Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
Dear John, That makes it clearer, thanks. The notion of symmetry is at the basis of the definition of probabilities (exchangeabilty (de Finetti), which operationalises symmetry, for variables that lie in the orbit of some group action, but whose transformed values do not have observable consequences such as changes of energy). Any state defined by the values taken by variables, such that they deviate from the equiprobable distribution required for exchangeablity, necessarily has a different value taken by any measure of distances between distributions. In that sense, one can correlate information and lack of symmetry, when the symmetric state is taken as reference. Howver, there is more to symmetry than merely providing a reference state. The way the world is described by physics is via symmetry, indeed via local symmetry. The freedom to allow group transformations to variables locally must be coupled with compensatory transformations elsewhere. And this is how interactions get generated, and we have light and other bosonic force mediators. Further, what is facilitated by appeals to notions of symmetry as a primitive principle, are not only ieas that rely on invariance, when the observables under scrutiny are unaffected by the symmetry transformations, but also covariance, where observables get transformed in a particular manner that respects its algebraic/geometric status. Cheers, Srinandan On 26 May 2015, at 22:19, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote: Dear Srinandan, He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries, which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and other means in his Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. More direct connections can be made via the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed, but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But basically it is in the asymmetries. As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well. I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though. John From: Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: May 26, 2015 10:20 PM To: u...@umces.edu mailto:u...@umces.edu; John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Re: boundary conditions, etc. I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same as information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or even that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering classical electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for galactic distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the large scale structure of the universe is via the field equations of gravity, which brings a coherent package of causal thinking built into it. I did understand the bit on Noether, as energy conservation is indeed a consequence of time translation invariance, but that comes embedded in a continuum description, typically. In biological systems, energy input makes the picture specific to the system one cordons off for study, and often it is hard to adequately describe phenomena by scalar potentials alone due to the currents in the system. And Noether cannot deliver reversibility. To me the message of Sean Carroll in the YouTube video that an equivalent redescription of physics (or biology) in terms of information is not enough, strikes me as sane. Cheers, Srinandan Original message From: Robert E. Ulanowicz Date:26/05/2015 16:16 (GMT+00:00) To: John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video I would like to strongly reinforce John's comments about boundary conditions. We tend to obsess over the laws and ignore the boundary statements. (Sort of a shell game, IMHO.) If boundary conditions cannot be stated in closed form, the physical
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
Caro John e Cari colleghi, Stephen Hawking nel 1975 riteneva che i buchi neri fagocitassero tutto ciò che si ritrovava nelle loro vicinanze, all'interno di una regione detta orizzonte degli eventi. Fin da allora diventò evidente che questa proprietà portasse a un paradosso. Infatti se i buchi neri inghiottono tutto, allora dovrebbero fagocitare e distruggere anche l'informazione, perdendo di ciò che ingoiano qualsiasi traccia. Secondo la meccanica quantistica, però, l'informazione contenuta nella materia non può andare persa del tutto. Circa trent'anni dopo Hawking ha affermato che sui buchi neri aveva torto. Rivedendo la sua teoria sostiene che i buchi neri non si limitano a perdere massa attraverso una radiazione di energia, ma evaporano o rilasciano informazione. Con-tengono un'informazione sulla materia di cui sono fatti che consente di pre-dirne il futuro. In tal modo i buchi neri non evaporano o irradiano un'energia invisibile o enigmatica priva di informazione come se fossero delle inafferrabili e indecifrabili entità cosmiche, e non sfuggono alla (mia) super-legge della combinazione creativa (anche se talvolta stupefacente) di energia e in-formazione. I buchi neri quindi possono considerarsi come speciali scatole nere o magici processi di tras-in-formazione produttivi ( i cui input e output sono materia, energia e informazione) e prospettici. Questo significa che da economista ho: -elaborato una legge che vale anche per l'astronomia e l'intera fisica; -preceduto di circa vent'anni quel che Hawking ha scoperto nel 1998 (Gravitational entropy) e nel 2005 (Information loss in black holes, Phisical review. D 72). Quindi all'INTERNO dei buchi neri si avrebbe una minore entropia (o una maggiore neg-entropia) rispetto alla maggiore entropia (o minore neg-entropia) ESTERNA. La formazione di maggiore entropia ESTERNA (corrispondente ad una minore informazione) dovrebbe essere necessariamente bilanciata da una maggiore informazione INTERNA (corrispondente ad una minore entropia). In base a questo ragionamento o bilanciamento - coerente con la logica della Nuova economia - i buchi neri dovrebbero produrre ed emettere informazione netta al pari di qualunque processo produttivo. Tale asimmetria ESTERNA-INTERNA fa una differenza che è proprio l'informazione. Non sono pochi i saggi che ho dedicato alla capacità creativa dell'asimmetria in qualunque processo di avanzamento scientifico (cfr. soprattutto Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza della scienza, Aracne, Roma, 2014). Quel che ho descritto schematicamente e sinteticamente, cosa di cui mi scuso, di-mostra la mirabile e meravigliosa armonia che governa il mondo. Grazie. Francesco Rizzo. 2015-05-26 23:19 GMT+02:00 John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za: Dear Srinandan, He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries, which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in *Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information*. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and other means in his *Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos*. More direct connections can be made via the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed, but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But basically it is in the asymmetries. As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well. I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though. John *From:* Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] *Sent:* May 26, 2015 10:20 PM *To:* u...@umces.edu; John Collier *Cc:* fis *Subject:* Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Re: boundary conditions, etc. I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same as information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or even that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering classical electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for galactic distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the large scale structure of the universe is
