gpt5.2-meta

A “non-physical, mathematical, hyper-dimensional space” that *contains* all information is a coherent idea in a few different senses—but those senses often get blended together in a way that makes the claim sound more scientifically settled than it is. The most useful way to think about it is to separate (1) **mathematical frameworks that model phenomena**, (2) **philosophical positions about what is ultimately real**, and (3) **spiritual/metaphysical doctrines** that make additional ontological claims.

## 1) The idea is mathematically natural, but “contains all knowledge” is an extra step
It’s completely standard in math/physics to represent a system as a point in a high‑dimensional space:

- **State spaces** in dynamical systems: the “space” is a bookkeeping device for all degrees of freedom.
- **Hilbert space** in quantum theory: a mathematically precise space of possible states.
- **Information geometry** / statistical manifolds: spaces whose points are probability distributions.
- **Markov chains**: evolution of a probability distribution over discrete states; again, a formal space.

In all of these, the space is not automatically “a realm where facts live.” It’s a representation that can be astonishingly effective.

To get from “we can model experience/physics in a formal space” to “there exists a mind-independent repository of all truths and memories” requires a philosophical commitment—usually a form of **Platonism** (mathematical realism) plus something like **panpsychism/idealism** (mind or experience as fundamental), or a strong metaphysical thesis about information being ontologically basic.

## 2) How your cited ideas plausibly connect (and where they don’t)
### Don Hoffman (Markov chains, “conscious agents,” “source”)
Hoffman’s program (at a high level) treats perception as an **interface** shaped by fitness, and proposes mathematical models of interacting “conscious agents.” Markovian dynamics are a natural language for transitions in an abstract information state space.

- **What this supports well:** the notion that an *information-centric formalism* can be foundational, and that “spacetime” could be emergent from deeper structure.
- **What it doesn’t establish by itself:** that there is literally a singular, externally existing database containing all knowledge, or that human-accessible “records” are stored there.

### Michael Levin (non-neural cognition, morphogenesis)
Levin’s work strongly supports the view that **goal-directedness, memory-like behavior, and problem-solving** can appear in biological systems beyond brains (e.g., tissues, bioelectric networks).

- **What this supports well:** cognition as **substrate-independent** in some sense (it can be implemented in multiple physical media) and the usefulness of describing biological organization in terms of informational/teleological state spaces.
- **What it doesn’t require:** a non-physical Platonic repository. You can interpret it in fully physicalist terms (distributed control, feedback, bioelectric signaling) without positing an extracorporeal data realm.

### Arkani-Hamed (amplituhedron, scattering amplitudes)
The amplituhedron program is a striking example of physics becoming more “geometric” and less tied to traditional spacetime pictures in intermediate computations.

- **What this supports well:** that deep physical laws may be more naturally expressed in **abstract mathematical structures** than in familiar spacetime terms.
- **Important correction to a common impression:** the amplituhedron is not generally presented as “proven mathematics that reality is Platonic.” It’s powerful *mathematical/physical machinery* that suggests spacetime locality and unitarity might emerge from deeper principles in certain contexts—not that “all information exists in a separate realm.”

### Akashic record (Theosophy)
This is a metaphysical/spiritual claim: a universal record of events, thoughts, and knowledge.

- **What it provides:** a narrative that resembles “a structured information field.”
- **What it lacks (scientifically):** operational definitions, predictive constraints, and public verification standards comparable to physics/biology.

## 3) Three interpretations of your “hyper-dimensional information space”
Here are three versions of the idea, from most scientifically conservative to most metaphysically ambitious:

### A) **Model-space realism (conservative)**
There is no separate realm; “information space” is a highly effective **description**.  
- Pros: consistent with mainstream science; avoids unfalsifiable leaps.  
- Cons: doesn’t satisfy the intuition that “the space itself is what’s real.”

### B) **Structural realism / Platonic structuralism (middle)**
What is fundamentally real is **structure** (relations, invariants), and “physical stuff” is secondary or emergent.  
- Pros: fits the uncanny effectiveness of math; compatible with some modern physics intuitions.  
- Cons: still doesn’t automatically give you a *library* of all facts; it gives you lawful structure.

### C) **Ontic information field / idealism (strong)**
A non-physical information domain is primary; spacetime and matter are emergent “renderings,” and consciousness navigates this domain.  
- Pros: directly matches your “organized data structure of all information” concept; aligns with Akashic-like notions.  
- Cons: hardest to constrain; often struggles to produce novel, testable predictions rather than reinterpretations.

## 4) The key question: “contains all information” in what sense?
“All information” can mean different things:

1. **All mathematically possible information** (the space of all consistent structures).  
2. **All physically instantiated information** (everything that happens in our universe, encoded somehow).  
3. **All knowable truths** (epistemic totality, including counterfactuals, meanings, qualia).  
4. **All personal memories/events** (Akashic-style record).

(1) is close to Platonism and is philosophically respectable but not empirically decidable.  
(2) is closer to physics, but then it’s unclear why it must be *non-physical*—it could just be the universe’s total state.  
(3) and (4) are the strongest and most controversial, because they imply a kind of universal indexing and retrieval that goes well beyond current science.

## 5) What would make this idea compelling as *science* (not just metaphysics)?
A good litmus test is: can the hypothesis generate **constraints** and **predictions**?

Examples of what “success” would look like:
- A precise mapping from proposed “information space” primitives to observable regularities (new invariants, scaling laws, limits).
- A way to derive known physics (or biology) as an emergent approximation with fewer assumptions than competitors.
- Novel, risky predictions (not post-hoc fits) about cognition, morphogenesis, or fundamental physics.

Without that, the idea remains a *philosophical synthesis*—potentially beautiful and meaningful, but not adjudicated by the usual scientific methods.

## 6) My bottom line
A hyper-dimensional mathematical space that *organizes* possibilities (states, relations, transitions) is not only plausible—it’s almost unavoidable in modern theorizing. But the stronger claim that there exists a **non-physical repository containing all knowledge** is a metaphysical step that current mainstream readings of Levin/Hoffman/modern amplitude geometry do not force.

If you tell me which version you mean—(A) model-space realism, (B) structural realism, or (C) ontic information/idealism—and whether you’re aiming for a **testable scientific hypothesis** or a **metaphysical worldview**, I can give a tighter, more targeted critique and a set of the best arguments for/against it.