[Fis] Fw: Is quantum information the basis of spacetime? Some New Theories
Bruno Marchal
marchal at ulb.ac.be
Mon Dec 12 18:56:10 CET 2016
On 14 Nov 2016, at 09:59, Joseph Brenner wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> It is fascinating to watch the evolution of ideas about information
> as a function of some new theories which beg for critique:
>
> 1. Andrei gives a correct explanation of the origin of Irreducible
> Quantum Randomness. In my opinion, however, it is not necessary to
> assume that randomness at the quantum level has the properties of
> APPARENT randomness at the cognitive level, that is, apparent free
> will.
I completely agree with this. Free will actually needs determinacy,
indeed self-determinacy.
> Any cognitive equivalent of non-locality is a cognitive projection.
The appearance of basic physical indeterminacy has to be, and actually
is, explainable in terms of arithmetical self-reference.
The physical is emergent from the first person interference of
infinities of computations going through our states.
>
> 2. Karl returns to a Platonic world of numbers which are causally
> effective. I think the appropriate term for this approach is pre-
> scientific.
I would side on Karl about this. We teach in secondary school (12 to
16 years old) the intended number theoretical content of the following
first order arithmetical formula since a long time:
0 ≠ (x + 1)
((x + 1) = (y + 1)) -> x = y
x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1
x * 0 = 0
x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x
x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)
and I have never heard any parent taking their kids out of the school
when their kids are taught that the arithmetical proposition are
either true or false. We do have an intuition about 0, 1, 2, ..., and
believe the induction axioms applies on the iterated constructions.
Then not well known fact is that if we assume computationalism, in the
non constructive sense of accepting a brain transplant for *some*
level of description, we have to extract physics (but not our relative
geography) from number self-references.
It is the belief in some primary physical universe which is pre-
scientific, in that setting. To invoke a physical universe to select a
computation among the infinitely many one which exist cannot work. All
computations participate, and indeed statistically interfere, and the
"winners" are those who multiplied in the continuum. This needs an
understanding of the seven first steps of the Universal Dovetailer
Argument/Paradox.
>
> 3. Alex sees the same form of causal effectiveness in Fisher
> information, as interpreted by Frieden. A critique exists of
> Frieden's inventions which seems correct to me. The new concepts
> (e.g. "bound information") and gaps in Frieden's theory are exactly
> those which can be filled with the real dynamic properties of energy/
> information. The discussion of these is far from exhausted.
>
> As an inhabitant of space-time, I am glad that it does not seem to
> require any of the entities of theories 2. and 3. as its BASIS. If
> it did, I might not exist.
You exist, but might not be what you thought you are. In the Digital
Mechanist theory you are a universal person indexically lost in a
present interval distributed in a labyrinth of "dreams". It has the
strong evidence the dreams cohere enough to say hello to itself and
share experiences.
Technically the correct theology of the ideally correct universal
number is quite close to Moderatus of Gades and Plotinus. Those are
platonist theories in the sense they don't take matter as primary. But
intuitively it is close to Sri Aurobindo following quote:
Computationalism makes big chapter of machine/number theology once we
take seriously Church thesis and the level-variable choice of
functional substitution in brain operation.
I am not saying that Digital Mechanism is true, nor that I like it or
anything. Just that Digital Mechanism entails a non Digital physics
and a non digital science of the persons, but the physical,
sensible, ... realities are in the head of the universal numbers. That
does not prevent them to obey laws, and indeed they do, and compared
to observation, thanks to quantum mechanics, it fits very well.
The universal machine already know it has a soul, and that its soul is
not a machine, nor is its body. This is a theorem in computer science,
once accepting classical definitions already suggested by antic
greeks. I can provide all the references.
Best,
Bruno
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Khrennikov" <andrei.khrennikov at lnu.se
> >
> To: "'FIS Webinar'" <Fis at listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 10:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
>
>
> Dear all,
> I make the last remark about "physical information". The main
> problem of quantum physics is to justify so called
> IRREDUCIBLE QUANTUM RANDOMNESS (IQR). It was invented by von
> Neumann. Quantum randomness, in contrast to classical,
> cannot be reduced to variations in an ensemble. One single electron
> is irreducibly random.
>
> The operational Copenhagen interpretation cannot "explain" the
> origin of IQR, since it does not even try to explain anything,
> "Shut up and calculate!" (R. Feynman to his students). Nevertheless,
> many top experts in QM want some kind of "explanation". The
> informational approach to QM is one
> of such attempts. Roughly speaking, one tries to get IQR from
> fundamental notion of "physical information" as the basic blocks of
> Nature.
