Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM
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
Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM
Dear Marcus, Thank you for this simple and absolutely essential intervention. Allowing ourselves the freedom to use the same term—'information' which is the defining term for this entire enterprise—for such different relationships as intrinsic signal properties and extrinsic referential and normative properties is a recipe for irrelevance. — Terry On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear Marcus and colleagues, Katherine Hayles (1990, pp. 59f.) compared this discussion about the definition of “information” with asking whether a glass is half empty or half full. Shannon-type information is a measure of the variation or uncertainty, whereas Bateson’s “difference which makes a difference” presumes a system of reference for which the information can make a difference and thus be meaningful. In my opinion, the advantage of measuring uncertainty in bits cannot be underestimated, since the operationalization and the measurement provide avenues to hypothesis testing and thus control of speculation (Theil, 1972). However, the semantic confusion can also be solved by using the words “uncertainty” or “probabilistic entropy” when Shannon-type information is meant. I note that “a difference which makes a difference” cannot so easily be measured. J I agree that it is more precise to speak of “meaningful information” in that case. The meaning has to be specified in the system of reference (e.g., physics and/or biology). Best, Loet References: Hayles, N. K. (1990). *Chaos Bound; Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science *Ithaca, etc.: Cornell University. Theil, H. (1972). *Statistical Decomposition Analysis*. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. -- Loet Leydesdorff *Emeritus* University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, 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.htmlBeijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Marcus Abundis *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2015 7:02 PM *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es *Subject:* [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM Dear Andrei, 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. Thanks. *Marcus Abundis* about.me/marcus.abundis [image: http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png] ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM
Dear folks, I believe that information in itself must be interpreted, and is not, therefore intrinsically meaningful. The addition requires, I think, semiotics. Without that there are mere mechanical relations, and at best codes that translate one domain to another without understanding or integration required. I also see no reason that Bateson’s difference that makes a difference needs to involve meaning at either end. He did not add makes a difference “to something about something”. He just talked about making a difference. Best not to over-interpret. I think that to ignore this distinction does a great disservice to information theory by glossing over a problem that any information processing system needs to deal with if it is to achieve meaning. John From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: June 26, 2015 7:34 PM To: 'Marcus Abundis'; 'fis' Subject: Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM Dear Marcus and colleagues, Katherine Hayles (1990, pp. 59f.) compared this discussion about the definition of “information” with asking whether a glass is half empty or half full. Shannon-type information is a measure of the variation or uncertainty, whereas Bateson’s “difference which makes a difference” presumes a system of reference for which the information can make a difference and thus be meaningful. In my opinion, the advantage of measuring uncertainty in bits cannot be underestimated, since the operationalization and the measurement provide avenues to hypothesis testing and thus control of speculation (Theil, 1972). However, the semantic confusion can also be solved by using the words “uncertainty” or “probabilistic entropy” when Shannon-type information is meant. I note that “a difference which makes a difference” cannot so easily be measured. ☺ I agree that it is more precise to speak of “meaningful information” in that case. The meaning has to be specified in the system of reference (e.g., physics and/or biology). Best, Loet References: Hayles, N. K. (1990). Chaos Bound; Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science Ithaca, etc.: Cornell University. Theil, H. (1972). Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, 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, Birkbeckhttp://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Marcus Abundis Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:02 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM Dear Andrei, 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. Thanks. Marcus Abundis about.me/marcus.abundis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] QM and information
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
