There Must Be A Self-Defining Truth

This is a variation on the first cause proof of God's existence. It is different in that it does not require material cause and effect. Instead, if we assume that the universe is explained by information theory (i.e.: perhaps we are in a computer simulation), then there must still be some self-defining truth from which everything else arises.

Both Logic and Information Theory Require the Existence of Some Self-Defining Truth

1. Logic is the process of deducing truths from one or more precedent truth(s).
2. Without a precedent truth from which deductions can be made, there can be no logic.
3. One or more precedent truths must exist before logic deduction is possible.
4. At least some truth(s) must precede all logic, and these truths are aspects of the nature of God as a precedent for all that can be thought.
5. It is illogical to argue that logic precludes the existence of God, the precedent of all that we can know.

Variation

1. No word is self-defining.
2. But there must be a first word that is self-defining.
3. "I am, who I am" describes the God who is self-defining

Excerpt from "A Universe Without Matter: The Processing of Information/Energy through Discontinuous Space Cells in Two Models; a Computer Simulation, or a Self-Replicating Substrate of Space Cells"

Information and Mathematics are More Fundamental than Matter

One of the deep and profound surprises of modern science is the observation that mathematical equations correctly predict the workings of nature.(44)  In one sense, mathematics appears to be a collection of abstract ideas: premises, hypotheses, and proofs.  Indeed, many mathematical relationships can be defined and logically proven to be consistent and true even when there is no relationship to counterparts in the material universe.  Somehow, these abstract ideas, conceivable by human minds, can map with near perfection the world we live in.  Indeed, the utility of mathematics in describing real things has led Max Tegman to propose that any true mathematical structure must eventually be embodied in at least one one of many multiverses, the set of which includes every mathematically possible universe.(45)

Yes, the universe can be described with mathematics. But is there something even more fundamental than mathematics?  Yes.  Information.  Mathematics describes relationships between sets of information.  Without a starting pool of information, there could be no mathematics.

Approaching this subject from another angle, the starting point of every philosophy must begin with an a priori acknowledgement of information’s foundational supremacy.  This is so self-evident that it is often overlooked, as seen in the example of Descartes famous first premise: “I think, therefore I am.” But, as many subsequent thinkers have challenged, how can I be certain who or what “I” am . . . and whether it is actually “I” doing the thinking or some computer simulation or a schizophrenic imitation of my real “I”?

Still, the phrase “I think” in Descartes first premise is indisputable. No one can deny “I think” without first experiencing a thought, thereby proving it is true.  But even this certainty is laced with a new uncertainty, for while I must agree that “I think,” I also know my thoughts are often untrue.  The challenge is to know anything with certainty.  

So what can I know with certainty regarding my thoughts?  They all share one common denominator: information.  I cannot be confident that my perception of information is always accurate.  But I must agree that I am processing information.  Rightly or wrongly perceived, or even if it is only created by my own imagination, information exists.

That is a firm foundation for any philosophy: “I think, therefore information exists.”  

Building on this foundation, I can immediately observe there are many layers of information.  Each layer is supported by a lower layer.  For example, a printed sentence rests on both a layer of words and a layer of syntax, which requires a layer of letters and punctuation, which requires a layer of defined shapes and a substrate for recording the shapes, and that substrate layer itself requires some structure, shape, and chemistry based on layers of interactions between molecules. And the interpretation of this printed sentence also involves layers of information which encompass the capability of decoding that printed sentence, including photons that selectively reflect off the printed surface that can be focused on my retina, encoded by neurons, and translated by my brain, interpreted by my language, and judged by my intellect.  There are layers upon layers.  Indeed, there are so many layers that can never claim certainty that we have identified, much less understood, every layer necessary to the whole.

Similarly, mathematics is layered, with higher order mathematics being dependent on lower order.  

In short, there is nothing that we can perceive that stands alone.  All observable information is connected to other layers of information.

From these considerations, it is at least tenable to assume all our observations of physics are truly just observations of information processing.  If this hypothesis is true, the processing of information may take place on a quantum level.  In each event where information changes, a space cell event occurs.  By observing one or more of these events, we may deduce (but can never directly observe) the mathematical abstractions (or the object code) governing these events.  That is at least one of the goals of science: to understand events, perceived as information, governed by immutable rules of information processing.

From these observations I conclude that information surely exists but that it is not possible to identify the first bit(s) of information, or perhaps even the first layer of information, from which every other bit or layer of information was derived.  

To this I would add, as a likely speculation, that the “first body of information” almost certainly entails more than one bit of information.  Indeed, it seems certain that the “first body of information” required not only multiple bits of information, but at least two layers of information: a layer to encode and a layer to decode.

In short, the indisputable fact that information exists, in combination with the fact that everything else includes some portion of uncertainty (indeed, the genius of quantum physics is turning the uncertainties of our ability to observe reality into meaningful probabilities) is a major factor in my personal decision to embrace the idea that all of physics can be best understood from the perspective of information theory.(41,42)

For those seeking to answer “why does anything exist?” or “what is the first uncaused cause?” the premise that there must exist a layer of information that is itself uncaused is the foundation for all that exists will not be satisfying.  It may not be fully satisfying, but it is reasonable.  Indeed, as argued above, it is the skeptic’s criticism of any theory that fails to answer all questions which is truly unreasonable. There will always be some layer of information, some substrate, below that which can be observed, that cannot be fully examined, much less fully explained.

Bottom line: a universe composed entirely of information processing is reasonable, and given the evidence, perhaps the only reasonable premise for understanding the structure and workings of the universe.

(End of excerpt)

Put another way.... "In the Beginning...

Before any universe existed, there must have been a beginning.

But that required something that needed no beginning, and was before the beginning, and which could begin the beginning.

And that something before any universes' beginning must have been self defining. Why? Because everything we can know or observe in our universe must be defined by something other than itself.

One cannot describe "purple" except by reference to blue and red. One cannot define a molecule except by reference to chemical reactions, atoms, electrons, quarks, or information theory. And each layer of information must be transposed by another layer and it by another and another... none of which are self-defining.

Yet if we pursue each layer of that which defines other things to the ultimate end, there must be something which is self-defining. It does not rely on encoding and decoding and otherness. It is itself, and it is that from which at least one other layer of information can be derived and defined.

It is this self-defining truth from which all other truths arise. In this uncreated, undiscovered, self-defining truth in which all other truths embryonically existed before the beginning through which all of the truths we now perceive unfolded.

So, would it not be unsurprising if self-defining truth, defined itself as "I Am, Who I Am."

And because "I AM" understood Himself perfectly, His Understanding of Himself and so His Understanding of Himself was perfect and was co-equal to Himself and was begotten by Himself and was loved by Himself and loved Himself. And the Understanding of Self was called Son by the Self, and the Self was called Father, and the love between Father and Son was also perfect and a complete understanding of the loved Father and Son, and was called the Holy Spirit, and in every respect this Trinity was self-defined and did not rely on a beginning, but preceded the beginning and gave existence to the beginning which in every respect relies on the Trinity from which the Word and all that is defined by it proceeds.

The Trinity is a revealed truth. But it fits so well with the logical conclusions required by information theory. There must be a self defining layer of information; "That is which is," which only through self revelation we can now know is "I Am, Who I Am."