, 83, 85, 91, 97,
107, 109, 118, 125, 128. 135-138,
142, 144, 148, 149-152
reality, ultimate , 110-111, 123, 130,
131, 134, 143, 144-145, 152
reductionism, 54
relativity theory, 33, 52, 85-86, 88, 135,
146, 157
religious doctrines, 3,115
responsibility, 20, 30, 68, 101, 103-105,
108-109, 115, 118, 121, 152-153
reverberations, 64
Rohrer, Heinrich, 14
routines, 76
Ruhnau, Eva, 71
rules, 4, 7, 43, 47, 49-50, 54-91, 98,
109, 123, 149, 151
S
Sachse, Christian, 57
Salam, Abdus, 31
Sartre, Jean-Paul, 50, 109, 115, 118
scanning tunneling microscope, 14
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm, 94
scientific concepts, 72, 74
scientific era, 4, 85
scientific experiments, 14
scientific knowledge, 11, 39, 130, 142
scientific method, 3-5, 81
scientific proof, 12
scientific realists, 53
scientific theory, 14, 55, 71, 113
Scott, Orson, 91
seal, 61
self, 112
self-determination, 108
self-excited circuit, 121-122
self-legislation, 109
self-organizing processes, 94
self-perpetuation, 112
self-unfolding story, 122, 127, 132, 145147

semantic information, 46-47, 61, 69,
151
sense organ, 63-64, 75
senses, 72, 111, 113
sensing, 46, 48, 58-59, 60, 151
sensory data, 63
sentiments and emotions, 60
sexual desire, 100
shame, 100
Shannon, Claude E., 1
shark, 61
shelter, 81, 110
simplicity, 119
Singer, Wolf, 63,
slaving principle, 55
Smolin Lee, 5, 42, 90-91
social grammar, 76-77
social groups, 74
social roles,76
social rule systems, 76-77
social systems, 46, 151
socio-cultural communities, 74
socio-cultural events, 79
socio-cultural environment, 75-77
socio-cultural systems, 76
Socrates, 111
soul, 112
space, 13, 93
space, beginning of, 4
space, conceptual, 73
space, creation of, 94
space, emergence of, 123
space, empty, 11-12, 17
space, essential, 142, 145
space, events in, 117
space, extension in, 68
space for memory, 75
space, generation of, 145
space, information in, 88
space, outer, 28
space, position in, 72

space, reality of, 146-147, 157
space, travel through, 29, 71
spacetime, 5-9, 52-53, 82-93, 122, 125126, 131, 135, 137-138, 143, 145147, 150, 152-153
spacetime, as history of the universe,
91, 146
spacetime continuum, 157
spacetime distortion, 53
spacetime, dimensions, 1, 7, 82, 117,
125, 153
spacetime, model of, 135
specialization, 56, 79
species, 4, 57, 59, 99, 108, 114
spectrum, beta, 18-19
speed of light, 30, 85, 157
spider, 99-100
spin, 78, 94, 149
Spinoza, 94, 108
spiritual phenomena, 106
spirituality, 146
spontaneity, 51
stars, 30, 34-37, 141
stay-alive-strategy, 58
Steiner, Rudolf, 109, 117
Stoney, George Johnstone, 17
standard model, 32-33
strange world, 5, 146
strategies of action, 76
string physics, 136
strong nuclear force, 30, 32-35, 41, 79,
135-136, 139, 149
Stukeley, William, 28
subjective information, 7, 60-61, 64, 67,
74, 149, 152
subjective view, 113-114
subjectivity, 1, 83, 89, 94, 97-106, 118,
123, 126, 131-132, 137-138, 143144, 152-153
substructure of the ToE, 125, 133, 135136, 138-139, 141
substructure of the ToN, 1, 9

suicide, 13
sun, 4, 16, 28, 30, 35-36, 147
superstructure of the ToE, 124-127,
131-132. 135-137
superstructure of the ToN, 9
surface, 14, 16, 88, 138
survival, 57-59, 99, 106
survival imperative, 57
Susskind, Leonard, 88-89
synapses, 70-71
synaptic connections, 68
synaptic efficiency, 65
synaptic structure, 71
synergetics, 55
syntactic information, 47, 49, 69
syntax, 46
system, autonomous, 59, 152
system, boundary of, 89
system, circulatory, 70
system, cognitive, 70
system, communicative, 60, 73
system, complex, 54-56, 75, 114, 129,
149
system, cultural, 75-76
system, dynamic, 54-55, 65
system, epistemic, 73
system, immune, 70
system, living, 58-59, 76
system, neural, 56, 65, 70
system, psychic, 76
system, reproductive, 59
system, social, 46, 77, 151
T
taboo, 76
tau, 23, 139, 149
tau-neutrino, 23, 149
technical innovations, 74
teleology, 57, 129
telescope, 4
thalamus. 63-64
Thales of Miletos, 16, 110

