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

2016-11-13 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
 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=ych9gNYJ=en

From: Alex Hankey [mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 

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

2016-11-04 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
  Dear all, 
I want to comment so called information approach to physics, by speaking with 
hundreds of leading experts
in quantum foundations, I found that nobody can define rigorously the basic 
term "information" which is so widely 
used in their theories and discussions, the answers are as "information is the 
basic entity" which cannot be defined 
in other terms. Well, my impression is that without novel understanding and 
definition of information all these "theories" 
are practically empty, well very good mathematical exercises. May be I am too 
critical... But I spent so much time by trying 
to understand what people are talking about. The output is ZERO.

all the best, 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 Gyorgy Darvas 
[darv...@iif.hu]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 10:23 PM
To: John Collier; fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

John:
The article describes very really the conflicting attitudes. Interesting to see 
the diverse arguments together.
I agree, some think so, some do not. I do the latter, but this does not make 
any matter.
Gyuri

On 2016.11.03. 19:52, John Collier wrote:
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<mailto: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] QFT

2016-04-01 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
  I just complete the statement of Hans: the really relativistic treatment 
of 
quantum phenomena is done in the framework of quantum field theory, QFT.

yours,

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 Hans von Baeyer 
[henrikrit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 7:50 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] _ In defense of quantum mechanics

The founders of quantum mechanics all realized that RELATIVITY posits a linear 
relationship between energy and momentum of a massive particle, while 
NONRELATIVISTIC classical mechanics, which is a mere approximation, implies 
that kinetic energy is related to the square of the momentum.  Since light 
always moves at light speed, the approximate treatment does not apply to 
photons.

The founders always explained whether they were working relativistically or 
approximately, so there was never a mistake or a confusion on that score.

But there were plenty of different mistakes and confusions in their work -- 
some surviving to this day.

Hans Christian von Baeyer

___
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

2015-06-26 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
 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


[Fis] QM and information

2015-06-26 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
   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


Re: [Fis] Probability Amplitudes

2014-01-22 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
   Dear Hans,

I would like just to point that 99,99% of people working 
in quantum theory would say that the complex amplitude of 
quantum probability is the main its intrinsic property, so 
if you try to exclude amplitudes from the model
you can in principle do this and this is well known 
long ago in so called quantum tomographic approach of Vladimir 
Manko, but in this way quantum theory loses its simplicity and 
clarity, 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-boun...@listas.unizar.es [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of 
Hans von Baeyer [henrikrit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:21 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Probability Amplitudes

Dear Dino and friends, thanks for bringing up the issue of probability 
amplitudes.  Since they are technical tools of physics, and since I didn't want 
to go too far afield, I did not mention them in my lecture.  The closest I came 
was the wavefunction, which, indeed, is a probability amplitude.  In order to 
make contact with real, measurable quantities, it must be multiplied by its 
complex conjugate. This recipe is called the Born rule, and it is an ad hoc 
addition to the quantum theory. It lacks any motivation except that it works.

In keeping with Einstein's advice (which he himself often flouted) to try to 
keep unmeasurable concepts out of our description of nature, physicists have 
realized long ago that it must be possible to recast quantum mechanics entirely 
in terms of probabilities, not even mentioning probability amplitudes or 
wavefunctions. The question is only: How complicated would the resulting 
formalism be?  (To make a weak analogy, it must be possible to recast 
arithmetic in the language of Roman numerals, but the result would surely look 
much messier than what we learn in grade school.)  Hitherto, nobody had come up 
with an elegant solution to this problem.

To their happy surprise, QBists have made  progress toward a quantum theory 
without probability amplitudes.  Of course they have to pay a price.  Instead 
of unmeasurable concepts they introduce, for any experiment, a very special 
set of standard probabilities (NOT AMPLITUDES) which are measurable, but not 
actually measured.  When they re-write the Born rule in terms of these, they 
find that it looks almost, but not quite, like a fundamental axiom of 
probability theory called Unitarity.  Unitarity decrees that for any experiment 
the sum of the probabilities for all possible outcomes must be one. (For a 
coin, the probabilities of heads and tails are both 1/2.  Unitarity states 1/2 
+ 1/2 = 1.)

This unexpected outcome of QBism suggests a deep connection between the Born 
rule and Unitarity. Since Unitarity is a logical concept unrelated to quantum 
phenomena, this gives QBists the hope that they will eventually succeed in 
explaining the significacne of the Born rule, and banishing probability 
amplitudes from quantum mechanics, leaving only (Bayesian) probabilities.

So, I'm afraid dear Dino, that the current attitude of QBists is that 
probability amplitudes are LESS fundamental than probabilities, not MORE.  But 
the story is far from finished!

