[Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
Bruno Marchal
marchal at ulb.ac.be
Tue Nov 15 16:20:45 CET 2016
On 13 Nov 2016, at 10:48, Andrei Khrennikov wrote:
> 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....
Bell's inequality shows only indeterminacy and non-locality in the
Mono-world QM theory. I have shown that local and deterministic
Mechanism (simple Descartes Mechanist hypothesis in cognitive science)
implies the *appearance* of non-locality and indeterminacy, and this
before I knew anything about QM. QM without collapse (non-copenhague
theory) confirms Descartes' Mechanism (in cognitive science, not in
physics).
The indeterminacy and non-locality are an appearance emerging from our
abstraction with respect to the many computations, which can be proved
to exist from the universally accepted assumption of elementary
arithmetic.
You are logically valid in QM + the assumption of a unique reality,
which needs the assumption that brain are not Turing emulable. But
that seems to me quite speculative and almost like an ad hoc
assumption to avoid the computationalist solution of the mind-body
problem. Better to continue the testing and abandon Mechanism only
when we find good evidences against it, I think.
Bruno
>
> 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
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
More information about the Fis
mailing list