Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
Hello John and other FISers,
Thank you for the link. It's disappointing that the SA article fails to also
describe ground-breaking work by Wheeler and Bekenstein on the subject.
Best regards,
Kevin Clark
California NanoSystems InstituteUniversity of California Los AngelesLos
Angeles, CA 90095, USA
On Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:55 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>
wrote:
#yiv5789374128 #yiv5789374128 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2
4;}#yiv5789374128 filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2
4;}#yiv5789374128 p.yiv5789374128MsoNormal, #yiv5789374128
li.yiv5789374128MsoNormal, #yiv5789374128 div.yiv5789374128MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv5789374128 a:link,
#yiv5789374128 span.yiv5789374128MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5789374128 a:visited,
#yiv5789374128 span.yiv5789374128MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5789374128
span.yiv5789374128EmailStyle17 {color:windowtext;}#yiv5789374128
.yiv5789374128MsoChpDefault {}#yiv5789374128 filtered {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt
72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv5789374128 div.yiv5789374128WordSection1 {}#yiv5789374128
Apparently some physicists think so.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-spacetime/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20161102
John Collier Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy,
University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier
___
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
[Fis] Physics of Computing
Dear FISers: Pedro and Plamen raise good and welcomed points regarding the nature of physics, information, and biology. Although I believe in a strong relationship between information and physics in biology, there are striking examples where direct correspondences between information, physics, and biology seem to depart. Scientists are only beginning to tease out these discrepancies which will undoubtedly give us a better understand of information. For example, in the study of cognition by A. Khrennikov and colleagues and J. Busemyer and colleagues, decisional processes may conform to quantum statistics and computation without necessarily being mediated by quantum mechanical phenomena at a biological level of description. I found this to be true in ciliates as well, where social strategy search speeds and decision rates may produce quantum computational phases that obey quantum statistics. In such cases, a changing classical diffusion term of response regulator reaction-diffusion parsimoniously accounts for the transition from classical to quantum information processing. Thus, there is no direct correspondence between quantum physicochemistry and quantum computation. Because the particular reaction-diffusion biochemistry is not unique to ciliates (i.e., the same phenomena is observed in plants, animals, and possibly bacteria), this incongruity may be widespread across life. Best regards, Kevin Clark___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Physics of Computing
Thank you Gordana for your reply. But I'm not sure whether not you misunderstood my comments about a direct correspondence between information and physics in biology. So, I thought I should stress my point from a slightly different approach. Khrennikov and colleagues, for instance, often refer to their observations as quantum-like. The reasons for doing so are because the quantum computational observations are inherently supported by biological phenomena and concepts in quantum statistical mechanics, but not necessarily a quantum mechanical physical manifestation. I have used the term quantum-like with with several of my own findings. Clearly ciliate decision making is a biological process and, therefore, a natural one. But quantum computation by ciliates, or any other life form, might not always be caused by a quantum physical manifestation. Indeed, quantum-level social strategy searches by ciliates are likely mediated by classical and not quantum diffusion in the reaction-diffusion of Ca2+ ions. Most people would present an a priori argument that for quantum computation to be realized by a biological system, such as ciliates, a physical manifestation of quantum mechanics, such as quantum diffusion, must also occur. This necessity just doesn't seem always to be the case. These sorts of incongruities have started some debate in the quantum biology community. Some people simply believe that conceptual and statistically supported quantum computations by biological systems should not be considered quantum mechanical unless they are mediated by physical manifestations of quantum mechanics. I will not respond for a few days to allow further debate from other FISers. Best regards, Kevin Clark___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Physics of Computing
Thank you John for your update (FIS Digest 559, Issue 4) on the cost of computation. It's good to see experimental verification of Landauer's Principle. For those FISers interested in related topics on Landauer's Principle, you might also read: 1) Clark, K.B. (2010). Bose-Einstein condensates form in heuristics learned by ciliates deciding to signal 'social' commitments. BioSystems, 99(3), 167-178. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883726 2) Clark, K.B. (2010). Arrhenius-kinetics evidence for quantum tunneling in microbial social decision rates. Communicative Integtrative Biology, 3(6), 540-544. http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/cib/article/12842 Best regards, Kevin Clark ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The Nature of Microphysical Information: Revisiting the Fluctuon Model
The Question of Revisiting or Revising the Fluctuon Model I thank Drs. Kirby and Brenner for re-introducing Conrad’s Fluctuon model. Although I’ve never directly incorporated Conrad’s ideas into my own research involving natural and artificial intelligences, I believe they collectively continue to offer a framework useful for probing and elaborating details of information at all levels of description. That said, I wonder if it isn’t now appropriate to revise rather than simply revisit the Fluctuon model? Obviously one must first appraise the current strengths of any model before revising it, but I echo Dr. Brenner’s hope that FISers will attempt to disentangle the Fluctuon model’s merits/failings during this discussion session with the goal of improving the model. The current discussion centered on distinguishing the it/bit aspects of the model are germane to my position on the role of physics and information in biology. I find, perhaps in my ignorance, that the core of Conrad’s concepts (cf. 1) simultaneously extends David Bohm’s earlier popular works (e.g., 2) as well as parallels, in some content and timing of publication, the key developments in extradimensional physics over the past 40-or-so years. Modern Kaluza-Klein-type theories, for example, may be applied to mesoscopic fluids in such a way to evoke Conrad’s insights on the influence of unmanifest particles on manifest ones. As other scientists have done, I’ve given considerable thought to the topic of microphysical influences on semiclassical biology over the past 20 years, so that it now plays a dominant role in my research on cellular and organism decision making and additional cognitive(-like) processes (cf. 3). Kaluza-Klein-type theories locally embed or unify different combinations of the known physical forces of gravitation, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces in a world manifold greater than four dimensions, thus creating symmetric relationships between the different forces and their properties. Some modern Kaluza-Klein-type theories, such as Induced Matter (IM) and 5-Brane theories, improve the concept of earlier Kaluza-Klein theories by setting 5D field equations in terms of a flat Ricci tensor that neither restricts the topology of the fifth dimension nor treats fields separately from their 4D source matter. In this rich framework of Riemannian geometry, nonradiation-like matter or energy density can manifest itself in the fifth dimension as uncharged or charged rest mass of differing coordinates, with a timelike fifth force possibly revealed as time variations in 5D-dependent 4D mass (4). Notably, the fifth force, not found in Einstein relativity, emerges from the canonical metric as a choice of coordinate or gauge and is related to motion in the fifth dimension as well as charge/mass ratio, where 4D charge becomes 5D momentum (4). By applying canonical IM theory, one can then mathematically project the 4D spacetime structure of biocurrents (e.g., fire-diffuse-fire calcium biocurrents that mediate primitive intelligent behaviors in microbes), macromolecules (e.g. transmembrane receptor proteins, nucleotide sequences, etc.), or other biosubstrate onto a 5D coordinate system. This sort of transform (also valid for high-energy particle and cosmological physics) equates physicochemical computations that covary with intelligent behaviors and other biological processes with the action of mass and its energy equivalents. Canonical IM theory, in particular, offers tremendous scale invariant explanatory power since Goedel-type causal anomalies, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and additional paradoxes often employed to describe the emergent properties of nervous tissue and other excitable biological or nonbiological media either become vanishing artifacts of coordinate selection or deterministic laws in 5D physics (cf. 4). Computational complexities, like those described by Conrad, might be accounted for in terms of the 5D motion of mesoscopic particle mass and its relationship to 4D time-energy uncertainty, 4D spacetime curvature, and further lower dimension effects. Using IM theory also provides an exceptional starting point for later considerations on physical relationships between the emergent properties of various excitable media, nonsymmetric Riemannian spaces, torsion spaces, and other higher energy manifolds beyond five dimensions. Thus, IM theory is consistent with the Machian, relativistic, and quantum nature of the Fluctuon model, while also providing an intermediary energy framework to either explore lower dimensional Holographic or higher dimensional Supersymmetical physical and informational descriptions of biology not explicitly addressed by the Fluctuon model. In view of these advantages of IM theory, how would FISers remodel the Fluctuon model to embrace trends in modern physics? And, if the Fluctuon model is more informational