Hans



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


Re: [Fis] Probability Amplitudes

2014-01-22 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
  Dear Joseph,
you are going toward quantum probability theory where 
probabilities are determined by vectors; moreover, the vectors
belong to complex Hilbert space, i.e., roughly speaking each probability
has not only the direction but even the phase, 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-boun...@listas.unizar.es [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of 
Joseph Brenner [joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:54 AM
To: Dino Buzzetti; Hans von Baeyer; fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Probability Amplitudes

Dear Hans and Dino,

This is a direct question to both of you, to which I have not found a clear 
answer: are value and amplitude the only parameters that have been assigned to 
probability?

In my theory, the changing value of actuality and potentiality of specific 
antagonistic process elements are probability-like in not including 0 and 1, as 
I have said. Can, in addition, probabilities have some vector-like properties, 
that is, include a /direction/?

This concept would be moving toward (and past) Dino and away from Hans . . .

Your comments and those of others would be welcome.

Best wishes,

Joseph
- Original Message -
From: Dino Buzzettimailto:dino.buzze...@gmail.com
To: Hans von Baeyermailto:henrikrit...@gmail.com ; 
fismailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Probability Amplitudes

Dear Hans,

Thank you for your explanation about probability amplitudes,
that clarifies a lot.  My only worry was about the *epistemological*
implications of quantum mechanics in its standard formulation,
that in my opinion point to a paradigm shift, which is felt not only
in this domain, but in all fields where *emergent* phenomena are
accounted for—a process that I thought was hinted to by Wheeler's
famous words It from Bit, that I remember reading for the first
time precisely in your book on information.  That's the ground for
expressing my worry that reverting to classical probability theory
might entail a drawback to this decisive epistemological turn.

But I might misunderstand the whole story, that is certainly not
over yet  :-)  -dino



On 22 January 2014 00:21, Hans von Baeyer 
henrikrit...@gmail.commailto:henrikrit...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Dino and friends, thanks for bringing up the issue of probability 
amplitudes.  Since they are technical tools of physics, and since I didn't want 
to go too far afield, I did not mention them in my lecture.  The closest I came 
was the wavefunction, which, indeed, is a probability amplitude.  In order to 
make contact with real, measurable quantities, it must be multiplied by its 
complex conjugate. This recipe is called the Born rule, and it is an ad hoc 
addition to the quantum theory. It lacks any motivation except that it works.

In keeping with Einstein's advice (which he himself often flouted) to try to 
keep unmeasurable concepts out of our description of nature, physicists have 
realized long ago that it must be possible to recast quantum mechanics entirely 
in terms of probabilities, not even mentioning probability amplitudes or 
wavefunctions. The question is only: How complicated would the resulting 
formalism be?  (To make a weak analogy, it must be possible to recast 
arithmetic in the language of Roman numerals, but the result would surely look 
much messier than what we learn in grade school.)  Hitherto, nobody had come up 
with an elegant solution to this problem.

To their happy surprise, QBists have made  progress toward a quantum theory 
without probability amplitudes.  Of course they have to pay a price.  Instead 
of unmeasurable concepts they introduce, for any experiment, a very special 
set of standard probabilities (NOT AMPLITUDES) which are measurable, but not 
actually measured.  When they re-write the Born rule in terms of these, they 
find that it looks almost, but not quite, like a fundamental axiom of 
probability theory called Unitarity.  Unitarity decrees that for any experiment 
the sum of the probabilities for all possible outcomes must be one. (For a 
coin, the probabilities of heads and tails are both 1/2.  Unitarity states 1/2 
+ 1/2 = 1.)

This unexpected outcome of QBism suggests a deep connection between the Born 
rule and Unitarity. Since Unitarity is a logical concept unrelated to quantum 
phenomena, this gives QBists the hope that they will eventually succeed in 
explaining the significacne of the Born rule, and banishing probability 
amplitudes from quantum mechanics, leaving only (Bayesian) probabilities.

So, I'm afraid dear Dino, that the current attitude of QBists is that 
probability amplitudes are LESS fundamental than probabilities, not MORE.  But 
the story is far from finished!

Hans

[Fis] Financial Heat Machine

2008-11-04 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
 Dear John,

In majority of discussions the financial crises is considered as a disaster, as 
well as all 
previous crises. Each time when a new crises demonstrates its power. people are 
surprised
that it happened again (and again and it will definitely happen again). 
However, the cyclic character 
of crashes of the financial market may induce the impression that these 
crasches are of 
objective nature. Moreover, it seems that they are really nessasary for 
successful functioning 
of the financial market. I elaborated this trivial observation in a 
phemenological thermodynamical model
of functioning of the financial market, as a Carnot cycle for Heat Machine. By 
this model the financial market is not able to
start a new cycle without crash in the same way as Heat Machine could not start 
a new cycle without cooling, see more detail
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0408560

The model is in fact purely informational, it is about dynamics of expectations 
(in this aspect it is close to ideas of G. Soros)
 which is realized as dynamics of money:

