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 arxiv.org/pdf/1503.02515v1.pdf 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 Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis