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

2016-11-15 Thread John Collier 
I don't think that Bell's inequality shows indeterminacy, m3aning randomness, 
or chance. It does show entanglement. There are quantum that are reversible 
(some are macroscopic). In most measurements there is quantum decoherence, 
which breaks up entanglement, and has been compared to thermodynamic 
dissipation. In my review of Time's Arrow's Today: Recent Physical and 
Philosophical Work on the Direction of Time, edited by Steven F. Savitt, 
Cambridge University Press, 1995. I wrote:

"The chapters by physicists James Leggett and Phil Stamp deal with the 
distinction between quantum decoherence and dissipation. Although it has been 
widely remarked that quantum mechanics is formally reversible, many have 
thought that the "collapse of the wave packet" implies that measurement imposes 
a direction on time. Leggett and Stamp thoroughly refute this position by 
distinguishing between decoherence and the usual statistical mechanical 
dissipation. Although they are not essential to the basic argument, 
"macroscopic" quantum systems demonstrate that decoherence is reversible. The 
so-called collapse of the wave packet introduces nothing new to the problem of 
the direction of time."

John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

> -Original Message-
> From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 November 2016 5:21 PM
> To: FIS Webinar 
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
> 
> 
> On 13 Nov 2016, at 10:48, Andrei Khrennikov wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> 
> Bell's inequality shows only indeterminacy and non-locality in the Mono-
> world QM theory. I have shown that local and deterministic Mechanism
> (simple Descartes Mechanist hypothesis in cognitive science) implies the
> *appearance* of non-locality and indeterminacy, and this before I knew
> anything about QM. QM without collapse (non-copenhague
> theory) confirms Descartes' Mechanism (in cognitive science, not in physics).
> The indeterminacy and non-locality are an appearance emerging from our
> abstraction with respect to the many computations, which can be proved to
> exist from the universally accepted assumption of elementary arithmetic.
> 
> You are logically valid in QM + the assumption of a unique reality, which
> needs the assumption that brain are not Turing emulable. But that seems to
> me quite speculative and almost like an ad hoc assumption to avoid the
> computationalist solution of the mind-body problem. Better to continue the
> testing and abandon Mechanism only when we find good evidences against
> it, I think.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 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
> >

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

2016-11-15 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 13 Nov 2016, at 10:48, Andrei Khrennikov wrote:


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



Bell's inequality shows only indeterminacy and non-locality in the  
Mono-world QM theory. I have shown that local and deterministic  
Mechanism (simple Descartes Mechanist hypothesis in cognitive science)  
implies the *appearance* of non-locality and indeterminacy, and this  
before I knew anything about QM. QM without collapse (non-copenhague  
theory) confirms Descartes' Mechanism (in cognitive science, not in  
physics).
The indeterminacy and non-locality are an appearance emerging from our  
abstraction with respect to the many computations, which can be proved  
to exist from the universally accepted assumption of elementary  
arithmetic.


You are logically valid in QM + the assumption of a unique reality,  
which needs the assumption that brain are not Turing emulable. But  
that seems to me quite speculative and almost like an ad hoc  
assumption to avoid the computationalist solution of the mind-body  
problem. Better to continue the testing and abandon Mechanism only  
when we find good evidences against it, I think.


Bruno







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


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' ; 'FIS Webinar' 

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)

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

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' ; 'FIS Webinar' 
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  ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU,  University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor, ISTIC,  Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en

From: Alex Hankey [mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:07 PM
To: Loet Leydesdorff; FIS Webinar
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of

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

2016-11-12 Thread John Collier 
More on Quantum information and emergent spacetime, this time by Erik P. 
Verlinde:
Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

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' ; 'FIS Webinar' 
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  ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU,  University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor, ISTIC,  Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en

From: Alex Hankey [mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:07 PM
To: Loet Leydesdorff; FIS Webinar
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues,

Are you aware of Roy Frieden's
'Physics from Fisher Information'.
His book was published in the 1990s.
I consider it a very powerful statement.

Ultimately everything we can detect at
both macroscopic and microscopic levels
depends on information production from
a quantum level that forms Fisher Information.

Frieden's points apply to quantum physics
as well as classical physics.

Best wishes,

Alex Hankey


On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff 
> wrote:
Dear Marcus,

When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must confront 
the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the physical . . 
. and their necessarily entangled nature.

“Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires interhuman 
communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or the physical is 
metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider (with Maturana) as 
a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a semantic domain without 
being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50):

“In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within a 
second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer as if its nervous 
system interacted with internal representations of the circumstances of its 
interactions, and as if the changes of state of the organism were determined by 
the semantic value of these representations. Yet all that takes place in the 
operation of the nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of 
changing relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal 
network.”

Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. 
And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located 
. . .

Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to the 
phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with an 
explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for

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

2016-11-12 Thread Loet Leydesdorff 
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 ;  
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Associate Faculty,   SPRU, University of Sussex; 

Guest Professor   Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor,   ISTIC, Beijing;

Visiting Professor,   Birkbeck, University of London; 

  
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en

 

From: Alex Hankey [mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:07 PM
To: Loet Leydesdorff; FIS Webinar
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

 

Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues, 

 

Are you aware of Roy Frieden's 

'Physics from Fisher Information'. 

His book was published in the 1990s.

I consider it a very powerful statement. 

 

Ultimately everything we can detect at 

both macroscopic and microscopic levels 

depends on information production from 

a quantum level that forms Fisher Information. 

 

Frieden's points apply to quantum physics 

as well as classical physics. 

 

Best wishes, 

 

Alex Hankey 

 

 

On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff  wrote:

Dear Marcus, 

 

When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must confront 
the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the physical . . 
. and their necessarily entangled nature.

 

“Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires interhuman 
communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or the physical is 
metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider (with Maturana) as 
a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a semantic domain without 
being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50): 

 

“In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within a 
second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer as if its nervous 
system interacted with internal representations of the circumstances of its 
interactions, and as if the changes of state of the organism were determined by 
the semantic value of these representations. Yet all that takes place in the 
operation of the nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of 
changing relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal 
network.”

 

Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. 
And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located 
. . .

 

Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to the 
phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with an 
explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly specialized language 
in which “mass” and “information” are provided with meanings different from 
classical physics.

 

Best, 

Loet

 

 


___
Fis mailing list
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

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

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

2016-11-12 Thread Alex Hankey 
Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues,

Are you aware of Roy Frieden's
'Physics from Fisher Information'.
His book was published in the 1990s.
I consider it a very powerful statement.

Ultimately everything we can detect at
both macroscopic and microscopic levels
depends on information production from
a quantum level that forms Fisher Information.

Frieden's points apply to quantum physics
as well as classical physics.

Best wishes,

Alex Hankey


On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff  wrote:

> Dear Marcus,
>
>
>
> When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must
> confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the
> physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature.
>
>
>
> “Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires
> interhuman communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or
> the physical is metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider
> (with Maturana) as a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a
> semantic domain without being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50):
>
>
>
> “In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within
> a second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer *as if* its
> nervous system interacted with internal representations of the
> circumstances of its interactions, and as if the changes of state of the
> organism were determined by the semantic value of these representations.
> Yet all that takes place in the operation of the nervous system is the
> structure-determined dynamics of changing relations of relative neuronal
> activity proper to a closed neuronal network.”
>
>
>
> Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory
> gap. And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also
> easily located . . .
>
>
>
> Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to
> the phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with
> an explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly specialized
> language in which “mass” and “information” are provided with meanings
> different from classical physics.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> 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

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

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

2016-11-12 Thread Loet Leydesdorff 
Dear Marcus, 

 

When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must confront 
the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the physical . . 
. and their necessarily entangled nature.

 

“Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires interhuman 
communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or the physical is 
metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider (with Maturana) as 
a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a semantic domain without 
being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50): 

 

“In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within a 
second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer as if its nervous 
system interacted with internal representations of the circumstances of its 
interactions, and as if the changes of state of the organism were determined by 
the semantic value of these representations. Yet all that takes place in the 
operation of the nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of 
changing relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal 
network.”

 

Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. 
And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located 
. . .

 

Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to the 
phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with an 
explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly specialized language 
in which “mass” and “information” are provided with meanings different from 
classical physics.

 

Best, 

Loet

 

 

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

[Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

2016-11-12 Thread Marcus Abundis 
Further to John's original note . . .
and then to Pedro's further note
> It would neatly apply to the living but also to the physical <

This is, of course, a recurring issue for FIS – the matter of meaning . . .
or even, what is "information?"
When it comes to defining "meaning" (or information) I have found it
infinitely more useful to think of things in terms of pure "functional
significance" rather than agents, as some (many?) seem disposed to do in
this group.
I too, used to be part of "that camp," but plainly no longer. Close
examination "showed me the light."

When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must
confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the
physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature. Failing to "make
that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. And then, once
connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located . . .

Further, it is profoundly odd/confusing/puzzling how this matter of
meaning, which is plainly a key issue for FIS continues to "float around."
But then, when the group is offered a serious(?) opportunity to engage with
the topic it seemed to draw very little legitimate energy or dialogue?! I
am happy to let that moment pass, but I do remain *curious* about WHY this
is the case for FIS – and invite private communications that offer insight.
Also, for those with genuine interest, the admittedly weak supporting
papers that went with that now-past session re meaning have been updated,
and are available on request.

Re Mark's note . . . I agree Floridi's view of an informational world is
highly speculative, and I would even say overblown, simply in an effort to
claim some novel ground? But then I also think I agree with Mark for
different reasons.

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

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

2016-11-05 Thread Rafael Capurro 

Dear Mark and all,

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

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


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


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

best

Rafael


Dear Moises and all,

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


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


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


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


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


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


Best wishes,

Mark




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


Dear FISers.

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


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


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


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

Home page:

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



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


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


Mainly, it is an Interdisciplinary Resarch group trying to

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

2016-11-05 Thread Mark Johnson 
Dear Moises and all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,

Mark




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

> Dear FISers.
>
> I was very excited with the John’s first message informing that a group of
> scientists is discussing again the role of Information in Physics.
>
>
> The high impact on FIS list of John’s post (13 replies from different
> persons in 2 days) shows that it is yet an open discussion. Thank you all
> for the very interesting posts :-)
>
> The works (not interdisciplinary nor reductionist) of Tom Stonier (1991),
> Holger Lyre (1995) and Carl Friedrich Von Weizsäcker, et. Al (2006) and
> many discussions on this list (http://fis.sciforum.net/fis-
> discussion-sessions/) are also about this theme.
>
>
> Scientific American article is an introduction. So I went to the source of
> the project named “It from Qubit: Simons Collaboration on Quantum Fields,
> Gravity, and Information.
>
> Home page: https://www.simonsfoundation.org/mathematics-and-physical-
> science/it-from-qubit-simons-collaboration-on-quantum-fields-gravity-and-
> information/
>
> Overview: http://web.stanford.edu/~phayden/simons/overview.pdf
>
> Project: http://web.stanford.edu/~phayden/simons/simons-proposal.pdf
>
>
>
> Mainly, it is an Interdisciplinary Resarch group trying to approximate
> Fundamental Physics from Quantum Information, so I think that it is a good
> and necessary initiative. Imagine what we can “extract” from this two
> fields working together!
>
>
>
> They have several projects, but I think that the final goals is not as
> important as the revelations of the processes. We should look at the
> projects. Maybe we can find that, after all, the title “it from qbit” was
> only a “marketing” (bad?) choice :-)
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Moisés
>
>
> References:
>
> STONIER, T. *Towards a new theory of information*. Journal of Information
> Science. *Anais*...1991Disponível em: http://www.scopus.com/inward/
> record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0026386595=tZOtx3y1
>
> “Information science is badly in need of an information theory. The paper
> discusses both the need, and the possibility of developing such a theory
> based on the assumption that information is a basic property of the
> universe.”
>
>
> LYRE, H. Quantum theory of Ur-objects as a theory of information. 
> *International
> Journal of Theoretical Physics*, v. 34, n. 8, p. 1541–1552, ago. 1995.
>
> “The quantum theory of ur-objects proposed by C. F. von Weizsäcker has to
> be interpreted as a quantum theory of information.”
>
>
> WEIZSÄCKER, C. F. VON; GÖRNITZ, T.; LYRE, H. *The structure of physics*. 
> Dordrecht:
> Springer, 2006.
>
> “the idea of a quantum theory of binary alternatives (the so-called
> ur-theory), a unified quantum theoretical framework in which spinorial
> symmetry groups are considered to give rise to the structure of space and
> time.”
>
> 2016-11-03 16:52 GMT-02:00 John Collier :
>
>> Apparently some physicists think so.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-spa
>> cetime/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20161102
>>
>>
>>
>> John Collier
>>
>> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>>
>> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>
>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Fis mailing list
>>

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

2016-11-05 Thread Moisés André Nisenbaum 
Dear FISers.

