Chapter 2: 1st & 2nd Information Spheres

First and Second Spheres of Information

Why Spheres? (for all)

The natural state of a free-standing electromagnetic field is spherical, due to the force of gravity. As shown by Nordberg, many complicated ways of characterizing an electromagnetic field resolve to a very simple formula, when the structure of a field is free to form a sphere. This is the basic shape of atoms and many large molecules including the carbon “buckeyball”, and those that would look like a knobby stick of uncooked spaghetti if stretched out, but are normally collapsed in a tangled ball. This is also the basic shape of stars, brains, biospheres, and symbols indicating community, such as ying-yang, etc. On the International Space Station, a free-standing drop of water forms a sphere, due to gravity and derived physical properties of surface tension. We use the term “Sphere” in everyday language to discuss communities of people, political spheres of influence, and collections of an individual’s relationships. Therefore, discussing Information Dynamics in terms of Spheres of Information is both useful and naturally descriptive.

Chapter One Recap (for all)

An important way to apply Information Dynamics is to study how the law of Information Dynamics and the nature of an Information Flow affects Spheres of Information. A brief review of chapter one: Information must increase in quantity, complexity, concentration, and distribution. The three characteristics of an Information Flow are Intention (Potential), Transmission Speed (Velocity), and Noise (Resistance): in any Flow, these will reach a dynamic equilibrium. Intention is composed in the context of knowledge and rule packages, both of which are volatile and dynamic.

Uncertainty in an Information Flow (for all)

Traditional Information Theory was developed in Bell Labs in the 1940’s. It is a critical knowledge-set for the expansion of electronic information distribution, and describes not only the role of noise in transmission problems but also the role of probabilities or statistics in natural error generation. Errors are really just another source of noise, but this noise can be reduced by engineering the system to have fewer errors. In any Information Flow, whether electronic or biological signals, or via paper text, the occurrence of errors is a substantial impediment to successful distribution of messages. The recipient of the message is presented with Uncertainty about the Intention, the true meaning of a signal or message, which can take many forms.

People often use feedback to confirm a message was received, and to verify the Intention. In addition to probability of errors in the original message, there is also probability of errors in the feedback message. A summary of the message is often used for feedback: a person might say to the effect: “Okay, I think I understand: stop for red light, go for green light, right?” However, this does not address the uncertainty of whether this message was really decoded accurately. If you said: “That object is black”, and I replied, “That object is black”, you would be 100% confident that a) I heard you, b) got all the words in the message, and c) got them in the correct sequence and syntax. However, without additional information, neither of us could be 100% confident that we agreed on the definition of “object”, and the meaning of “black” as a relevant term to describe the object: to assume this confidence is indeed another common source of error. So, people usually try gaining agreement on the “dictionary”: define all the terms used in the communications, and work in some way to gain agreement. In a society, we’re normally talking about education, and so you can see there will be various levels of effectiveness in achieving a useful dictionary. But with a useful and agreed-upon dictionary, people can not only understand the original message, they can send a feedback message containing information about how the initial message was interpreted, often using different terms to establish a common meaning between the initial and feedback messages: “Yes, the thing is dark as night”.

Although such straight-forward methods are available, people are often shy about being clear, if there is a chance, a probability of Uncertainty, that the recipient might be upset or offended by the Intention of the message. For example, a restaurant patron might order a second drink, and the server says, “Hey, I’m leaving soon…”; the server is hoping the patron might tip them at this point, not knowing whether the patron will not want to make another order, or just want to tip the subsequent server when they are ready to leave. The request for the tip is indirect, because some people might be offended by being asked directly for the optional gratuity. However, the server is also risking that the person won’t understand the meaning of the indirect request. Hence, we often introduce additional errors and uncertainty, with the best of Intentions.

Even with direct methods, Uncertainty abounds. The message recipient still needs to evaluate whether the message source is trusted, and whether the message was corrupted into content not intentioned by the originator. Should the message be discarded? Should some or all of the message should be acknowledged as true? What is the probability of truth, or confidence in the message? And what if the message was corrupted along the way? She must evaluate potential corruption sources, if the message was received indirectly, or in certain circumstances when the source’s Intentions aren’t clear or there is uncertainty about a common dictionary.

Also, she still needs to evaluate the distribution of the message, because this is important context. Was the message private, and if so, why? Are there “hidden agenda” Intentions? If its not private, who are the others it was sent to, and what means were used to send the message? Was she actually intended to receive this message? She needs to determine who the information was intended for, to have additional information about the message and how to interpret it. If the distribution is not clear, then she has to guess about the probable distribution and determine if this lack of information provides context about the message, the originator, and the other recipients.

