Dear Marcus, 

>>    I would ask for clarification on whether you speak of "information" in 
>> your examples as something that has innate "meaning" or something that is 
>> innately >>"meaningless" . . . which has been a core issue in earlier 
>> exchanges. If this issue of "meaning" versus "meaningless" in the use of the 
>> term "information" is not resolved >>(for the group?) it seems hard (to me) 
>> to have truly meaningful exchanges . . . without having to put a 
>> "meaningful" or "meaningless" qualifier in front of "information" >>every 
>> time it is use.
Life is hard... I am afraid that it is impossible to put this qualifier in 
front "information" used in recent information approaches to quantum mechanics. 
For Zeilinger and Brukner (this is my private impression from private 
discussions), information so to say "exists" in nature so to say by itself, it 
seems it is 
"meaningless", however, to apply quantum theory an OBSERVER has to appear at 
the scene, information here is PRIVATE INFORMATION of observer.
The same happens in QBism of Fuchs and Mermin (this is again my private 
impression from private discussions), they start with interpreting the wave 
function as representing 
subjective probability about possible results of measurements, but privately 
they speak about Nature producing chance and hence information.

see also section 3.2, in particular, one 
important citation of Fuchs.

All this can be disappointing, but it works; quantum people want to say: we do 
not know what is information 
but when we get it we immediately understand that this is it. 

yours, andrei
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to