Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

[Rafael Capurro]

Dear Mark and all,

I agree with your criticisms on Floridi. My own look like this:

In his paperA defense of information structural realism (Synthese 2009, 
Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 219-253) 
Floridi 
argues that digital ontology deals with the view that "the ultimate 
nature of reality is digital". This is, indeed, as Floridi stresses, an 
uncritical pre-kantian view. But what Floridi calls "digital ontology" 
is in fact digital metaphysics. Using the term "ontology" with regard to 
his own theory, namely "informational ontology" ("the ultimate nature of 
reality is structural"), Floridi is no less metaphysical or pre-kantian 
and his argument is self-contradictory.


When I talk about digital ontology I am taking no position with regard 
to the digital as "the ultimate nature of reality". I am just saying 
that in the present age, the digital seems to be (at least it seems to 
me) the prevalent perspective for understanding (!) beings in their 
being. This is an epistemological (in Heideggerian terms: an 
"ontological") view, not a metaphysical (or "ontological" in Floridi's 
terms) one. But, indeed, this ontological perspective can become a 
metaphysical one. Floridi denies the legitimacy of such a digital 
Pythagoreism, and I agree with him in this point. But he makes the case 
for a kind of informational Platonism which is no less metaphysical than 
the digital one he criticizes. Floridi's "infosphere" is nothing but a 
Platonic phantasy.


more at:
http://www.capurro.de/floridi.html

best

Rafael


Dear Moises and all,

Floridi has an excellent chapter in his "philosophy of information" 
called "Against digital ontology". It's worth quoting the two 
fundamental questions he asks about digital ontology:


"a. whether the physical universe might be adequately modelled 
digitally and computationally, independently of whether it is actually 
digital and computational in itself;


b. whether the ultimate nature of the physical universe might be 
actually digital and computation in itself, independently of how it 
can be effectively or adequately modelled." (Floridi, "Philosophy of 
Information", p320)


My point is that this stuff is highly speculative. Of course, it might 
be argued that "it from qbit" is fundamentally different from "it from 
bit". But is it really? Quantum computers look rather like parallel 
processors, don't they? Also the emphasis on relations rather than 
atoms (qbits) in the article is interesting, but it looks like there 
is still an atomistic logic behind it. It's the stuff of computer 
science - even if it's quantum computer science.


I might struggle to see the point - even if I'm happy that physicists 
are talking about information. If anybody was to communicate this in a 
way that helps me see why this matters, they would probably have to 
amplify their descriptions - in effect, add redundancy in their 
descriptions. In this particular case, I think that would be very 
difficult.


Curiously, in the recent discussion on this list about the additional 
layer of information in DNA 
(http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-confirm-a-second-layer-of-information-hiding-in-dna), 
I think it would be easier to amplify the descriptions.


Best wishes,

Mark




On 5 November 2016 at 11:28, Moisés André Nisenbaum 
> 
wrote:


Dear FISers.

I was very excited with the John’s first message informing that a
group of scientists is discussing again the role of Information in
Physics.


The high impact on FIS list of John’s post (13 replies from
different persons in 2 days) shows that it is yet an open
discussion. Thank you all for the very interesting posts :-)


The works (not interdisciplinary nor reductionist) of Tom Stonier
(1991), Holger Lyre (1995) and Carl Friedrich Von Weizsäcker, et.
Al (2006) and many discussions on this list
(http://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/
) are also about
this theme.


Scientific American article is an introduction. So I went to the
source of the project named “It from Qubit: Simons Collaboration
on Quantum Fields, Gravity, and Information.

Home page:

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/mathematics-and-physical-science/it-from-qubit-simons-collaboration-on-quantum-fields-gravity-and-information/



Overview: http://web.stanford.edu/~phayden/simons/overview.pdf


Project:
http://web.stanford.edu/~phayden/simons/simons-proposal.pdf


Mainly, it is an Interdisciplinary Resarch group trying to
   

Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

[Mark Johnson]

Dear Moises and all,

Floridi has an excellent chapter in his "philosophy of information" called
"Against digital ontology". It's worth quoting the two fundamental
questions he asks about digital ontology:

"a. whether the physical universe might be adequately modelled digitally
and computationally, independently of whether it is actually digital and
computational in itself;

b. whether the ultimate nature of the physical universe might be actually
digital and computation in itself, independently of how it can be
effectively or adequately modelled." (Floridi, "Philosophy of Information",
p320)

My point is that this stuff is highly speculative. Of course, it might be
argued that "it from qbit" is fundamentally different from "it from bit".
But is it really? Quantum computers look rather like parallel processors,
don't they? Also the emphasis on relations rather than atoms (qbits) in the
article is interesting, but it looks like there is still an atomistic logic
behind it. It's the stuff of computer science - even if it's quantum
computer science.