Finally, messages are rarely interpreted in an absolute sense. People evaluate new messages in the context of previous messages received from the source: were those reliable? What are all of the Intentions the source has conveyed in previous messages? Are these in conflict with each other or the message at hand, or are any of these in conflict with my Intentions?

Lots of Uncertainty, presented often to all of us, and most of it leading to what we commonly call “communication problems” that can have trivial and temporary consequences, or serious and even dire consequences. Not to mention, the Uncertainty we have within about our own Intentions.

Flows in Our Bodies (semi-technical)

Information flows in people the same way that energy flows in electromagnetic fields and the same way that chemical Potential flows in a chemical reaction equilibrium: people are in truth electromagnetic and chemical instances of information. Our cells are programmed by our chemical DNA: an extremely large, concentrated and complex organic chemical chain just crammed with information. So much information herein that genetic scientists are puzzled by over 80% of it: they have labeled this mysterious portion “junk DNA”, because they can’t correlate these parts with to-date identified biological functions. Is most of it, or some of it, truly junk? Or is it just poorly understood?

Our cells operate as individual biochemical reactors in dynamic state. Our cells are cooperatively organized into organs, tissues, vascular, lymphatic or bone structures, and nerves. Biochemical materials flow throughout our bodies as liquids, gases and suspended solids. Our nervous cells create electromagnetic fields and operate by transmitting biochemical information from point A to point B, traversing structural gaps between neurons by producing and/or consuming chemical signals, and by modulating electromagnetic field levels. Electromagnetic field levels are localized within the body at appropriate frequencies and levels to support local body functions.

Certain regions have different overall field strengths and energy wavelengths, depending on what is in the region. The brain is a region of highly concentrated nervous tissue, but lacks much other structure than small organs and vascular tissues. The gut contains large organs and our so-called “second brain”; a highly concentrated nervous tissue structure that is rather primitive and operates independently from high-order brain signals. Limbs are mostly muscle and bone. The skin is our largest organ by area and weight, and our hands and feet have the highest proportion of nervous tissue to muscle, bone, and vascular tissue. Each region has a different resultant electromagnetic field, a vector that interacts with other regions to produce an overall dynamic state of information available to our brains, as well as an overall state of health.

Our bodies emit an overall electromagnetic vector field that is the resultant combination of all vectors within and without: an enveloping field that is the dynamic sum of all fields produced within our body and those external sources that are interactive with our body. Our bodies also dynamically emit chemicals, some of which are chemical signals. Lots of information, most of it still poorly understood.
“The Body Electric, Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life”, by Robert O. Becker, M.D., tells a relevant story. The author, who was a research clinician in orthopedics, the study of bones and bone structures, describes the role of the nervous tissue system in healing injuries and diseases of bones and bone structures. A salamander can lose an entire limb in an incident, and the limb will grow back fully. A worm can be cut in half, and the half will re-grow. A person can lose the tip of a finger, and the tip may grow back, cuticle, nail and all. However, a whole finger, let alone a human arm, won’t grow back if it is severed.

When a human bone is broken, if the broken edges are set together, normally the bone will knit together completely in six weeks. However, the author found many instances when this healing did not happen, which can be a life-threatening event due to infection. His research showed that the common difference between this event and those above, was the amount of nervous tissue in the direct proximity of the injury or disease, in proportion to the amount of bone tissue. His further research showed that the nervous tissue created an electromagnetic field at a certain wavelength and intensity which prompted the other tissues to revert to primitive stem-cell tissue, which can re-differentiate to become any kind of tissue. The stem-cells then differentiate into the bone, nerve, lymphatic and vascular cells needed in the vicinity of the injury to heal the body.

He made measurements of the low-level energies and intensities in the process of normal healing, and then verified his theory by using instruments to externally provide the appropriate electromagnetic field to the injury: people who hadn’t responded to other medical therapies were healed (and saved) by this unusual therapy. The question was, why were some people’s nervous tissue inadequate for normal healing? His research showed the people had abnormally low electromagnetic field intensities in the vicinity of the injury, either for unknown reasons or because they were also below-average in the ratio of nervous tissue to other tissue.

In subsequent years, he studied practitioners of acupuncture therapy, and theorized these methods worked by stimulating or correcting the wavelength and intensity of electromagnetic energy in regions of injury, or by removing abnormal points of resistance to the flow of electrical signals that resulted in a deficit in a downstream area. Making measurements similar to those made in the prior research, he confirmed similar field-deficit problems existed prior to treatment, and successful healing resulted.

What is still very poorly understood is how people can convert their Intentions into localized effects on body chemistry and electromagnetic fields. How do people heal themselves with prayer? How do Reiki practitioners create and utilize specific fields to heal specific health problems in their patients: is it simply an intuitive evaluation of the deficit and the subsequent creation and application of the needed field strength in the injury region? How do they receive and process this information, and then act on it? Is the interaction of their body chemistry with that of the patient a factor, in addition to their electromagnetic energy? How do other healers with non-invasive methods that are foreign to Western medicine achieve their well-documented results? Lots of information, most of it still poorly understood.