>
> This is very important activity, since nowadays IQR has huge
> technological value, the quantum random generators are justified
> through IQR. And this is billion Euro
> project.
>
> Finally, to check experimentally the presence of IQR, we have to
> appeal to violation of Bell's inequality. And here (!!!) to proceed
> we have to accept the existence of
> FREE WILL. Thus finally the cognitive elements appears, but in very
> surprisingly
> setting....
>
> Yours, andrei
>
> Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of Applied Mathematics,
> Int. Center Math Modeling: Physics, Engineering, Economics, and
> Cognitive Sc.
> Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden
> My RECENT BOOKS:
> http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p1036
> http://www.springer.com/in/book/9789401798181
> http://www.panstanford.com/books/9789814411738.html
> http://www.cambridge.org/cr/academic/subjects/physics/econophysics-and-financial-physics/quantum-social-science
> http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642051005
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Fis [fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] on behalf of John Collier [Collierj at ukzn.ac.za
> ]
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:19 PM
> To: loet at leydesdorff.net; 'Alex Hankey'; 'FIS Webinar'
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
>
> More on Quantum information and emergent spacetime, this time by
> Erik P. Verlinde:
> Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe<https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
> >
>
> There is a less formal review at
> http://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html
>
> I consider the idea very speculative, as I have seen no work on
> information within a spacetime boundary except for this sort of work.
>
> Of course, meaning need not apply. I doubt that it is bounded by
> language, but it at least has to be representational. Perhaps more
> is also required. I am reluctant to talk of meaning when discussing
> the semiotics of biological chemicals, for example, but could not
> find a better word. A made up word like Deacon’s “entention”
> might work best, but it still would not apply to the physics cases,
> even though the information in the boundaries in all cases but the
> internal information one can tell you about the spacetime structure
> within the boundary. That seems to me that it is like smoke to fire:
> smoke doesn’t mean fire, despite the connection.
>
> John Collier
> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
> From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet
> Leydesdorff
> Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2016 9:29 PM
> To: 'Alex Hankey' <alexhankey at gmail.com>; 'FIS Webinar' <Fis at listas.unizar.es
> >
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
>
> Dear Alex and colleagues,
>
> Thank you for the reference; but my argument was about “meaning”.
> “Meaning” can only be considered as constructed in language.
> Other uses of the word are metaphorical. For example, the citation
> to Maturana.
>
> Information, in my opinion, can be defined content-free (a la
> Shannon, etc.) and then be provided with meaning in (scholarly)
> discourses. I consider physics as one among other scholarly
> discourses. Specific about physics is perhaps the universalistic
> character of the knowledge claims. For example: “Frieden's points
> apply to quantum physics
> as well as classical physics.“ So what? This seems to me a debate
> within physics without much relevance for non-physicists (e.g.,
> economists or linguists).
>
> Best,
> Loet
>
> ________________________________
> Loet Leydesdorff
> Professor, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
> loet at leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> University
> of Sussex;
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ.<http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html
> > Beijing;
> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of
> London;
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>
> From: Alex Hankey [mailto:alexhankey at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:07 PM
> To: Loet Leydesdorff; FIS Webinar
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
>
> Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues,
>
> Are you aware of Roy Frieden's
> 'Physics from Fisher Information'.
> His book was published in the 1990s.
> I consider it a very powerful statement.
>
> Ultimately everything we can detect at
> both macroscopic and microscopic levels
> depends on information production from
> a quantum level that forms Fisher Information.
>
> Frieden's points apply to quantum physics
> as well as classical physics.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Alex Hankey
>
>
> On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff <loet at leydesdorff.net<mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net
> >> wrote:
> Dear Marcus,
>
> When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one
> must confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the
> living and the physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature.
>
> “Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction
> requires interhuman communication. However, its use in terms of the
> living and/or the physical is metaphorical. Instead of a discourse,
> one can this consider (with Maturana) as a “second-order consensual
> domain” that functions AS a semantic domain without being one;
> Maturana (1978, p. 50):
>
> “In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation
> within a second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer
> as if its nervous system interacted with internal representations of
> the circumstances of its interactions, and as if the changes of
> state of the organism were determined by the semantic value of these
> representations. Yet all that takes place in the operation of the
> nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of changing
> relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal
> network.”
>
> Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an
> explanatory gap. And then, once connected, a further link to "space-
> time" is also easily located . . .
>
> Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of
> going to the phore (that is, language and codification in language)
> leaves one with an explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is
> a highly specialized language in which “mass” and
> “information” are provided with meanings different from classical
> physics.
>
> Best,
> Loet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
> --
> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
> Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
> SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
> Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20161212/7b826c46/attachment.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list