I might struggle to see the point - even if I'm happy that physicists are
talking about information. If anybody was to communicate this in a way that
helps me see why this matters, they would probably have to amplify their
descriptions - in effect, add redundancy in their descriptions. In this
particular case, I think that would be very difficult.

Curiously, in the recent discussion on this list about the additional layer
of information in DNA (
http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-confirm-a-second-layer-of-information-hiding-in-dna),
I think it would be easier to amplify the descriptions.

Best wishes,

Mark




On 5 November 2016 at 11:28, Moisés André Nisenbaum <
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br> wrote:

> Dear FISers.
>
> I was very excited with the John’s first message informing that a group of
> scientists is discussing again the role of Information in Physics.
>
>
> The high impact on FIS list of John’s post (13 replies from different
> persons in 2 days) shows that it is yet an open discussion. Thank you all
> for the very interesting posts :-)
>
> The works (not interdisciplinary nor reductionist) of Tom Stonier (1991),
> Holger Lyre (1995) and Carl Friedrich Von Weizsäcker, et. Al (2006) and
> many discussions on this list (http://fis.sciforum.net/fis-
> discussion-sessions/) are also about this theme.
>
>
> Scientific American article is an introduction. So I went to the source of
> the project named “It from Qubit: Simons Collaboration on Quantum Fields,
> Gravity, and Information.
>
> Home page: https://www.simonsfoundation.org/mathematics-and-physical-
> science/it-from-qubit-simons-collaboration-on-quantum-fields-gravity-and-
> information/
>
> Overview: http://web.stanford.edu/~phayden/simons/overview.pdf
>
> Project: http://web.stanford.edu/~phayden/simons/simons-proposal.pdf
>
>
>
> Mainly, it is an Interdisciplinary Resarch group trying to approximate
> Fundamental Physics from Quantum Information, so I think that it is a good
> and necessary initiative. Imagine what we can “extract” from this two
> fields working together!
>
>
>
> They have several projects, but I think that the final goals is not as
> important as the revelations of the processes. We should look at the
> projects. Maybe we can find that, after all, the title “it from qbit” was
> only a “marketing” (bad?) choice :-)
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Moisés
>
>
> References:
>
> STONIER, T. *Towards a new theory of information*. Journal of Information
> Science. *Anais*...1991Disponível em: http://www.scopus.com/inward/
> record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0026386595=tZOtx3y1
>
> “Information science is badly in need of an information theory. The paper
> discusses both the need, and the possibility of developing such a theory
> based on the assumption that information is a basic property of the
> universe.”
>
>
> LYRE, H. Quantum theory of Ur-objects as a theory of information. 
> *International
> Journal of Theoretical Physics*, v. 34, n. 8, p. 1541–1552, ago. 1995.
>
> “The quantum theory of ur-objects proposed by C. F. von Weizsäcker has to
> be interpreted as a quantum theory of information.”
>
>
> WEIZSÄCKER, C. F. VON; GÖRNITZ, T.; LYRE, H. *The structure of physics*. 
> Dordrecht:
> Springer, 2006.
>
> “the idea of a quantum theory of binary alternatives (the so-called
> ur-theory), a unified quantum theoretical framework in which spinorial
> symmetry groups are considered to give rise to the structure of space and
> time.”
>
> 2016-11-03 16:52 GMT-02:00 John Collier :
>
>> Apparently some physicists think so.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-spa
>> cetime/?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
>> 

Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

[Moisés André Nisenbaum]

Dear FISers.

I was very excited with the John’s first message informing that a group of
scientists is discussing again the role of Information in Physics.


The high impact on FIS list of John’s post (13 replies from different
persons in 2 days) shows that it is yet an open discussion. Thank you all
for the very interesting posts :-)

The works (not interdisciplinary nor reductionist) of Tom Stonier (1991),
Holger Lyre (1995) and Carl Friedrich Von Weizsäcker, et. Al (2006) and
many discussions on this list (
http://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/) are also about this
theme.


Scientific American article is an introduction. So I went to the source of
the project named “It from Qubit: Simons Collaboration on Quantum Fields,
Gravity, and Information.

Home page:
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/mathematics-and-physical-science/it-from-qubit-simons-collaboration-on-quantum-fields-gravity-and-information/

Overview: http://web.stanford.edu/~phayden/simons/overview.pdf

Project: http://web.stanford.edu/~phayden/simons/simons-proposal.pdf



Mainly, it is an Interdisciplinary Resarch group trying to approximate
Fundamental Physics from Quantum Information, so I think that it is a good
and necessary initiative. Imagine what we can “extract” from this two
fields working together!



They have several projects, but I think that the final goals is not as
important as the revelations of the processes. We should look at the
projects. Maybe we can find that, after all, the title “it from qbit” was
only a “marketing” (bad?) choice :-)


Kind regards,


Moisés


References:

STONIER, T. *Towards a new theory of information*. Journal of Information
Science. *Anais*...1991Disponível em:
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0026386595=tZOtx3y1

“Information science is badly in need of an information theory. The paper
discusses both the need, and the possibility of developing such a theory
based on the assumption that information is a basic property of the
universe.”


LYRE, H. Quantum theory of Ur-objects as a theory of information.
*International
Journal of Theoretical Physics*, v. 34, n. 8, p. 1541–1552, ago. 1995.

“The quantum theory of ur-objects proposed by C. F. von Weizsäcker has to
be interpreted as a quantum theory of information.”


WEIZSÄCKER, C. F. VON; GÖRNITZ, T.; LYRE, H. *The structure of
physics*. Dordrecht:
Springer, 2006.

“the idea of a quantum theory of binary alternatives (the so-called
ur-theory), a unified quantum theoretical framework in which spinorial
symmetry groups are considered to give rise to the structure of space and
time.”

2016-11-03 16:52 GMT-02:00 John Collier :

> 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
>
>


-- 
Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Rio de Janeiro
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Commutativity

[Joseph Brenner]

Well, Karl, it still takes some reading of what I have written to find 
important points of agreement as well as disagreement. In my 2008 book I noted 
that /both/ commutativity and distributivity should not be required in 
descriptions of real systems:

In LIR, since no individual term is an identity, that is, unconnected to other 
terms, one has the same relation as that between a term and the context that 
perturbs it. Both the commutative law of standard logic, (a + b) + c  =  a + (b 
+ c) and the distributive law between conjunction and disjunction   
  

do not hold. Any applicable formalism is, accordingly, non-Abelian and 
non-Boolean respectively, and the resulting probability distributions are 
non-Kolmogorovian. The detailed mathematics remain to be worked out for the LIR 
description of reality values as ‘probability-like’[1]. 
[1] These values are like objective probabilities which do not indicate limits 
of knowledge, but are about the properties that things objectively have.


I feel that no notion of real use can be clear and concise. The elements of 
logic are not 'tokens', a term that conveys something inert, lacking its own 
dynamics (ability to change). There are, as I hope we could agree, details of 
reality also lost in the use of your 'sequencing' tool.

You could help to resolve the issue with one simple comment: to what complex 
processes does your approach NOT apply? 

Thank you.

Joseph
 
  - Original Message -  
  From: Karl Javorszky 
  To: Joseph Brenner 
  Cc: Terrence Deacon ; fis ; John Collier ; Gyorgy Darvas ; Bob Logan ; Andrei 
Khrennikov ; raf...@capurro.de 
  Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 9:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?


  Well, Joseph, you don't have to go far to get the desired definition of 
information as an operator (produced quantity).

  The only prerequisite is to be ready to discard the practice, ideas, 
philosophy and ideology of the definitions relating to commutativity.

  This is heresy, I understand. On the other hand, time may now have come to 
face up the truth. We see that (a,b)->c is different to (b,a)->c. We have 
learnt that this obvious difference is to be disregarded. We wish the clearly 
visible difference away so we get a picture of the world which is easier to 
work with. Of course, if I say that it makes no difference whether a or b has a 
positional advantage /pace opinion research questionnaries/, I don't have to 
worry about the endless complications arising from the question, which was 
first, a or b.

  The system simplified as it is in use presently is not versatile, detailed 
and nuanced enough to allow for the introduction of words that describe the 
ideas.

