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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Re: [Fis] informational economics?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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