Re: [Fis] Everett & quantum wave collapse
contains knowledge but is not knowledge itself. In the same way, the textbook contains information but is not information itself. The same is true for letters, e-mails, electromagnetic waves and other physical objects because all of them only contain information but are not information. For instance, as we know, different letters can contain the same information. Even if we make an identical copy of a letter or any other text, then the letter and its copy will be different physical objects (physical things) but they will contain the same information. Information belongs to a different (non-physical) world of knowledge, data and similar essences. In spite of this, information can act on physical objects (physical bodies) and this action also misleads people who think that information is physical. OK. The reason is that we can hardly imagine how immaterial or non physical objects can alter the physical realm. It is the usual problem faced by dualist ontologies. With Indexical computationalism we recover many dualities, but they belong to the phenomenologies. One more misleading property of information is that people can measure it. This brings an erroneous assumption that it is possible to measure only physical essences. Naturally, this brings people to the erroneous conclusion that information is physical. However, measuring information is essentially different than measuring physical quantities, i.e., weight. There are no “scales” that measure information. Only human intellect can do this. OK. I think all intellect can do that, not just he human one. Now, the reason why people believe in the physical is always a form of the “knocking table” argument. They knocks on the table and say “you will not tell me that this table is unreal”. I have got so many people giving me that argument, that I have made dreams in which I made that argument, or even where I was convinced by that argument … until I wake up. When we do metaphysics with the scientific method, this “dream argument” illustrates that seeing, measuring, … cannot prove anything ontological. A subjective experience proves only the phenomenological existence of consciousness, and nothing more. It shows that although there are plenty of strong evidences for a material reality, there are no evidences (yet) for a primitive or primary matter (and that is why, I think, Aristotle assumes it quasi explicitly, against Plato, and plausibly against Pythagorus). Mechanism forces a coming back to Plato, where the worlds of ideas is the world of programs, or information, or even just numbers, since very elementary arithmetic (PA without induction, + the predecessor axiom) is already Turing complete (it contains what I have named a Universal Dovetailer: a program which generates *and* executes all programs). So I agree with you: information is not physical. I claim that if we assume Mechanism (Indexical computationalism) matter itself is also not *primarily* physical: it is all in the “head of the universal machine/number” (so to speak). And this provides a test for primary matter: it is enough to find if there is a discrepancy between the physics that we infer from the observation, and the physics that we extract from “the head” of the machine. This took me more than 30 years of work, but the results obtained up to now is that there is no discrepancies. I have compared the quantum logic imposed by incompleteness (formally) on the semi-computable (partial recursive, sigma_1) propositions, with most quantum logics given by physicists, and it fits rather well. Best regards, Bruno ___ 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<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Lars-Göran Johansson Seniorprofessor i teoretisk filosofi ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic
Dear all It seems to me that the heat in the debate about the definition of the concept of Information is fuelled by deep metaphysical feelings: different people have different views about what is REALLY Information. Metaphysical debates can never be resolved. May I suggest that we agree on this: there are several different concepts, such as Shannon Information, Semantic Information, etc.. Each Information concept has its own distinct definition and each one may use whichever he/she finds useful. Whether any of these concepts refers to any real thing, INFORMATION, cannot be determined by any empirical research. The reason is that empirical research can sometimes decide the truth of a sentence, but never whether the predicate in that sentence refers to anything. Suppose we have found, empirically, that a sentence of the form ’ X is information’ where ’information’ has a clear definition. (Chose anyone you like.) The truth of this sentence entails that the object referred to by ’X’ must exist; this is a truth condition for any declarative sentence. But it does not follow that the predicate ’Information' refers to something. It suffice that the object X belongs to the extension of the predicate. This is the nominalist position. Since 1000 years the core debate in metaphysics has been whether there are universals, i.e., properties and relations. The debate about Information is a debate about the existence of a property. I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one should not assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that Information is a property, an entithy, is not necessary. We can proceed with scientific research, using any information concept we think useful, without assuming it refers to anything. Metaphysical issues can safely be put to rest. Lars-Göran Johansson 4 okt. 2017 kl. 19:49 skrev tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>: Messaggio inoltrato Da: tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it> A: Alex Hankey alexhan...@gmail.com<mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com> Data: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM +02:00 Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] Heretic Dear Prof. Hankey, I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in particular if his opinion is not totally stupid. The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone. -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankey alexhan...@gmail.com<mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com>: Dear Professor Tozzi, Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list, as you evidently do not wish to participate in what the rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion. As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of 'information', and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally different mathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'. With all good wishes, Alex Hankey On 4 October 2017 at 02:30, <tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>> wrote: Dear FISers, After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term "information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, unique definition of information. Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!) empirical testable prevision able to assess "information". For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms? Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian sense. Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists. Therefore, my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very valuable skills and efforts in other fields. It is a waste of your precious time to focus yourself in something that is so vague. It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is information, if nobody knows what does it mean. -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ 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<mailto:Fis@
Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH
from other sciences, rather multifarious in appearance and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What could be the specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these information principles would appear as a sort of "portals" that connect with essential topics of other disciplines in the different organization layers, but at the same time they should try to be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the information world. And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier, Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments / criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival end to this info principles discussion(both attended the Madrid bygone FIS 1994 conference)... But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and the chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with the only customary limitation of two messages per week. Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro 10 PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy. 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or flows. 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed (either computationally or non-computationally). 4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy flows. 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales. 6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social nature." 7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by applying rigorous methodologies. 8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies." 9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna. 10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the information and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with profound consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social governance. -- - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526<tel:+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (& 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - ___ 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<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Lars-Göran Johansson lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se<mailto:lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se> 0701-679178 ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”
24 mars 2017 kl. 16:25 skrev Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com<mailto:mar...@foibg.com>>: Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues, Let me remember that: The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could “exchange information” leads to many principal theoretical as well as psychological faults. For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections ! Sorry for this n-th my remark ... Friendly greetings Krassimir And let me add: a photon is not something that can exchange information, or energy or anything whatsoever. A photon is portion of electromagnetic radiation, it comes into exitence when a material object decreases its energy and is destroyed when another (or the same) material object absorbs that portion. A photon cannot increase its energy, or decrease it. And, of course, we cannot attribute information or information change to it. Furthermore, as was proved by Gegerfeldt and Malament quite some time ago, a particle interpretation of quantum electro dynmaics is impossible. So thinking that a photon is confined to well defined portion of spacetime contradicts QED. cheers Lars-Göran From: tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important? Dear Lars-Göran, I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last FIS mail for the next days. First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other objects. In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a set of objects or events are being measured. Speaking of an observer is not specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing events, but rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects and events are to be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity occur whether or not there is a "material object that can recieve and store incoming energy from other objects" within the inertial reference frame to witness them. Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a cosmic zone close to the sun. The photon "detects" (and therefore can interact with) a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we humans on the Earth "detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun surface. Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same sun, but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange with the sun a different information content. If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite, fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange much more information with the sun than we humans can. In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the time of the "observer". Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ Messaggio originale Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" <lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se<mailto:lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se>> Data: 24/03/2017 14.50 A: "tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>"<tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>> Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important? 24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>: Dear Fisers, a big doubt... We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional to its 2D horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations. However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light speed (who watches a black hole at rest) detects a very large black hole horizon, due to Einstein's equations. Therefore, he detects more information from the black hole than an observer at rest, who sees a smaller horizon… An observer is by definition a material object that can recieve and store incoming energy from other objects. Since it requires infinite energy to accelerate even a slighest object to the velocity of light, no observer can travel at the speed of light. That means that your thought experiment is based in inconsistent assumptions and no vaild conclusions from them can be drawn. Lars-Göran Johansson In sum, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather just a very subjective measure... Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ _______ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto
Re: [Fis] Probability Amplitudes
Dear Andrei, Hans and all I agree with Andrei. And why make quantum theory more complex than it is? One may use all kinds of mathematical tools in a scientific theory, and the more these tools simplify calculations the better. I see no reason to avoid using amplitudes or matrices in quantum theory. Using a mathematical concept for making calculations doesn't entail that I accept that that concept represent a physical property. To Hans: Where exactly did Einstein wrote that one should avoid unmeasurable concepts in the description of Nature? I can't remember having read that. The issue is how we should interpret quantum theory, in particular the wave function, i.e., probability amplitudes; are they just mathematical tools, or do they describe real physical features of quantum systems? I believe the latter alternative is true and so did Schrödinger. But there are formidable difficulties to give a realistic interpretation of wave functions, and Schrödinger didn't succeed. But I think the difficulties can be overcome and I have published my views about these things (Lars-Göran Johansson: Interpreting Quantum Mechanics. A realist view in Schrödinger's vein, Ashgate, Aldershot 2007). Lars-Göran 22 jan 2014 kl. 10:59 skrev Andrei Khrennikov andrei.khrenni...@lnu.semailto:andrei.khrenni...@lnu.se: 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.esmailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Hans von Baeyer [henrikrit...@gmail.commailto:henrikrit...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:21 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.esmailto: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.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es
Re: [Fis] Probability Amplitudes in Macroscopic Processes
Let me clarify one point: by saying that probability amplitudes represent real physical features I reject the instrumentalist idea that they are mere calculational devices. But of course, the probability amplitude is no observable. But there is no need to claim that only observables have any physical significance. Robert Chen has, in a couple of papers argued that the square of real part of the wave function could be interpreted as the system's kinetic energy, whereas the square of the imaginary part represents the potential energy of the system. It is as far as I can see a possible and reasonable interpretation. Lars-Göran 22 jan 2014 kl. 15:14 skrev Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch: Dear Lars-Göran, Andrei and Hans, As you (I hope) have seen, I am trying to see how the evolution of macroscopic processes can be described in terms of changing probabilities, and I am encouraged to believe this is possible. If you allow the extension from QM, all of the following would seem to allow this (I am not concerned about whether QM itself becomes more or less complex): 1. Andrei confirms that the probability (in LIR, degree of potentiality or actuality) of a phenomenon can have a direction. 2. Lars-Göran says that probability amplitudes can represent real physical features. 3. Even though /a contrario/, Hans wrote: In order to make contact with real, measurable quantities, it (the probability amplitude) 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 my Logic in Reality, since there is a reciprocal relation between actuality and potentiality, each should be the complex conjugate of the other. I have no problem in the two summing to 1 if the values of 0 or 1 are excluded for either of them. This non-quantum aspect of reality could provide the missing motivation for the recipe in quantum theory ;-) I am certainly looking for a measurable (or estimatable) quantity of the actuality and potentiality of interactive processes that is not a standard probability of outcomes, but of changing macroscopic states. This is of course an 'underdeveloped' concept, but I am encouraged to believe that this idea of another set of very special probabilities is neither totally wrong nor totally trivial. Many thanks, Joseph - Original Message - From: Lars-Göran Johanssonmailto:lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se To: fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Probability Amplitudes Dear Andrei, Hans and all I agree with Andrei. And why make quantum theory more complex than it is? One may use all kinds of mathematical tools in a scientific theory, and the more these tools simplify calculations the better. I see no reason to avoid using amplitudes or matrices in quantum theory. Using a mathematical concept for making calculations doesn't entail that I accept that that concept represent a physical property. To Hans: Where exactly did Einstein wrote that one should avoid unmeasurable concepts in the description of Nature? I can't remember having read that. The issue is how we should interpret quantum theory, in particular the wave function, i.e., probability amplitudes; are they just mathematical tools, or do they describe real physical features of quantum systems? I believe the latter alternative is true and so did Schrödinger. But there are formidable difficulties to give a realistic interpretation of wave functions, and Schrödinger didn't succeed. But I think the difficulties can be overcome and I have published my views about these things (Lars-Göran Johansson: Interpreting Quantum Mechanics. A realist view in Schrödinger's vein, Ashgate, Aldershot 2007). Lars-Göran 22 jan 2014 kl. 10:59 skrev Andrei Khrennikov andrei.khrenni...@lnu.semailto:andrei.khrenni...@lnu.se: 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.esmailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Hans von Baeyer [henrikrit...@gmail.commailto:henrikrit...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:21 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis