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
That is most interesting, Francesco. It agrees with my understanding, but there are people reluctant to call it ‘inofrmation’. I don’t know what else to call it. Cheers, John From: Francesco Rizzo [mailto:13francesco.ri...@gmail.com] Sent: May 27, 2015 8:27 AM To: John Collier Cc: Srinandan Dasmahapatra; u...@umces.edu; fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Caro John e Cari colleghi, Stephen Hawking nel 1975 riteneva che i buchi neri fagocitassero tutto ciò che si ritrovava nelle loro vicinanze, all'interno di una regione detta orizzonte degli eventi. Fin da allora diventò evidente che questa proprietà portasse a un paradosso. Infatti se i buchi neri inghiottono tutto, allora dovrebbero fagocitare e distruggere anche l'informazione, perdendo di ciò che ingoiano qualsiasi traccia. Secondo la meccanica quantistica, però, l'informazione contenuta nella materia non può andare persa del tutto. Circa trent'anni dopo Hawking ha affermato che sui buchi neri aveva torto. Rivedendo la sua teoria sostiene che i buchi neri non si limitano a perdere massa attraverso una radiazione di energia, ma evaporano o rilasciano informazione. Con-tengono un'informazione sulla materia di cui sono fatti che consente di pre-dirne il futuro. In tal modo i buchi neri non evaporano o irradiano un'energia invisibile o enigmatica priva di informazione come se fossero delle inafferrabili e indecifrabili entità cosmiche, e non sfuggono alla (mia) super-legge della combinazione creativa (anche se talvolta stupefacente) di energia e in-formazione. I buchi neri quindi possono considerarsi come speciali scatole nere o magici processi di tras-in-formazione produttivi ( i cui input e output sono materia, energia e informazione) e prospettici. Questo significa che da economista ho: -elaborato una legge che vale anche per l'astronomia e l'intera fisica; -preceduto di circa vent'anni quel che Hawking ha scoperto nel 1998 (Gravitational entropy) e nel 2005 (Information loss in black holes, Phisical review. D 72). Quindi all'INTERNO dei buchi neri si avrebbe una minore entropia (o una maggiore neg-entropia) rispetto alla maggiore entropia (o minore neg-entropia) ESTERNA. La formazione di maggiore entropia ESTERNA (corrispondente ad una minore informazione) dovrebbe essere necessariamente bilanciata da una maggiore informazione INTERNA (corrispondente ad una minore entropia). In base a questo ragionamento o bilanciamento - coerente con la logica della Nuova economia - i buchi neri dovrebbero produrre ed emettere informazione netta al pari di qualunque processo produttivo. Tale asimmetria ESTERNA-INTERNA fa una differenza che è proprio l'informazione. Non sono pochi i saggi che ho dedicato alla capacità creativa dell'asimmetria in qualunque processo di avanzamento scientifico (cfr. soprattutto Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza della scienza, Aracne, Roma, 2014). Quel che ho descritto schematicamente e sinteticamente, cosa di cui mi scuso, di-mostra la mirabile e meravigliosa armonia che governa il mondo. Grazie. Francesco Rizzo. 2015-05-26 23:19 GMT+02:00 John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.zamailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za: Dear Srinandan, He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries, which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and other means in his Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. More direct connections can be made via the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed, but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But basically it is in the asymmetries. As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well. I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though. John From: Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.ukmailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: May 26, 2015 10:20 PM To: u...@umces.edumailto:u...@umces.edu; John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Re: boundary conditions, etc. I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video. Collier and Muller
Dear Srinandan, Dear John and All, At the Vienna Information Summit, I will present a paper in the Symmetry Section of Gyuri Darvas entitled Symmetry and Information; Brothers in Arms. I wished by this title to convey the idea that symmetry and information somehow emerged together from a prior state of some kind. I do not state explicitly that asymmetry IS information and I was not aware of John's work on symmetry, even if I had seen reference to it earlier. But then, is it not possible to be aware of John's work 'all at once'. It requires several iterations; I have purchased Muller's book to get myself to the next stage of knowledge here. The point and possible value of the Logic in Reality approach, what it brings to the table, still can I believe be seen in some of the implications of John's note: some people talk only of the laws/symmetries, others only of asymmetries. Darvas clearly shows that one cannot be considered without the other, and LIR states that it logical hence scientific that both the energetic partly symmetricalsubstrate of information and its ontological and epsitemological properties influence one another (interact). Laws are both information and the final cause of the regularities in the information, and Logic in Reality addresses and tries, with difficulty, to express in what way words like 'both' and 'at the same time' express how reality 'really' evolves. I would be glad to forward a copy of my extended abstract for Vienna to anyone who is interested. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: John Collier To: Srinandan Dasmahapatra ; u...@umces.edu Cc: fis Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:19 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Dear Srinandan, He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries, which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and other means in his Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. More direct connections can be made via the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed, but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But basically it is in the asymmetries. As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well. I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though. John From: Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: May 26, 2015 10:20 PM To: u...@umces.edu; John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Re: boundary conditions, etc. I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same as information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or even that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering classical electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for galactic distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the large scale structure of the universe is via the field equations of gravity, which brings a coherent package of causal thinking built into it. I did understand the bit on Noether, as energy conservation is indeed a consequence of time translation invariance, but that comes embedded in a continuum description, typically. In biological systems, energy input makes the picture specific to the system one cordons off for study, and often it is hard to adequately describe phenomena by scalar potentials alone due to the currents in the system. And Noether cannot deliver reversibility. To me the message of Sean Carroll in the YouTube video that an equivalent redescription of physics (or biology) in terms of information is not enough, strikes me as sane. Cheers, Srinandan Original message From: Robert E. Ulanowicz Date:26/05/2015 16:16 (GMT+00:00) To: John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video I would like to strongly reinforce John's comments
