I apologize in advance for my ignorance. I work with Stephen to understand the basics of classical physics and quantum theory, but my lack of mathematical talent is a significant obstacle. I do, however, think that I can offer some game changing insights, which, in hindsight, I think…
Just a few quick comments. I skimmed this but didn’t read in too much detail; the text is too dense in jargon. What’s your academic background, by the way?
A couple points first. (1). “perceptual participation” versus “participatory experience.” The latter being our mind’s interaction with our senses and the former … well I can’t come up with a satisfactory summary for it. But they seem to me that they should be the same. Yet you draw such strong connections with the human mind in the latter after claiming the former is also experienced by inorganic objects. This is probably a confusion on my part.
(2) You later claim that there is no room in physics for both information and the different perspectives of everyone. I can actually comment on this, and you may be pleased to find out that there IS room in physics for these. There are entire (booming) fields of physics and math based off information theory and its generalization, quantum information theory. It plays a role in the interpretation and implementation of quantum teleportation (using entanglement to transfer quantum states). It plays a role in quantum gravity: after Bekenstein and Hawking, we expect black holes to radiation. This is essentially due to black holes not being in thermal equilibrium with their environment; black holes carry entropy, they carry information. There are approaches to more fundamental theories in which information plays the role of the fundamental quantity.
Different perspectives for everyone: this has recently taken form in an idea called “relative locality.” This states that what we actually observe are momenta and energy, not spacetime. Every observer then can see a different spacetime from the same observations, simply because the observer is looking at the universe differently. Note that the notion of an observer applies to any object which interacts with the universe, it need not rely on being human nor of particular senses.
(3) Next, Einsteinian relativity need not merge space and time into spacetime. This, too, is a relatively recent observation (took concrete mathematical form ~2005) even though the idea has been around since the days of Ernst Mach and Carl Jacobi. The principle is called relationalism and it is a framework in which time is arbitrary, it isn’t a fundamental thing. The recent mathematical formulation is known as shape dynamics, and it is a theory of gravity which lives in only 3 dimensions — the dimensions of space.
I have an opinion on the rest, but I will refrain from commenting because I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. But physics (and math) is fun! Keep it up. I’d encourage you to try to slog through some math. It is good for the soul and you already have an intuitive grasp of math through differential equations, everyone does. The problem is simply the translation into a very precise language (of math). English is an extremely imprecise language.