[Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

[John Collier]

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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20161112/a68bdb02/attachment.html>