  One cannot explain trigonometry as long as the definition is in power that 
all triangles are to be seen in their unified variant and the proportion of the 
sides to each other is by definition irrelevant.

  Come the day you want to find a clear, concise, operator based tool to 
measure information content (based on properties of natural numbers), please 
look up my book Natürliche Ordnungen, available thru morawa or amazon etc.

  It is a completely new world out there if one stops thinking in a world made 
up by wishing away important details. There is power in them there sequences. 
No wonder Nature uses them in perpetuating life. Let us no more pretend 
commutativity is without alternatives. We have computers. We can keep track of 
the problems arising from actually observing and using sequential properties of 
logical tokens. That one can explain what the term "information" amounts to is 
just one of the discoveries one makes while using the tool of sequencing.

  Do look it up. It has been made for your use. 

  Respectfully
  Karl



  On 4 Nov 2016 18:06, "Joseph Brenner"  wrote:

Dear All,

I agree with the consensus I see emerging. Andrei shows the problem of 
trying to pin down a complex process with a single term - information. And I 
agree with Rafael that information must have a valence. On the other hand, as 
such, information cannot be completely defined mathematically, pace Karl, any 
more than anything living can be.

It is discouraging to see how reductionist theories like 'It-from-Bit' get 
reproduced and disseminated by Scientific American, which used to be a good 
journal. One cannot simply ignore the reactionary sub-text of such 'science', 
even if a product of the "Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics".

One could say rather that quanta, not quantum information, are the basis 
for spacetime. At the sub-quantum level, I think we have already said that 
whatever the way in which energy is exchanged, nothing is gained by calling it 
information. (We may make an exception for the case of non-locality defined by 
Bell inequalities.) 

The only nuance I would add is that although we can speak of biotic and 

Re: [Fis] Information as a complex notion

[Mark Johnson]

Dear all,

Just a few quick comments to relate this current discussion back to
scientific communication:

1. Taking information seriously must entail taking "communicating what
we think about information" seriously - and exploring different ways
of communicating what we think.

2. When I made my videos for this discussion, all I did was add
redundancy through a richer channel of communication.

3. The high number of recent posts suggest to me that the 'comfort
zone' of the group is clearly in exchanging philosophical positions
about information using low bandwidth communication media (text).
Reflecting on how we talk to each other is less comfortable and more
difficult. However, the philosophical discussions seem go round in
circles (we have had them so often before) - why?

How would the debate look if more redundancy was added to the
communication? It would, I suggest, reveal more about the constraints
of different positions. I'm sure this could be empirically explored.

Best wishes,

Mark

On 5 November 2016 at 06:17, Emanuel Diamant  wrote:
> Dear Pedro,
>
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
>
>
> Because our current discussion (dubbed “Scientific Communication”, announced
> by Pedro at Sept. 22, 2016) has deviated from its original purpose and
> shifted to our main and most relevant point of interest “What is
> information”, I dare to remind you about my personal views on the subject:
> Information is a complex notion. Like the notion of complex numbers in
> mathematics (which are composed of a real and imaginary parts), Information
> can be seen as composed of a real and an imaginary part – Physical
> information and Semantic Information. Physical information is a
> generalization of Shannon, Fisher, Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and as such
> informations. Semantic information still does not have its recognized
> definition. My attempts to spell out its destiny could be find on my site
> http://www.vidia-mant.info or at the Research Gate.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Emanuel.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>



-- 
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Institute of Learning and Teaching
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
University of Liverpool

Visiting Professor
Far Eastern Federal University, Russia

Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Information as a complex notion

[Emanuel Diamant]

Dear Pedro,

Dear FIS colleagues, 

 

Because our current discussion (dubbed "Scientific Communication", announced
by Pedro at Sept. 22, 2016) has deviated from its original purpose and
shifted to our main and most relevant point of interest "What is
information", I dare to remind you about my personal views on the subject:
Information is a complex notion. Like the notion of complex numbers in
mathematics (which are composed of a real and imaginary parts), Information
can be seen as composed of a real and an imaginary part - Physical
information and Semantic Information. Physical information is a
generalization of Shannon, Fisher, Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and as such
informations. Semantic information still does not have its recognized
definition. My attempts to spell out its destiny could be find on my site
http://www.vidia-mant.info or at the Research Gate.

 

Best regards,

Emanuel.

 

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis