On 14 Nov 2016, at 09:59, Joseph Brenner wrote:
Dear All,
It is fascinating to watch the evolution of ideas about information
as a function of some new theories which beg for critique:
1. Andrei gives a correct explanation of the origin of Irreducible
Quantum Randomness. In my opinion, however, it is not necessary to
assume that randomness at the quantum level has the properties of
APPARENT randomness at the cognitive level, that is, apparent free
will.
I completely agree with this. Free will actually needs determinacy,
indeed self-determinacy.
Any cognitive equivalent of non-locality is a cognitive projection.
The appearance of basic physical indeterminacy has to be, and actually
is, explainable in terms of arithmetical self-reference.
The physical is emergent from the first person interference of
infinities of computations going through our states.
2. Karl returns to a Platonic world of numbers which are causally
effective. I think the appropriate term for this approach is pre-
scientific.
I would side on Karl about this. We teach in secondary school (12 to
16 years old) the intended number theoretical content of the following
first order arithmetical formula since a long time:
0 ≠ (x + 1)
((x + 1) = (y + 1)) -> x = y
x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1
x * 0 = 0
x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x
x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)
and I have never heard any parent taking their kids out of the school
when their kids are taught that the arithmetical proposition are
either true or false. We do have an intuition about 0, 1, 2, ..., and
believe the induction axioms applies on the iterated constructions.
Then not well known fact is that if we assume computationalism, in the
non constructive sense of accepting a brain transplant for *some*
level of description, we have to extract physics (but not our relative
geography) from number self-references.
It is the belief in some primary physical universe which is pre-
scientific, in that setting. To invoke a physical universe to select a
computation among the infinitely many one which exist cannot work. All
computations participate, and indeed statistically interfere, and the
"winners" are those who multiplied in the continuum. This needs an
understanding of the seven first steps of the Universal Dovetailer
Argument/Paradox.
3. Alex sees the same form of causal effectiveness in Fisher
information, as interpreted by Frieden. A critique exists of
Frieden's inventions which seems correct to me. The new concepts
(e.g. "bound information") and gaps in Frieden's theory are exactly
those which can be filled with the real dynamic properties of energy/
information. The discussion of these is far from exhausted.
As an inhabitant of space-time, I am glad that it does not seem to
require any of the entities of theories 2. and 3. as its BASIS. If
it did, I might not exist.
You exist, but might not be what you thought you are. In the Digital
Mechanist theory you are a universal person indexically lost in a
present interval distributed in a labyrinth of "dreams". It has the
strong evidence the dreams cohere enough to say hello to itself and
share experiences.
Technically the correct theology of the ideally correct universal
number is quite close to Moderatus of Gades and Plotinus. Those are
platonist theories in the sense they don't take matter as primary. But
intuitively it is close to Sri Aurobindo following quote:
Computationalism makes big chapter of machine/number theology once we
take seriously Church thesis and the level-variable choice of
functional substitution in brain operation.
I am not saying that Digital Mechanism is true, nor that I like it or
anything. Just that Digital Mechanism entails a non Digital physics
and a non digital science of the persons, but the physical,
sensible, ... realities are in the head of the universal numbers. That
does not prevent them to obey laws, and indeed they do, and compared
to observation, thanks to quantum mechanics, it fits very well.
The universal machine already know it has a soul, and that its soul is
not a machine, nor is its body. This is a theorem in computer science,
once accepting classical definitions already suggested by antic
greeks. I can provide all the references.
Best,
Bruno
Best wishes,
Joseph
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Khrennikov" <andrei.khrenni...@lnu.se
>
To: "'FIS Webinar'" <Fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
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....
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-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of John Collier [colli...@ukzn.ac.za
]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:19 PM
To: l...@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-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet
Leydesdorff
Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2016 9:29 PM
To: 'Alex Hankey' <alexhan...@gmail.com>; 'FIS Webinar' <Fis@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)
l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@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:alexhan...@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 <l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@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@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@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@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