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


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

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


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

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

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

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



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



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


Kind regards,


Moisés


References:

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

> Apparently some physicists think so.
>
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-
> spacetime/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20161102
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>
> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>


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

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

2016-11-04 Thread PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
Andrei, have you tried with information as "distintion on the adjacent"? It 
would neatly
apply to the living but also to the physical, i think.  Best --Pedro





Enviado desde mi dispositivo Samsung


 Mensaje original 
De: Andrei Khrennikov 
Fecha: 4/11/16 16:19 (GMT+08:00)
Para: Gyorgy Darvas , John Collier , fis 

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

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

2016-11-04 Thread Karl Javorszky 
Well, Joseph, you don't have to go far to get the desired definition of
information as an operator (produced quantity).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully
Karl

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

> Dear All,
>
> I agree with the consensus I see emerging. Andrei shows the problem of
> trying to pin down a complex process with a single term - information. And
> I agree with Rafael that information must have a valence. On the other
> hand, as such, information cannot be completely defined mathematically, *pace
> *Karl, any more than anything living can be.
>
> It is discouraging to see how reductionist theories like 'It-from-Bit' get
> reproduced and disseminated by *Scientific American*, which used to be a
> good journal. One cannot simply ignore the reactionary sub-text of such
> 'science', even if a product of the "Perimeter Institute for Theoretical
> Physics".
>
> One could say rather that *quanta*, not quantum information, are the
> basis for spacetime. At the sub-quantum level, I think we have already said
> that whatever the way in which energy is exchanged, nothing is gained by
> calling it information. (We may make an exception for the case of
> non-locality defined by Bell inequalities.)
>
> The only nuance I would add is that although we can speak of biotic and
> Shannon information (better, today, Shannon-Boltzmann-Darwin as in Terry's
> explication), the properties of information_as_process have not been
> completely described. I would like to see the concept of information as an
> operator, causally effective because of its being energy, explored further.
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Rafael Capurro 
> *To:* Bob Logan  ; Andrei Khrennikov
>  ; Gyorgy Darvas  ; John Collier
>  ; fis 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 3:47 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
>
> Andrei, maybe the concept of message as already used by Shannon and Weaver
> in specific engineering contexts (this must not be always the case) is more
> appropriate and also able to speak about 'information' as what is 'in' a
> message 'for' a receiver. Best. Rafael
>
> Hello Andrei - I am with you - sharing you sentiment. Information only
> pertains to living organisms and entails some signals that help them make a
> choice. A black hole makes no choices - it is ruled by the laws of physics.
> Abiotic systems have no information. A book is a set of signals that a
> reader can convert into information if they know the language which the
> book is written. A book written in Urdu contains no information for me
> other than this appears to be a set of signals that contains information
> for a reader in the language in which this book was written. Who reads a
> black hole. How does it contain information that makes a difference. When
> we launch a satellite to orbit the earth we do not say that the sun is
> informing the satellite how to behave. The satellite is just

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

2016-11-04 Thread Joseph Brenner 
Dear All,

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

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

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

The only nuance I would add is that although we can speak of biotic and Shannon 
information (better, today, Shannon-Boltzmann-Darwin as in Terry's 
explication), the properties of information_as_process have not been completely 
described. I would like to see the concept of information as an operator, 
causally effective because of its being energy, explored further.

Thank you and best wishes,

Joseph



  - Original Message - 
  From: Rafael Capurro 
  To: Bob Logan ; Andrei Khrennikov ; Gyorgy Darvas ; John Collier ; fis 
  Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 3:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?


