On 4 Oct 2017 at 6:01 AM, tozziart...@libero.it <mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>
wrote:
my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
This penetrating statement reminds me of another similar one made by John
Bell in Against Measurement (1990) as saying “On this list of bad words from
good books, the worst of all is ‘measurement’. … In fact the word has had such
a damaging effect on the discussion that I think it should now be banned
altogether in quantum mechanics.” Then, an intriguing sequel to this
declamation is that most practical physicists have seemed to be immune to such
a charge while being committed themselves to the measurement business as usual.
One sympathetic understanding towards those practical physicists comes from
the recent development of QM distinguishing between quantum coherence and
quantum correlation. While quantum coherence is about the superposition of the
states in a given single system on a definite Hilbert space, quantum
correlation is about the correlation between different systems. Measurement is
exclusively for the correlation between the two different systems, in which one
is called a system to be measured and another one is called a measurement
apparatus. The deed of measurement is practiced by the apparatus absorbing the
quantum particles such as photons, electrons, atoms and molecules emitted from
the system in focus.
On the other hand, any theoretical enterprise may be inclined to take the
stance making whatever closed system contrast with a theoretician external to
the system. One exaggerated example is the dichotomy of TOE (theory of
everything) and a committed theoretician sitting outside of the universe (then,
where?). The externalist stance is the rule of conduct adopted for setting only
one system, no matter how big or small it may be, against the concerned
theoretician. No measurement is in need there.
There is no difference between quantum correlation and coherence to the strict
externalist because only one system is allowed there. In contrast, the
difference between the two would become a serious matter to the practicing
physicists paying due attention to the act of measurement. Which stance to take
out of the two of the externalist’s and the internalist’s would be our choice.
Information may also follow suit.
Koichiro Matsuno
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of
tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:01 AM
To: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: [Fis] Heretic
Dear FISers,
After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term
"information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, unique
definition of information.
Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!)
empirical testable prevision able to assess "information".
For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms?
Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian sense.
Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists. Therefore,
my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
It is a waste of your precious time to focus yourself in something that is so
vague. It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is
information, if nobody knows what does it mean.
--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