 We consider dynamics of financial markets as dynamics of expectations and 
discuss such a dynamics from the point of view of phenomenological 
thermodynamics. We describe a financial Carnot cycle and the financial analogue 
of a heat machine. We see, that while in physics a perpetuum mobile is 
absolutely impossible, in economics such mobile may exist under some 
conditions. Our thermodynamical model for the financial market induces a rather 
unusual interpretation of the role of financial crises. In the opposition to 
the common point of view, in our model financial crises play the crucial role 
in functioning of the modern financial market. This is an important 
(concluding) stage of a financial cycle that is analogous to the stage of 
cooling in the ordinary Carnot cycle. A financial cycle could not be completed 
without such a stage as well as the ordinary Carnot cycle. Thus, inspite its 
destructive (at the first sight) consequences the stage or financial crises is 
as well important as the stage of boiling of the financial market (heating 
of expectations). 
Comments: Journal publication; comments on financial interpretation of 
consequences of the thermodynamical model
Subjects: Other (cond-mat.other)
Journal reference: Physica A, 350, 487-490 (2005)

- Original Message -
From: John Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, November 3, 2008 21:11
Subject: [Fis] The complexity of the current financial panic
To: fis@listas.unizar.es

 Here is somebody who blames it on oil prices (surely a factor):
 
 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081103.wrecession1103/BNStory/energy/home
 
 --
 The pursuit of truth is what prevents us from pursuing each other.
  -- James H. Billington, Librarian of of Congress
 Professor John 
 Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 
 South Africa
 T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 
 2292   F: +27 (31) 260 3031
 http://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/index.html  
 
 ___
 fis mailing list
 fis@listas.unizar.es
 https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
 

Andrei Khrennikov, professor of applied mathematics, 
director of International center for mathematical modeling in physics, 
engineering and cognitive science, University of Vaxjo, 
Sweden
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] informational economics?

2008-11-02 Thread Andrei Khrennikov

 Dear Pedro,
 
Thank you an interesting topic for the discussion. The study of the 
Informational layer of economics is
 extremely important for right understanding of the situation at the financial 
market. I would like to point to
the following informational layer – namely, the role of expectations of traders 
of the financial market. Is it possible to create models of such expectations 
and their role in dynamics of assets? I think that G.
Soros was one of the first who discussed this problem in detail in his book 
“Alchemy of Finances.” He pointed to independence of dynamics of expectations 
from the situation in “real economics”. Free will of traders plays a crucial 
role. Soros proposed to describe free will by the apparatus of QM, in some way 
to explore the analogy electron-trader.
 
This idea was realized by my graduate student, Olga Choustova, see 
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109122 see also 
Choustova, O.A.  (2006). Quantum bohmian model for financial market. Physica A 
374, 304--314.
 
who used so called Bohmian model of QM, an analogue of the pilot wave which 
guides a quantum particles was used to describe dynamics of expectations. Real 
economics was incorporated in the model  through a potential function in  
financial Schrodinger’s equation.
 
As in physical QM, the financial pilot wave can exhibit a complicated behavior 
even for zero potential, i.e., zero impact from the real economics. Moreover, 
the model is nonlocal.
 
It is too early to say how much one can proceed in such a framework. However, 
it is clear that the informational component plays an important role in modern 
economics.

Andrei Khrennikov, professor of applied mathematics, 
director of International center for mathematical modeling in physics, 
engineering and cognitive science, University of Vaxjo, 
Sweden



- Original Message -
From: Pedro C. Marijuan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 15:00
Subject: [Fis] informational economics?
To: fis fis@listas.unizar.es

 Dear FIS colleagues,
 
 Some aspects of the current financial crisis might be related to 
 discussions we had in this list on information and the nature of 
 economic flows years ago (economic networks, and also, central 
 aspects 
 of ecological ascendancy).
 
 The amazing growth of financial assets of many kinds during last 
 decade 
 may have conduced finally to a brutal crisis like the current 
 one, not 
 just for greed or political lack of control, but also for 
 dearth of 
 scientific understanding. I would argue that:
 
 1. Financial flows are anticipatory information flows that 
 preclude 
 the structural changes and the evolution to follow by real 
 economic 
 structures.
 
 2. Without financial anticipation, economic changes could not 
 keep pace 
 with technology  science progress due to the viscosity of 
 social and 
 legal webs of relationships.
 
 3. The creation of successive informational (financial) layers 
 becomes 
 an exercise in complexity accumulation, that almost inexorably 
 leads to 
 cross instability thresholds and a general loss resilience.
 
 4. Though the financial info is a sort of virtual builder, a 
 potential 
 energy of sorts, it has to suffer closure upon the real 
 economy; then 
 its excessive flows in out from some sector (eg, housing in some 
 strategic countries), amplified in the global complexity, have 
 now 
 potential to destabilize the whole financial layers and bring 
 the real 
 economy to havoc.
 
 5. Economy is an informational systems, in crucial aspects, not 
 well 
 explained yet... advancing an info economics would be quite timely.
 
