Dear all,
I think that Wheeler's "it from bit" was the great step in physics, it was the 
basis of modern information interpretations 
of QM, due to Zeilinger and Brukner, and Quantum subjective probability 
interpretation of QM, QBism of Fuchs.
yours, andrei

Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of Applied Mathematics,
International Center for Mathematical Modeling
in Physics, Engineering, Economics, and Cognitive Science
Linnaeus University, Växjö-Kalmar, Sweden
________________________________________
From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Marcus Abundis 
[55m...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 4:37 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] It-from-Bit and the TAO

>From Pedro's post of: Fri Jun 26 14:39:52 CEST 2015

>it is nice returning to the main discussion topic . . . <
Am I out of step, did I miss a topic chance? I thought the discussion topic was 
still "Four Domains"


Re Xueshan's post of: Tue Jun 23 05:10:30 CEST 2015

>So far, on the argument of “It from Bit”, we can not prove it is correct, but 
>can not prove it is wrong too.<
I argue “It from Bit,” if taken literally, is patently wrong in claiming to 
present ANY information. To even raise to the level of presenting some type of 
entropic value it would at least need to be "It from BitS" (but it is not 
framed so). . . and a close reading of Wheeler's writing shows his mention of 
"bits" and he never(?) references a naked "bit" as having informational value. 
Further, he notes "the posing of yes–no questions" and that this is equivalent 
to "a participatory universe". So, who or what is formulating and then asking 
these universal questions, and what is the point or cause of those questions?! 
This is Krassimir's inferred God, from the earlier posting, is it not?

To my eye "It from Bit" is a step backwards, and further muddies the waters, as 
the author did not clearly frame his true meaning in this too simplistic 
phrasing – leading to misinterpretations, etc.. This is the same "muddy 
problem" (but now made worse) in the earlier noted "bizarre and unsatisfying" 
use of the term information in Shannon-Weaver.

The whole matter of referencing the Tao in tandem with It for Bit I find odd. I 
recall from my own studies that "The Tao that can be named is not the true 
Tao." So, to take a purely(?) mystical notion and then to try to overlay or 
relate that notion to information . . . just don't see how that would fit. At 
best I would see an encounter with the Tao as an encounter with Kantian like 
noumena.

My thoughts, for what they are worth . . .


<http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig>

Marcus Abundis
about.me/marcus.abundis








_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to