theory, atomic, 13-14
theory, electroweak, 31, 34
theory, EM field, 29
theory, evolution, 75
theory, information, 45theory, mathematical, 119
theory, of aesthetics, 114
theory of everything, 120, 141, 146
theory, of subjectivity, 118
theory, quantum field, 39
theory, quantum gravity, 33, 86, 135
theory, relativity, 52-53, 85-86, 88, 135
theory, social rule systems, 76
thermodynamics, 80
thing-in-itself, 72, 113
Thomson, J.J., 17
thought, 56, 106, 108-113, 116-118,
145, 149
time, 10, 13, 140-141 see also
spacetime
time, backwards in, 4
time, beginning of, 4
time, emergence of, 123
time, imperishability of, 147
time, period of, 64-66
time, reality of, 146-147, 157
tissue, 60
top-down effects, 56
top-down view, 9
top of the Tree of Everything, 89, 123127, 130-133, 153
top of the Tree of Nature, 9-10, 20
Toricelli, Evangelista, 12
traditions, 76
traffic sign. 46, 151
Tree of Everything, 1, 8-9, 16, 24-26,
31, 33, 39-40.42, 45, 81-84, 86-87,
89, 92-93, 105, 112, 115-116, 119,
123-128, 130-139, 141-142, 144145, 148, 153
Tree of Nature, 1-2, 5-9, 20, 24, 32, 82,

143, 153
trial-and-error evolution, 37, 58-59, 74,
79
truth, 47-48, 60, 01, 98, 100-102, 106,
108, 110-119, 126, 129-131, 138,
142, 145, 149-150
tune, 74
Varela, Francisco J., 59

Veiled Reality, 123
virtual messenger particles: see
messenger particles
virtue, 111
volition, 98-99, 102-105, 138, 140-141,
152
void, 12, 162
U
uncertainty principle, 75, 88, 141
unconscious actions, 66, 152
unconscious information processing,
48, 63-64
unconscious intentionality: see quasiintentionality
unconscious learning, 74, 149
universe as self-excited circuit, 121-122
universe, 7, 11-12, 35, 37-38, 110, 115,
125, 129, 140-141, 147, 149, 153
universe and information, 42, 53, 6971, 106, 142-143
universe, and matter, 20, 28-29
universe, creation of, see Big Bang
universe, initial quantum condition of,
123
universe, participatory, 42
universe, story of, 4, 10, 24, 31, 79, 8395, 107, 130, 132, 145-146
unpredictability, 54, 77
Updike, John, 19
W
wait-and-see attitude, 67
water, 13-14, 17, 35
weak force, 20, 30-35, 37, 41, 79, 82,
139, 149
Weinberg, Steven, 31, 52, 120
Weizscker, Carl Friedrich von, 72
Wheeler, John A., 5, 39, 42, 53, 70, 90,
121-122, 132, 144-145
Whitehead, Alfred North, 114
Wiehl Reiner, 57
Wigner, Eugene, 122
Wilber, Ken, 114
will, 98, 102-105, 113, 140-141, 150,
153
Wilson, E.O., 74
wish, 70, 102
Whlbier, Fred H, 2
words and sentences, 12, 74, 91, 127,
165
worldview, 22, 51
V
vacuum, 140, 157
values, 1, 76, 105, 107-110, 114-115,
129-131, 142-145, 148-150
Z
Zeilinger, Anton, 5, 27, 70
zoo, 110
Zweig, George, 15

Fred H. Wöhlbier. The Evolution of Meaning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fred H. Wöhlbier. The Evolution of Meaning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Evolution of Meaning

The Evolution of Meaning

The Evolution of Meaning

Published by Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

What is it All About?

The Material Base of Nature

Information Processing Events

The Essential Dimensions

What is it All About?

Predictions and Conjectures

Key Concepts and Definitions

Key Concepts and Definitions

For clarity, some of the results published in the Tree of

Fred H. Whlbier, January 2014

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 (2014) pp 3-10

What is it All About?

The Evolution of Meaning

The Scientific Method

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2

(1) Observation of facts and processes; (2) hypothesis as to why these

The Tree of Nature

The Evolution of Meaning

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2

The Evolution of Meaning

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2

The Tree of Everything

The Evolution of Meaning

The ontological structure of the tree is more fundamental, than is any

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 (2014) pp 11-26

The Material Base of Nature

The first principles

In his famous Lectures on Physics1, Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman

The Evolution of Meaning

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2

The Evolution of Meaning

conventional microscopes. It was only in 1981 that this shortcoming of

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2

elementary particles: two types of quarks (called up quarks and down

Up Quark and Down Quark

The Evolution of Meaning

The name quark is due to Gell-Mann who was inspired by the

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2

In the mid-19th century, the British chemist Richard Laming suggested

The Evolution of Meaning

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2

my remedy may seem almost improbable But nothing ventured, nothing

The Evolution of Meaning

The earth is just a silly ball

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2

(2) After setting aside the exception, there remains a triplet of

Figure 2.1 The four elementary particles constituting Matter I.

The Evolution of Meaning

Three Families of Matter

Figure 2.2 The elementary particles constituting Matter II.

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2

Figure 2.3 The elementary particles constituting Matter III.

Almost 40 years later, American physicist Martin Lewis Perl

The Evolution of Meaning

Nobody knows why Nature has provided us with these additional

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2

The Evolution of Meaning

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 (2014) pp 27-43

Information Processing Events

In the preceding chapter, we have introduced the twelve elementary matter