 Would it be interesting to argue on some of these very roughly 
 penned 
 aspects (while our pockets get emptier and emptier)?
 
 best
 
 Pedro
 
 PS. The recent track on foundations of art is still worth of 
 some 
 further comment...
 
 
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
 50.009 Zaragoza. España
 Telf.: 34 976 71 3526 Fax: 34 976 71 5554
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 
 ___
 fis mailing list
 fis@listas.unizar.es
 https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

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


[Fis] Reply to Igor Rojdestvenski: Information Coordinate System

2006-10-27 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
  Dear Igor,

I practically agree with you, especially that matter (biological, non-
biological, whatever) is a derivative concept, for we can speculate 
about it only indirectly through information we possess. As I pointed a 
few times, the objective reality for me is not reality of material
objects (I have even a book about this). This is reality of 
information. There are information laws. Special forms of such laws are 
physical and biological laws. Yes, I agree that Shannon information 
given through entropy and hence through probability is not information, 
but we can say information coordinate. 
In your terminology the problem that I would like to emphasize is that 
we need more coordinates. I do not know such an advanced information 
coordinate system. QI differs from classical by using not a fixed 
Kolmogorov probability space, but multi-probabilistic system. So QI 
provides a better coordinate system, but I do not think that this was 
the end of information coordinate story.

With Best Regards,

Andrei Khrennikov

Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics, 
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] Concluding reply to Pedro: social construction of human knowledge

2006-09-14 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
   Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your intersting comment:
throw interesting new light on the several fascinating topics
 around 
 the necessarily \social\ construction of human knowledge...

In this way we turn back to the concluding topic of our discussion (that
might be a starting point of a new discussion) -- about reality of
information laws. In my picture of reality information reality is
not less real than material reality. You wrote about 
social construction of human knowledge... In my book transformers of
information are not less objective than electrons or photons. Roughly
speaking this imply that  transformers of information with
completely different physical realization would generate the same social
structure of science, just because the objectivity of information laws. 
But, as I wrote, this idscussion induces deep philosophic questions...

All the best, Andrei

 
 Dear Andrei and colleagues,
 
 Thanks a lot for your re-capping of the session. It is a very
 thoughtful 
 perspective on information from the quantum side. My only comments
 would 
 relate to your (partial) identification of models, reality, and 
 mathematics. It sounds too strong to my hears. We have cut science
 from its 
 human origins, and then we resort to very curious reification myths.
 How 
 does the practice of science relate to our human nature? The
 tentative new 
 branch of \neuromathematics\ (it has already surfaced in past
 discussions) 
 could throw interesting new light on the several fascinating topics
 around 
 the necessarily \social\ construction of human knowledge...
 
 I join your concerns when you state:
 
 I am trying to sell the idea that the whole quantum enterprise is
 about
 simplification of description of extremely complex physical
 phenomena.
 I developed models in that the quantum probabilistic model appears
 as a
 projection of more complex classical statistical model.
 Then I proceed: Wau! In such a case it seems that quantum
 probability
 theory and quantum information could be used everywhere where we
 could
 not provide the complete description of phenomena and we just try
 to
 create a simplified representation in complex Hilbert space.
 So one can apply quantum information theory everywhere, from
 financial
 mathematics to genetics.
 
 Months ago, when discussing on biomolecular networks, I argued that
 rather 
 than a classical \state\ the central info construct of the living
 cell 
 should be the \cycle\, then implying the advancement of a \phase\ 
 (recapitulating and somehow making continuous the classical
 biomolecular 
 views of Start, Gap1, Mitosis, Gap2 as discrete phases of the cell
 cycle) 
 maintaining at the same time a continuous adaptation of the inner
 molecular 
 population to the environmental demands. These biological sentences
 may 
 sound very different from quantum statements, but I do not think so.
 My 
 opinion is that the the living cell and other genuine \informational\
 
 entities share a fundamental \adaptability\ problem, having to fit
 with 
 with limited processing resources to an open ended environment, and
 then 
 having to tune their production-degradation engines to cope  with
 both 
 their own phase in the cycle and their external happenstance. Michael
 
 Conrad produced great stuff on formal quantum-inspired approaches to
 
 ecological adaptability (see Kevin Kirby in this list too). And it
 could be 
 done for aspects of nervous systems and economic life too...
 Unfortunately 
 a Gordian knot of themes appears: sensibility, robustness,
 networking, 
 fitness-value-meaning, adaptability, evolvability (to mention but a
 few). 
 The future will tell whether we are able to trascend formal analogies
 
 between realms and achieve a new, more catholic approach to
 information 
 --none of the current approaches has achieved a breakthrough yet, so
 the 
 need for our exchange of views!
 
 I also think that recent developments in string theory are a good
 help 
 --and quite inspiring-- for our problems. See Leonard Suskind, with
 his 
 \Landscape\ approach (The Cosmic Landscape, 2005). Breaking the
 continuous 
 at the Planck scale means also a new hint on \where\ we can situate 
 fundamental laws of nature \physically\ --a question not responded
 yet in 
 the discussion, for my taste.
 