First Sphere: an Individual (for all)

The first Sphere of Information is an individual entity. For a person, their own self. An individual is both an instance of information as well as an engine of information expansion. Because information is composed in the context of a knowledge-set and a rule-set, its important to understand an individual’s context, and important for the individual to be maximally aware of their context and the dynamic within: that “internal debate” about the conflict between their intentions, and what must be done or be changed to improve the individual’s present situation or their happiness. Notice, its impossible to be fully aware, because of the dynamic state of their information and the constant flood of information.

Sadly, some people altogether or temporarily lose hope their conflicts will be resolved, and their situation or happiness will improve. People make choices to do something, or change something, in order to optimize their present experience or happiness. If these are but momentary or temporary and can’t be sustained, there may develop an unhappy dilemma. Sometimes this includes entering into relationships that meet some needs, but which involve excluding other current or new relationships: relationships that would meet other important needs. Sometimes this involves self-medication or thrill-seeking behavior.

To understand what is happening, we can apply the two main concepts from Information Dynamics: the nature of Information, and the nature of an Information Flow. An individual will seek to create information and to expand their body of knowledge, and so will internalize cooperation within their own self until their situation enables this expansion. They will have several Intentions associated with this expansion, but there will always be some degree of a lack of clarity about these intentions, due to Noise.

Always, as you will see, some Intentions will be in conflict with others. Various Intentions have more or less Potential, and more or less Uncertainty, depending on the person’s self-perceived ability to realize these intentions. Their uncertainties are about whether they have the resources or the capabilities to realize intentions, how quickly these Intentions might be realized, and whether other people in their various relationships will help them. Will they cooperate, or will the Intentions relevant to these relationships increase conflict instead? Bottom line, an individual is (constantly) balancing their own internal cooperation and conflict about their Intentions, and has some degree of lack of clarity about these intentions, due to Noise, of which Uncertainty is an important component.

Guess what? It’s much more complex than this (I think you knew that), and the complexity is mostly due the interaction of the individual with many others and often dynamically involves the person’s state of health. This book explores the interactions with others, relationships of several types, in a natural context called Levels of Spheres. This book explores each of these spherical levels, and how interactions change at each level.

Vast amounts of information are being received and processed in the context of these relationships and the context of relevant knowledge-sets and rule-sets. Relationships, knowledge-sets and rule-sets interact with a person’s awareness of their own Intentions, their internal cooperation-conflict dilemma, and their awareness and uncertainty about the flood of information they are receiving, both consciously and unconsciously. People are all born into situations of becoming exposed to and trained in particular knowledge-sets and rule-sets, and most are encouraged by their parents or guardians to understand and apply these in their lives and relationships, and to increase bodies of knowledge within and without.

People are both self-motivated and encouraged by others throughout their lives to increase knowledge on a personal level and also to increase knowledge by distributing their information to others in various Spheres. However, people are not generally encouraged to change the rules, for these rules were created with love and the best of intentions. Rules are created to prevent miscommunication about knowledge and agreements, to prevent actions that violate agreements, and to prevent Intentions which conflict with currently held beliefs from creating conflict. In other words, rules are created to help people collaborate and cooperate, and to help individuals pursue happiness. Rules interact with a person’s Intentions and have more significant roles and interaction at each successive spherical level.
The rules change anyway, all the time, and legions of people are actively engaged in both enforcement of existing rule-sets, and changes of rule-sets, through interpretation of traditions and oft-competing “guiding principles” of politics, religion, economics, art, other humanities, and science, and of course in the face of expanding information.

An individual soon realizes this is a very complex game – be happy, work to increase knowledge and resources, and be cooperative and compliant with rules, which are changing all the time. People soon realize they don’t have access to all the knowledge either, and not just by choice or because the volume of information is so overwhelming today. Much of the most valuable information is guarded by various hierarchies, who work diligently to fight the physical nature of information: information must expand in distribution as well as quantity. Open-source software projects are a great example of large numbers of people collaborating in a non-hierarchical fashion to distribute an information package in an open-access manner, and fight those who would keep the knowledge to themselves.

Some people play this utmost complex game of life by choosing to specialize in certain portions of the knowledge set. Some choose to facilitate other people in their health and happiness, and grow knowledge in these domains. Some choose to focus on exchanging information with other people, or focus on the expansion of information via reproduction: creating and/or facilitating new instances/engines of information, our dearly loved and encouraged children. Some choose to enforce or change the rules-sets in which the knowledge-sets are embedded and nurtured. Some choose, or are forced, to focus mostly on resources, as well as the related knowledge and rules about protecting, increasing, exchanging, or receiving resources of various types. Some try to have multiple complex Intentions across many of these domains, and then life is all about finding a reasonable equilibrium between all these intentions and the conflict which accompanies them.

Its important to note that there is always a balance between cooperation and conflict, due to the physical nature of Information: there must always be some Noise in balance with Intention and Transmission Speed. Therefore, its impossible to communicate or realize an Intention without creating some conflict with someone, some group, or with one of your other Intentions. However, a sometimes subtle aspect of conflict is that it always presents an opportunity to create more cooperation and new agreements; therefore, careful management of conflict is an important aspect to consider when a person is striving to realize their Intentions: conflict is a necessary element in reducing uncertainty about the truth of an Intention and whether it can be realized, and what impact this realization will have on other Intentions.

Is it possible for a person to be Open and Honest with their self? People have some Intentions which create feelings of guilt, lack of self-discipline, and sometimes lack of self-worth. It may be an Intention which is simply at odds with other Intentions, because it takes time away from devotion to those which the person feels are more important, or feels should be: work of some sort, time with loved ones, etc. Yet, it is a need, passion or a guilty pleasure of some kind in which the person feels compelled to indulge. Guilt can be entirely self-generated or can be received as information from someone who represents pre-existing beliefs, someone with whom there exists an agreement or obligation, or someone is a rule-maker in one of their spheres. If self-generated, guilt stems from a lack of openness and clarity within, about the inventory if you would, of all conscious Intentions and their relative importance: somehow the person has de-valued an Intention that is important as evidenced by its compelling nature. It may be an important Intention to realize, or it may be important from a self-awareness perspective: what does it mean, how was it created, and how does it affect other Intentions? However, just because an Intention has some importance at a given moment doesn’t necessarily mean that it won’t be discarded after the person evaluates it or experiments with it.

Being Open means creating maximal awareness and understanding of the Intentions in one’s inventory, and in acquiring and creating new knowledge and intentions. Being Honest means consciously evaluating new information and intentions, and acknowledging the relative importance or Potential of each Intention, its uncertainty, and its affects on other Intentions. Respect for one’s self is necessary in this endeavor: an open and honest assessment of intentions, some of which are symbiotic and some of which are in conflict, implies a willingness to have enough Respect for one’s self to complete this inventory without fear. Fear, uncertainty and self-generated guilt are much of the Noise which oppose self-respect, but this respect is fundamentally needed to first acknowledge the existence of a wide variety of Intentions in the first place, and second rationally explore their importance, potential for realization, and the potential for conflict. Many people meditate or pray and create much self-awareness and self-respect. Creating happiness though, that takes a bit more effort! Some intentions will be rather singular, even if they involve other people, such as expressing a need to climb a mountain or achieve some other specific experience. Other intentions may involve or impact existing relationships, and may or may not create conflict in the end, although of course there will be some level of conflict while these relationships are engaged in communication about the intention and mutual evaluation of potential impacts.

When we discuss the Second Sphere, it will be obvious that communicating any new Intention to another person, by the physical nature of an Information Flow, will create some level of immediate conflict due to Noise: upon receiving the Information, the other person simply won’t initially understand the scope, breadth, or importance of the Intention; the level of uncertainty involved; the speed by which the person intends to realize the intention; whether or how much help the person will need from others (and which others); and the level of resources intended to be committed. They won’t initially understand the Uncertainty the person has about the Intention at hand, and this uncertainty is immediately contributing to the Noise the recipient experiences. So much is involved in any Intention and therefore also Noise and Uncertainty, its practically impossible for a person to be immediately and thoroughly crystal clear in communicating it to another person. Unless it’s a very simple one, having a common meaning and widespread experience in the higher spheres, such as: “I think I’ll order a burger.” Such is the nature of information, as described by the children’s Telephone game.

Creating happiness, in such simple things as satisfying a craving for a burger and in more complicated things such as writing the Great American Novel, require a person to be Generous to their self: to take the time to be Open, Honest, and Respectful to their self, to take the time to acknowledge the existence of the Intention, assess its Potential, and consider the Noise and Uncertainty which will accompany the endeavor. To be Generous in allocating time and resources to realization of the Intention. And finally, making a Commitment to execute the realization: doing all which is necessary to bring it to fruition or at least make a good-faith attempt. All of this must be done in well-considered balance: management of Noise, Uncertainty, and conflict with other Intentions. Its not easy to be truly happy, especially when there are many Intentions and there is much Noise, Uncertainty, and conflict. Ascetics try to accomplish this by reducing the number of their Intentions to a very, very few; by working diligently on creating the self-discipline to reject out-of-hand any new intentions which might create conflict, while still maintaining Openness and Honesty and Respect with their self for the existence of these new intentions, however short-lived. Is being an Ascetic the only way to be happy? Hopefully not, hopefully we can use Information Dynamic techniques to create clarity and reduce conflict.

Now, we have introduced the key components of any relationship. Its an interesting notion, in this First Sphere, that a person is having an internal Information Flow: being aware of communications within the Self, aware of the relationship of the person’s varied Intentions in their integrated Self. The common expression, “Love yourself”, summarizes this notion well, and love does, at a fundamental level, mean a relationship is at hand. Information Dynamics actually establishes a rational way to define Love, and a way to explore what it really means in its simplicity. Just because this definition may be a bit dry, complex, and scientific doesn’t mean the definition is not romantic, for the attributes of this definition are, as any romantic person would agree, what a romantic relationship is all about. If there is to be an enduring relationship, especially within the Self, there must be an alignment of Intentions, timely information exchange, and active reduction of Noise: degrees of Openness, Honesty, Respect, Generosity, and Commitment are truly the attributes of a relationship, and are also the attributes of Love, now by definition. Each of these attributes of an Information Flow has great influence on the communications within the Self and between people, their Information Dynamics. We will return to the First Sphere later. We will explore ways to improve the Potential of our Intentions. We will explore ways to discover ways which are new or lost to our body of knowledge. We will explore ways to de-conflict Intentions, and reduce Noise and Uncertainty, all to improve the chances our Intentions may be realized and benefit ourselves, our loved ones, and the world. At that time, we will consider existing technologies of Information Dynamics, which have been designed, intuited, or empirically observed to be successful in improving the dynamics of the First Sphere. We will discuss why some technologies that people claim to work are rarely successful for many individuals. We will also discuss the potential to create new (or re-discover lost) technologies from application of the principles and mathematics of Information Dynamics, which may be substantially more powerful and effective than anything else in our current knowledge-set or rule-set.

This study of Information Dynamics is an exploration of Truth, there will be no dogma or unfounded claims herein, no agenda other than to seek Truth. This presents an opportunity to discuss the true nature of morality. In reviewing the discussion of the First Sphere, one finds the essence of moral behavior with respect to the Self: it is simply to seek Truth. This is the absolute sense of morality: to continuously examine one’s Intentions and be Open, Honest and Respectful to one’s Self; to be Generous to one’s self in creating the capacity to be happy; and hold the Commitment necessary to realize those Intentions which create happiness. Really, in the end, to love one’s Self enough to be truly happy. Each intention realized will expand one’s personal contribution to the increase of information, by definition, or to quote the obvious: what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. We change ourselves for the better with each intention realized: we understand ourselves, others, and the world more completely than before; and we even create biological changes within, which make it easier to realize the Intention at hand both in the present and in the future. After all, its Why We are Here.

Second Sphere (for all)

Two individuals create the next spherical level of Information Dynamics, the Second Sphere. Many characteristics of this dynamic apply to two individuals communicating with each other, regardless of species. Many of us are cat, dog, ferret, turtle, or whichever kind of pet people, and we intuitively understand there is quite a bit of fairly sophisticated communication happening between persons and individual members of different species. Many of us have observed the interaction of animals within the same species, or between species, and intuitively understand there is quite a bit of fairly sophisticated communication happening between these individuals. Of course, communication between people is by far the most interesting to us. But as you read the rest of the information here about the Second Sphere, please consider how it extends to these other cases.

A discussion about the communication between two people must begin with a discussion of the modes of communication – all the channels by which people are communicating. Communication between two people has by far the highest number of different modes compared to communication at other spherical levels. The high number of modes is due to 1) the proximity or physical closeness of the individuals, 2) the focus or concentration of each on the other and the dynamics of their interactions, and 3) the uncertainty of the status of the relationship from several perspectives, including whether or how long the relationship will endure. It turns out that all three of these matters factor into the number and types of communication modes in play at any given moment. Most of the modes in play are derived from our more primitive ancestry, which we have observed when we notice or study how other species communicate.

Communication at its most fundamental level is simply: an Intention is created, and a message is emitted that distributes the information to recipients, intended or otherwise.

Most of us casually think of communication as a process by which we exchange information that we wish (actively intend) to exchange, like making a phone call or striking up a conversation. However, there is quite a bit of complex activity that is also involved in detecting and exploiting signals which weren’t intended for the detector. Human technology aside, in the Second Sphere, rich communications whether intended or not are happening on many biological modes: these modes and messages are much more important to our lives, relationships and happiness than present technology.

Predator-prey Example (semi-technical)

To examine how so many communication modes have developed, let’s consider what is happening between two individuals, in a proximate limited distance between them. Consider the predator-prey relationship, for example. There may be a certain chemical emitted by prey that signals their presence to the predator, and variations in the strength or concentration of the chemical may indicate the direction a predator should expect the prey to arrive from, or should track to find the prey. There may be a certain chemical involved in a predator’s bodily preparations for an attack. It could emitted by neurons as a result of signals to muscles, which include the chemical hops from neuron to neuron. It could be emitted by organs, to change hormone levels in order to make ready the energy needed to execute an attack. It could be emitted from tissues as an active ingredient or a by-product of cellular responses to hormones in tissues. This chemical emission is likely accompanied by a change in electromagnetic field levels, because the complexity of these processes are very intertwined.

Over time, the prey species will evolve an ability to sense the presence or proximity of a predator. The individuals of a prey species will develop an Intention to respond with some life-saving strategy which in turn will create and emit chemicals, and which will create and emit electromagnetic fields. They may adapt to develop more sophisticated sensory modes, such as sensitive chemical receptors, hearing at certain frequencies, other ways of receiving electromagnetic signals on different frequencies, sharp or low-light eyesight, etc. Predators will evolve more sophistication in response, and so an evolutionary cycle unfolds.

Old and New Modes (for all)

The primitive communication modes and the sophisticated modes continue to operate as evolution takes place: the old modes aren’t just switched off when a new one develops. The older modes continue to provide additional information, while the individual evolves to pay more attention to the newer modes which are richer in content and complexity. They may even develop filters of some kind, to promote attention to the new modes and demote the old modes, but these filters are also created with a kind of alarm system that immediately promotes attention when the old modes are transmitting particularly compelling information. Now, new modes are always much more relevant to the active conscious, but information from the old modes is still being processed; that is, until the old modes just aren’t relevant at all, and are finally turned off. Perhaps the turned-off modes compose some of the truly junk DNA.

Two People (for all)

When two people meet, they are immediately communicating on a multi-modal basis. There is immediate context for communications: the Intentions, knowledge-sets, and rule-sets which they have in common, and those which are not in common. Initially, there will be communication to determine how much overlap exists between them in Intention, knowledge-sets and rule-sets. People find it very exciting to find commonality with other individuals in abstract and macroscopic attributes, as well as in specific and microscopic attributes. For example, two people may be excited to find they both went to the same school, or do the same type of work, belong to the same religion, like the color blue, think preserving the environment is important enough to take action, prefer exceptional cooking of a special type, or enjoy the paintings or music of an obscure and uncommonly known artist. People do many conscious things to signal their macro and micro attributes in order to determine their mutual context and facilitate communications, whether these are people with whom they are in established relationships, or are new people who are more likely than others to be interested in establishing a relationship.

The conscious communications are very important to us all. If people have choices within the framework of their economic situation or governing rule-set, they will signal their current state in many ways: become educated in a particular knowledge-set, dress a certain way, live in certain types of housing or geographic location, drive a kind of car (perhaps with certain symbols or stickers), use communication devices of sorts, wear kinds of jewelry or labels, attend certain services or sporting events, have their children attend certain schools, consume specific foods, subscribe or attend to certain art/music forms and forums, and the list goes on. There also may be preliminary introductions to others, involving certain traditions or manners to communicate their current state, whether through family, other people or a service of some kind.

For two people, the less-noticed communications are very important as well, via the many modes inherited from our predecessors. Some of these are discernable with training or education in the “language” of specific modes, such as body language. Professional gamblers and other endeavors depend on communication in these modes. Other individuals are gifted or trained with capabilities to discern some modes which are difficult to notice, in which many people simply don’t believe exist, such as electromagnetic auras. These days, the best way to describe the collection of obvious and non-obvious primitive modes is: Intuition. We all can relate to the experience of having received more information from a person than was presented or offered by the person. Hopefully in the future, we will use the principles and mathematics of Information Dynamics to conduct experiments that establish exactly which of the less-noticed modes are operational, how these operate, the kinds of information we are receiving in each mode, and what the signals mean. In the meantime, let’s explore the types of relationships that two people create, the variations in the Second Sphere. We will explore these relationships, taking into account high-order communication as well as Intuition. We will explore the physical nature of Information, that it must increase, and how the dynamic equilibrium of Intention, Transmission speed, and Noise together predict whether two-person relationships will be established or not, succeed temporarily or endure, or fail.

Strangers. When strangers meet, people take note of each other’s manner of bearing, dress, and expressions of fashion. If not introduced, there will be some reading of body language, conduct or eye-contact to determine whether there may be further interaction, or even a mutual affinity of their attributes. One of the two persons may create a singular or unilateral Intention that there will be some interaction, and initiate verbal or non-verbal interaction. Whether they have common language or not, next they will explore whether there will be more extensive communication and interaction. Its very likely that the context of each person’s rule-sets will immediately engage about whether both people believe it is appropriate for them to have any further interaction.

Its important to cover these initial steps, because it is our common experience that most people choose not to interact with many others for many reasons, and so most Stranger contact results in no further communication beyond noticing each other initially. There are several kinds of cases where communication or interaction continues. A common case is when people meet through an obligation of their family, church, social group, employment, education or residence. These are all larger levels beyond the Second Sphere. Sometimes people meeting this way decide there is value in establishing at least a temporary relationship. Another unfortunately too-common case is when one or both people may have immediately determined their attributes are in conflict: one or both are threatened, offended, or one decides to opportunistically prey on the other, and therefore intend to engage in violence or abuse.

In another case, it may be that the persons’ respective rule-sets would normally be expected to be in conflict, but one or both choose to suspend the rule-set that would normally preclude further interaction, and so a dialogue begins. Sometimes, the pair feels mutual affinity, and wish to engage in enjoying each others’ company or information exchange for a temporary period. Other times, the pair feels mutual affinity and wish to explore a more enduring type of relationship.

If a dialogue begins, then so does a relationship, by definition, whether it is temporary or more enduring. There may be no initial intention on either part to create an enduring relationship, but occasionally one of the persons intends to create an enduring relationship from the start for reasons that may be new or pre-existing Intentions. We will discuss the role of Intention and Noise in the case of the Strangers; however, its important to note that in a meeting of Strangers, the influence of Transmission speed on the Information Flow is not very relevant: communications are nearly instantaneous.

The relationship of Strangers is an important type of relationship for many reasons. Information must increase in quantity, concentration, complexity, and distribution. The interaction of strangers is one of the most frequent and primary mechanisms for increases in Information. When Strangers meet for the first time, there will be some exchange of their respective knowledge-sets, most commonly via stories told of their current situation, or past experiences, studies, or traditions. Often, the differences revealed from each others’ perspective of a belief, situation, experience or issue create a very rich exchange: 1) one or both may be informed of aspects of the matter that they didn’t know, 2) each may have begun the conversation believing they had a common perspective only to find out they don’t agree on what is the “truth”; 3) vice-versa, they build consensus and agree on a common truth (whether it is actually true or not); or 4) one or both may realize their perspectives are so different that their prior inclination for dialogue was untenable, and the relationship should not proceed. Regardless, one or both will likely have changed their knowledge-set in the exchange, and this will be further propagated to their relationships with other people, new and old relationships. Information will have increased in a very dynamic way, and will continue to flow in a ripple through various communities in many directions.

Each time Strangers meet, there is likely to be an impact on rule-sets too, although its important to remember that because people are not encouraged to change the rules: there is always some level of reticence, resistance or inertia in these changes. Because knowledge-sets are usually packaged with rule-sets, the exchange of knowledge between Strangers does have an overall tendency to create adjustments in a person’s rule-set, sometimes major, sometimes minor, depending on the knowledge. It also depends on whether the particular rule-set in question is an important aspect of binding relationships at higher Sphere levels – those are particularly rigid.

For example, the knowledge exchanged may be on the order of an Ah-Ha!, such as realizing a technology has the potential to save thousands of lives, but certain rules must be dramatically changed. A good example is the shift in the 1950s from pilots using Visual Flight Rules: until a mid-air collision of airliners in the U.S. killed over a hundred people, pilots would fly from point A to point B with limited technology to avoid other aircraft: their eyes. Subsequently, the FAA was established to create air corridors, deploy radar and communication devices, and regulate the take-off, altitude, speed, direction, and landing of aircraft with Instrument Flight Rules. In ensuing years, other nations absorbed this information, began to change their rules as well, and an International organization was established to establish standards for aviation knowledge-sets and rule-sets, and to negotiate or manage changes to these standards. This example is actually of changes in rule-sets at the Seventh Sphere Level, but is a good analogy.

At the Second Sphere Level, with a Stranger, the new knowledge may be learning that a particular book or music is appealing and enjoyable in the company of the other person, and that prior conceptions (rules) that the genre of the book or music is unappealing (or even forbidden) were false. What is special about the Stranger? Overall, there is limited insight into the other person’s rule-set, and therefore optimism that the new knowledge was received without a rules-oriented or resource-oriented agenda. The Stranger presents information from a fresh perspective, and perhaps is received with less skepticism about whether the person is presenting true information (truth). After all, if the relationship is temporary and no future advantage might be achieved in sharing it (the information is free), then the recipient internally calculates there is low probability the Stranger is presenting false information. The same calculation is embedded in the law that allows a dying person’s testimony to be admitted as evidence in court.

At this point, we must return to the role of Intuition in the rich, multi-modal communications between two people. In the conversation of Strangers in close proximity, the verbal mode, eye contact mode, and other body language modes are perceived directly and simultaneously. The Strangers are constantly making efforts to resolve questions about whether the information exchanged verbally is presented as true and in good faith, about whether the recipients believe the information is true, regardless of their prior knowledge. If it is new information, then the recipient uses all modes to determine if there are conflicting signals (is the person honest?). There are more modes in play as well, the primitive modes of our ancestors: people rely on their Intuition to make assessments about whether the new information is true, especially when engaged with a Stranger, so their sensation of being more actively engaged in the information exchange is heightened, because they actually are much more engaged than normally, and are utilizing much more of their communications capabilities – it is very exciting.

People are also excited about getting the new knowledge, and especially excited if the Stranger has attributes that indicate good potential to convert the temporary relationship to an enduring one. However, if the person’s rule-sets and attributes would normally preclude a temporary or enduring relationship with this particular Stranger, then the person faces conflicting Intentions. Should the relationship be fostered to gain the knowledge, resources, and enjoyment of mutual affinity and experiences with the Stranger, at the expense of conflict with the person’s rule-set and their others who value it? After all, the given rule-set was likely created with love and the best of intentions by the other people with whom they have relationships (or their predecessors), to promote those relationships. This is the classic Romeo-Juliet conflict, although the context of the Strangers’ dynamic cooperation-conflict equilibrium need not be romantic, it could be political, religious, cultural, or economic.

The rule-set in question is now creating Noise in the relationship of the Strangers. How will the person now having conflicting Intentions explain the rule-set to the Stranger, how they value it, and why it has created conflict? How will they explain the other relationships are valued so highly as to prejudice or jeopardize the relationship between the Strangers, and threaten its endurance? It won’t be easy to explain to the Stranger that, while the person is interested in an enduring relationship with them, this relationship might be less important than other relationships or something as abstract as a rule-set (which the other doesn’t believe is true). Especially when knowledge has just been exchanged, mutual affinity is established, there is potential for an enduring relationship. If both agree the relationship has potential, then now both people also agree the rule-set creating conflict is really not relevant to their Second Sphere in an abstract or temporary sense, but is only relevant to the higher Sphere level relationships of the person having the conflict, and the endurance of this new Second Sphere.

When a person meets a Stranger, they might be more Open and Honest than they are in their current relationships, especially if they tend to be insecure in these relationships. They might express a certain set of their Intentions to a Stranger, yet make efforts to hide others. Its possible the Intentions expressed with Strangers are some of those held in reserve in their current relationships. But with a Stranger, there may not be much thought given initially to the potential for an enduring relationship, especially when there aren’t resource exchanges at hand. So, the person may not feel threatened by the Stranger’s Judgment of their views; if the Stranger doesn’t like what the person says and nothing else is at stake, then the person can simply disengage.

If each has limited insight into the other’s rule-set, or don’t really care because the relationship is temporary, then each may be likely to show more Respect for the other. For example, tolerating an outburst or outpouring of emotion, because there is uncertainty about whether it is an important instance or on the other hand is a recurring instability; tolerating a viewpoint with which there isn’t agreement (yet), and tolerating the attendant company of others: the Stranger’s family or friends with whom the person feels no affinity (but may in the future). Strangers are also likely to be Generous initially, to show they are rather unconditionally interested in the other person, and possibly the potential of the relationship to convert from temporary to enduring. For example: sharing a table, giving a welcome basket or small gift, buying a drink, inviting the Stranger to a gathering or party, or offering dinner at their home. The relationship with the Stranger has one unique quality: there is no Commitment, unless both agree there is potential to convert the relationship from temporary to enduring, but they really only have to commit to continuing to communicate with each other, or meet again in the future.

Now, we’ve revisited the role of the important attributes of a relationship in the context of the Stranger which are established by the physical nature of Information and Information Flows: Openness, Honesty, Respect, Generosity, and Commitment. Again, by definition now, these are attributes of Love, so we can rationally explore how Strangers may love each other, how people are intuitively driven to show kindnesses to each other (and animals). The romantic case aside, for which there is so much literature and theater, we intuitively know this is Truth. If we apply Information Dynamics, we no longer need an abstract concept of love or an explanation via metaphysics. We don’t need to view the kindness or more intense love of strangers to be a random or romantic special case, or to require a leap of faith: there is a clear way to understand how we love people we don’t even know.

Now there’s a concept worth a bit of mathematical or theoretical exploration, don’t you think? Also, this is not a special case of the Second Sphere; later, we will discuss how this phenomena occurs at higher spherical levels, and how those levels have positive or reinforcing Information Flows to Second Sphere relationships, even those of Strangers. Of course, the reverse is also true: the higher order spheres tend to influence immediate and sometimes dangerous conflict between Strangers, for which reasons we will find are also rational, but in the end, tragically unnecessary and hopefully, may be overcome.