 Thanking your inspiring comments,
 
 Pedro
 
 
 
 ___
 fis mailing list
 fis@listas.unizar.es
 http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
 



With Best Regards,

Andrei Khrennikov

Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] QI-session: concluding remarks

2006-09-10 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
 and their applications to
the mathematical physics, Kluwer, Dordreht, 1994.

Khrennikov A.Yu., Information dynamics in cognitive,
psychological, social,  and anomalous phenomena.Kluwer, Dordreht,2004.

Proceedings of Conference Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of
Foundations-3, American Institute of Physics, Ser. Conference
Proceedings, Melville, NY, 2006.

A. Yu. Khrennikov,  The principle of supplementarity: A
contextual probabilistic viewpoint to complementarity, the
interference of probabilities, and the incompatibility of variables
in quantum mechanics.Foundations of Physics,  35, N.
10, 1655 - 1693 (2005).

A. Yu. Khrennikov,  Interference in the classical probabilistic
model and its representation in complex Hilbert space.  Physica, E 29,
226-236 (2005).

A. A. Ezhov, A. Yu.  Khrennikov, Agents with left and right
dominant hemispheres and quantum statistics. Phys. Rev. E (3)
71 , N. 1, 016138-1 -8 (2005).

A. Yu. Khrennikov, Quantum-like brain: Intereference of
minds. BioSystems, 84, 225-241 (2005).

With Best Regards,

Andrei Khrennikov

Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden











___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] Quantum Information - Probability Functions and Information

2006-06-23 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
Dear Steven,

I was not able to reply you earlier. But I think that I should do this 
even so late after your Email. You posted problems which are very 
important (at least for me).
 1. Quantum probability functions are either directly equivalent to 
 probability functions in Shannon\'s information theory or they are
 not.   
 Which is it?
Quantum probability functions are not equivalent probability functions 
in Shannon\'s information theory. They equivalent to quantum (von 
Neumann) information functions.

But we can generalize classical probability and consider contextual 
probability (I did this last years). I have never tried to proceed to 
contextual information theory, but it is possible. Such a classical 
probabilistic information theory will cover both CI and QI and some 
new information theories which are neither classical (noncontextual) 
nor quantum.

 
 2. If there are new physical mechanisms discovered in quantum
 mechanics 
Personally I do not know. The common viewpoint is that QM is really 
about completely new physics, but if you ask people working in Bohmian
mechanics, SED and other random field models, they would reply that 
QM is a special representation of classical random fields, I am at the 
latter position.

 then I am with Penrose - recall my earlier report of his observation
 
 concerning cricket balls.  The mechanisms must exist independent of 
 scale. And that implies to me that a clear mechanistic integration
 with 
 information theory is possible and required.

I would like to say that mechanism is indepent of scale, but its 
representation, e.g., the QM-representation of laws of nature, is 
dependent on transition from one scale to another. Therefore I think 
that quantum-like descriptions can be useful not only in quantum 
physics, but everywhere we have a tarnsition from one scale to another.


 3. It seems to me that the problem here is the parallel postulate and
 
 its equivalent by extension to computation.  This is the reason 
 probabilities come into it at all.  Perhaps we need to be reminded
 that 
 probabilities are the result of observations of the statistical
 behavior 
 of individuals.  Individuals have an ontological status while 
 probability functions only have epistemological status. 
But probability is just a special way of encoding of the onthological 
properties of individuals. In this sense probabilities (as well as 
information) are objective. This was the viewpoint of Richard von 
Mises. 



 4. Recurring laws of probability do appear to be stable laws, but
 they 
 are founded upon the aggregation of individual behavior.  Their 
 ontological status is derived from the behavior of individuals, not
 by 
 their own account.

Well I agree, but probabilistic laws represent in a special way 
ontological laws. The Kolmogorov equation for probabilities represent 
Brownian motion as well. 


All the best, Andrei
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] Reply to Ted Goranson: Quantum Gravity

2006-06-13 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
 Dear Ted,

Thanks a lot for your point:

 I\'m not surprised that most physicists want to ontologically flatten
 
 everything into a QM-described truth. What does surprise me is that 
 no one has mentioned the inconvenient fact that gravity, that most 
 prevalent force in physics, is notably unfriendly to QM.


Yes, quantum gravity is really totally unfriendly to QM. Last month at
the workshop Beyond Quantum in Leiden I presented the following
viewpoint:

Why do we think that such a thing as quantum gravity should exist at
all? The only reason is again the Copenhagen dogma about the
completeness of QM. If one assume that QM is not complete at all, so it
is not fundamental theory (and if one be even more provocative and
assume that QFT is neither fundamental and complete theory), then there
is no reasons to think that such a thing as quantum gravity exists.
May be the real fundamental theory is purely classical and QM is just an
approximation of such a theory.

So the postulate on the completeness of QM is not so innocent, it is not
just a philosophic subject...

With Best Regards,
Andrei Khrennikov
Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] Reply to Jakulin:Can quantum probabilities be always reduced to joint probabilities?

2006-05-29 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
Reply to Jakulin:Can quantum probabilities be always reduced to joint 
probabilities?


 Dear Alex,
In your last Email you discussed another question which of the
fundamental value  for comparasion of CI and QI, or that is equivqlent
CP and QP.

 Thus, the joint probability mass P(A,B) is constant. However,
 P(B|A=a)
 is not the same as P(B) if A and B are not independent (ie. are
 entangled).
 My suggestion would be to reconsider the wave function and to
 interpret
 the \weight\ corresponding to each Hilbert space base vector as a
 classical probability. But, I might be missing something. If I am,
 what
 is the difference between quantum probabilities and joint probability
 distributions? Can quantum probabilities do something that joint
 probability distributions can\'t?

The main mathematical point in Bells arguments (if we forget for a
moment all intriguing stories about quantum nonlocality) is that if one
assume that the joint probability distribution P(A,B,C) for three
different experimental settings exists, then one will get the Bells
inequality and consequently the contradiction with the experiment
(see my book INterpretations of Probability). But of course the
joint probability distributions P(A,B), P(A,C), and
P(C,B) are well defined since observables on different particles
belonging to the same pair of entangled particles are compatible
(corresponding operators commute). This was the essence of the
EPR-trick: for one particle they are incompatible and Bohr and
Heisenberg could speak as long as they like about irredicible
disturbances. And of course, by using P(A,B) you can always define
P(B|A=a) with the aid of the Bayes formula (I recall for one fixed
experimental arrangement you can always use the classical probability).

 Is the process of quantum
 measurement
 the same as the operation of taking the conditional distribution?
Yes, it is correct, but you could not assume that there exists one fixed
probability measure for incompatible experimental settings.

 Agreed, this relates to the problem of defining what is an event in
 classical probability. In that respect, the definition of an event
 depends on the time window within which we interpret two detections
 as
 relating to the same event. This is how we have chosen to
 conceptualize
 the world.
Yes, it is a good formulation that teh definition of an event (and thus
a Kolmogorov model) depends on time window. Thanks! We shall use this
point of view in future.


 I would be interested in how to express A,B,C and D in terms of
 properties. Thus, if we have detectors A and B, and o(A) and o(B) are

 their orientations, I would be interested in the probabilistic model
 of
 P(A,B|o(A),o(B)) or the joint probability distribution of clicks in A

 and B given the orientations of A and B.
This is the simple question until you are speaking only about two
orientations, here you can write
P(A=+1,B=+1|o(A),o(B))= 1/2 cos^2 (a-b)/2, where a,b are angles
determining orientations A and B; P(A=-1,B=+1|o(A),o(B))=
1/2 sin^2 (a-b)/2, and so on. We tokk this answer from QM. But you would
not be able to find a single probability distribution for A,B,C.

Therefore I speak about contextual probability theory.


With Best Regards,

Andrei Khrennikov

Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden 


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] Measurement Problem, von Neumann projection postulate

2006-05-29 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
 and its environment.
 Von Neumann showed that the OA wavevector is the direct product of
 the 
 individual wavevectors of O and A. And he proved that if A measures O
 
 (as O+A remains isolated from the rest of the world) there exists a 
 one-to-one correlation between each possible eigenvector of O
 determined 
 by the measurement, and just one eigenvector of A. This is the
 quantum 
 measurement correlation. Its called entanglement.
 A very important theorem was demonstrated by Wigner in 1952, and
 later 
 enlarged by Araki and Yanase. They proved that the exact measurement
 
 correlation can exist only for a subset of all physical observables.
 
 They showed that only if an observable commutes with all additive 
 conserved quantities (energy, momentum, spin direction, etc.) can it
 
 form a measurement correlation. But, there is an approximate
 correlation 
 for other observables, if the apparatus is macroscopic.
 Continuing v.N.s argument, we notice that if O+A is a single
 physical 
 object described by one wavevector in Hilbert space, then O+A+S is
 also 
 a single physical object described by Schrodingers equation (quantum
 
 object), where S is some other physical object, as long as OAS
 remains 
 isolated from energy exchange with its environment. And so on, to 
 Fullerene molecules, viruses, cells, people, galaxies, etc.
 Crucially, 
 unitary Schrodinger development describes the compound object only so
 
 long as no energy is exchanged with its environment. Obviously, the 
 larger the object, the shorter the duration, on average, before it 
 experiences some energy transfer with its environment, due perhaps to
 a 
 cosmic ray, or atmospheric molecule, etc. Zurek has called that
 process 
 of annihilation of the Schrodinger evolution of an object by
 interaction 
 with the environment decoherence. For macroscopic quantum objects,
 the 
 duration of unitary evolution, before another environmental exchange,
 
 can be exceedingly short.
 Hope Ive been of some help, Steven.
 Cordially,
 
 Michael Devereux
 
 



With Best Regards,

Andrei Khrennikov

Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] QI and probabilities: reply to Michel Petitjean

2006-05-27 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
  Dear Michael, 
The question on the difference between classical and quantum
probabilities is really fundamental for QI. The situation is not so
simple as it was described in the Email below. Yes, I agree that if we
consider one fixed experimental arrangement then we obtain the usual
classical probability. Statistical data follows the law of large numbers
and the relative frequencies give us approximations of probability. But,
as it was already emphasized in my previous Email, if we try to combine
statistical data obtained from a few different experiments then it would
be observed  the evident deviation from the rules for classical
Kolmogorov probability. One of such deviations we see in the two slit
experiment: we collect data for three different complexes of
experimental physical conditions (contexts): two slits are open, the
first is open and the second is closed and, finally, vice versa. The
well know formula of total probability is evidently violated (Richard
Feynman wrote about teh violation of the rule of addition of
probabilities).  The same behaviour is demonstrated by statistical data
for the EPR-Bohm experiment. I recall that there is also combined data
for at least three (and the real experiments four) experimental
arrangements. 

Then one could ask: Is this difference fundamental? So that one could
not in principle reduce the quantum probability to the classical one.
The answer of von Neumann and majority of quantum community is: yes, the
difference is fundamental. Quantum randomness is IRREDICIBLE. Therefore 
we should develop special quantum probability and even special quantum
logic.

Aa I pointed out, nevertheless, it is possible to find classical
probabilistic models which reproduce quantum probabilistic behaviour
EVEN FOR DATA COLLECTED IN DIFFERENT EXPERIMENTS. For example, Bohmian
mechanics: here quantum randomness is reduced to randomness of initial
conditions; stochastic electrodynamics: here quantum randomness is
reduced to randomness of vacuum fluctuations; Nelson\'s stochastic
mechanics -- the same as in SED. In the series of papers that I
mentioned in previous Emails I developed so called CONTEXTUAL CLASSICAL
PROBABILISTIC calculus that also reproduces quantum probabilistic behaviour.
Andrei 
 Dear Michael,
 
 Except minor differences such that real valued / non real valued or
 discrete / continuous, the probabilities computed for the roll of a
 die
 and those computed for a quantum system are not fundamentally
 different:
 they all obey to the rules in vigor in a probability space.
 In this sense, the probabilities computed for a quantum system are
 classical, despite that the calculation involves the modulus of the
 wave function: it is an additional property which does not preclude
 the validity of the properties of ordinary probabilities.
 
 Best regards,
 
 , Email:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ITODYS (CNRS, UMR 7086)  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 1 rue Guy de la BrossePhone: +33 (0)1 44 27 48 57
 75005 Paris, France.  FAX  : +33 (0)1 44 27 68 14
 http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
 
 From: Michael Devereux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Dear Jonathan, Andrei, and colleagues,
  ...
  And we know that these probabilities for quantum objects are
 calculated 
  from the complex value of each eigenvector (the probability
 amplitude) 
  but not, as is done classically, by determining the real-valued 
  probabilities associated with, for example, each roll of a die.
 (Again, 
  ...
 
 ___
 fis mailing list
 fis@listas.unizar.es
 http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
 


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] Noncommuting observables: reply to Srinandan Dasmahapatra

2006-05-27 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
  Dear Srinandan,

Your question about teh difference in statistical data for commuting and
noncommuting observables is extremely important for probabilistic
foundations of QM. First I recall my and yours points:
 On 20-May-06, at 11:13 AM, Andrei Khrennikov wrote:
the real problem is not in some distinguishing features of so  
 called quantum systems, but in combining of statistical data from
 a few different experiments.

Srinandan Dasmahapatra:
 However, this procedure/algorithm must have features built in which 
  distinguish between classical modes of combining the results and  
 quantum ones.  For instance, in quantum systems, the results of  
 measuring observables A and B which commute will have different rules
 for aggregation than those which do not commute.  Is there a way of 
 seeing this clearly in your formulation?

Roughly speaking we can formulate the problem in the following way. We
have two different observables A and B. We have no idea either their
classical or quantum.  Is it possible to find some statistical invariant
that would say us that these observables could be represented in the
Hilbert space by commutative or noncommutative operators? Yes, it is
possible to proceed in this way, such a coefficient, denoted by lambda
was proposed and the simplest introduction can be found in 
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205092 (Brain as quantum-like computer).

This approach to noncommutativity gives us the possibility to apply the 
Hilbert space formalism outside the conventional domain of QM. 
Complementary observables observables A and B can be found in different
domains of science, e.g., cognitive sciences, 
see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0307201 (A Preliminar Evidence of
Quantum Like Behavior in Measurements of Mental States) or economy.

I really think that we have not yet explored the quantum formalism. We
found just one special application, namely, in the microworld.

 
With Best Regards, Andrei Khrennikov

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] Bell\'s inequality: Can we find its classical analogue? Classical and Quantum waves

2006-05-27 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
 it is not justified, see
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0309010
[Experimental Scheme to Test the Fair Sampling Assumption in EPR-Bell
Experiments]

The main problem for me: to find such a dependence of statistics on
experimental settings in other domains of science.  May be somebody
could come with some ideas?
With Best Regards,
Andrei Khrennikov
Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] Reply to Eriksson Zenith: Unification of QI and CI?

2006-05-20 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
 with quantum 
probabilities. If we choose such a viewpoint then we shall lose all
mysteries of QM and QI. One may find QI-representation for information
corresponding to different contexts (in physics, psychology, chemistry
and so on), see e.g. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0307201
on experimental evidences of  quantum_like probabilistic behaviour of 
cognitive systems.

P.S. But if you like nonlocality,  you could proceed with such an
interpretation. There is nothing wrong, since the mathematical apparatus
is correct in any way! 

With Best Regards,
Andrei Khrennikov
Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden

 Dear Andrei and List,
 
 I have been reading the session opening post for a few days now and 
 trying to make sense of it in terms of the Foundations of Information
 
 Science.
 
 These questions continue to be raised and I am glad the session here
 
 causes me to return to them.  They continue to be the center of an 
 ongoing crisis in physics.  I am not sure of the state of play - and
 it 
 would be useful to me to have a physicist summarize the latest work. 
 
 
 The last paper I reviewed on the subject was James Malley\'s paper 
 (http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0402/0402126.pdf)  which, at
 the 
 time, I thought convincingly showed that EPR results do not commute. 
 A 
 paper from Daniele Tommasini 
 (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/0651/00/locaqft.pdf) 
 appears to show that EPR is unmeasurable.  I\'d like to hear the
 standing 
 of these papers today, if anyone knows.
 
 I was fortunate to be in a conversation with Roger Penrose a few
 years 
 ago about these questions and he put it rather well by saying that he
 
 was troubled that cricket balls did not appear to behave according to
 
 the rules of quantum physics. 
 
 I have a number of standing questions about entanglement theory 
 especially as it related of molecular biology. For example:  Is an 
 entire organism considered to be an entangled entity?  What is the 
 theoretical and experimental justification for stem cells as origin
 of 
 entangled cell structures?  How does that work according to
 entanglement 
 physics?  It is simple to consider entanglement in the case of single
 
 photons, it is rather more difficult to generalize it.  Although, 
 aggregate manifestations of entanglement may, in fact, be easier to
 deal 
 with both experimentally and theoretically.
 
 What Penrose is getting at by the above remark is that if such states
 as 
 entanglement/non-locality and superposition do exist at the quantum 
 level they must surely manifest at the classical level.  Andrei\'s
 appeal 
 to scale in his recent post seems unreasonable (he essentially asks
 at 
 what increase of mass entanglement stops). 
 
 Hence, entangled states/non-locality, superposition, must necessarily
 be 
 in the mechanics of information theory.  In other words, we need a 
 theory of information that unifies classical and quantum theories -
 or 
 we need some reasonable explanation of why there should be two
 theories.
 
 I think there may, in fact, be ready manifestation of 
 entanglement/non-locality at the classical level underlying the 
 integration of experience in senses. If this is not a classical level
 
 manifestation of entanglement and non-locality then it requires that
 we 
 do something like Jonathan Edwards\' 
 (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/aw.htm) proposal and reduce integrated
 
 experience to single cells.  This does not seem likely in my view 
 because the argument reduces to a point and if it does not the
 locality 
 issues remain within the cell.  However, I do think Jonathan\'s work
 is 
 very interesting and worthy.  In my view, even if the manifestation
 is 
 isolated to a single cell or just a few cells in the brain, the
 locality 
 issue is a problem for sentience engineering and cognitive science. 
 (Obvious example: smash fingers from both hands in a door. How is it
 you 
 can integrate the pain of each together in a single cognition?) 
 
 Indeed, I do currently assume in my work that there is this 
 manifestation of entanglement/non-locality at the classical level of
 
 sentience engineering and that it does explain the integration of 
 experience.  However, whether this non-locality and associated
 sensory / 
 cognitive integration relates directly to EPR I leave as an open 
 question.  There are many miles to go before we sleep.  It certainly
 
 would be convenient, however, if I could say with some certainty that
 
 all organisms are entangled entities - in a single whole or in
 parts.
 
 As to the Toshiba device, as they say here in the USA, \I\'m from 
 Missouri\ (the \show me\ state) - I will wait until they actually
 have 
 something to show before passing judgment.
 
 With respect,
 Steven
 
 --
 Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
 SEMEIOSIS RESEARCH
 INSTITUTE for ADVANCED SCIENCE  ENGINEERING
 
 http://www.semeiosis.org