  Andrei, maybe the concept of message as already used by Shannon and Weaver in 
specific engineering contexts (this must not be always the case) is more 
appropriate and also able to speak about 'information' as what is 'in' a 
message 'for' a receiver. Best. Rafael

Hello Andrei - I am with you - sharing you sentiment. Information only 
pertains to living organisms and entails some signals that help them make a 
choice. A black hole makes no choices - it is ruled by the laws of physics. 
Abiotic systems have no information. A book is a set of signals that a reader 
can convert into information if they know the language which the book is 
written. A book written in Urdu contains no information for me other than this 
appears to be a set of signals that contains information for a reader in the 
language in which this book was written. Who reads a black hole. How does it 
contain information that makes a difference. When we launch a satellite to 
orbit the earth we do not say that the sun is informing the satellite how to 
behave. The satellite is just following the laws of physics. It has no choice 
and so it is not being informed. There are many different forms of information 
(biotic and Shannon as found in the 2007 paper Propagating Organization: An 
Inquiry by Kauffman, Logan et al. in Biology and Philosophy 23: 27-45)  so 
we do not need to complicate things even more by ascribing the laws of physics 
as the communication of information. 
__


Robert K. Logan 
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto  
Fellow University of St. Michael's College
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD 
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan 
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications


On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:17 AM, Andrei Khrennikov  
wrote:


 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

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

2016-11-04 Thread Rafael Capurro 
Andrei, maybe the concept of message as already used by Shannon and 
Weaver in specific engineering contexts (this must not be always the 
case) is more appropriate and also able to speak about 'information' as 
what is 'in' a message 'for' a receiver. Best. Rafael
Hello Andrei - I am with you - sharing you sentiment. Information only 
pertains to living organisms and entails some signals that help them 
make a choice. A black hole makes no choices - it is ruled by the laws 
of physics. Abiotic systems have no information. A book is a set of 
signals that a reader can convert into information if they know the 
language which the book is written. A book written in Urdu contains no 
information for me other than this appears to be a set of signals that 
contains information for a reader in the language in which this book 
was written. Who reads a black hole. How does it contain information 
that makes a difference. When we launch a satellite to orbit the earth 
we do not say that the sun is informing the satellite how to behave. 
The satellite is just following the laws of physics. It has no choice 
and so it is not being informed. There are many different forms of 
information (biotic and Shannon as found in the 2007 paper Propagating 
Organization: An Inquiry by Kauffman, Logan et al. in Biology and 
Philosophy 23: 27-45)  so we do not need to complicate things even 
more by ascribing the laws of physics as the communication of 
information.

__

Robert K. Logan
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
Fellow University of St. Michael's College
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan 

www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications 



On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:17 AM, Andrei Khrennikov 
> wrote:


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



--
Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany
Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics 
(http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org)
Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for Information 
Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria, 
South Africa.
Chair, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) (http://icie.zkm.de)
Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) 
(http://www.i-r-i-e.net)
Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany

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

2016-11-04 Thread Bob Logan 
Hello Andrei - I am with you - sharing you sentiment. Information only pertains 
to living organisms and entails some signals that help them make a choice. A 
black hole makes no choices - it is ruled by the laws of physics. Abiotic 
systems have no information. A book is a set of signals that a reader can 
convert into information if they know the language which the book is written. A 
book written in Urdu contains no information for me other than this appears to 
be a set of signals that contains information for a reader in the language in 
which this book was written. Who reads a black hole. How does it contain 
information that makes a difference. When we launch a satellite to orbit the 
earth we do not say that the sun is informing the satellite how to behave. The 
satellite is just following the laws of physics. It has no choice and so it is 
not being informed. There are many different forms of information (biotic and 
Shannon as found in the 2007 paper Propagating Organization: An Inquiry by 
Kauffman, Logan et al. in Biology and Philosophy 23: 27-45)  so we do not 
need to complicate things even more by ascribing the laws of physics as the 
communication of information.
__

Robert K. Logan
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 
Fellow University of St. Michael's College
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications

On Nov 4, 2016, at 4:17 AM, Andrei Khrennikov  wrote:

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

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

2016-11-04 Thread Michel Godron 
I may understand why in "quantum foundations" nobody can define 
rigorously the basic term "information".


But, in agreement with Progogine, Brillouin, etc. information mays be 
defined rigorously in macro -systems.


I could explain more in french.

Cordialement. M. Godron

Le 04/11/2016 à 09:17, Andrei Khrennikov a écrit :

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

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
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

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

2016-11-03 Thread Kevin Clark 
Hello John and other FISers,

Thank you for the link. It's disappointing that the SA article fails to also 
describe ground-breaking work by Wheeler and Bekenstein on the subject.
Best regards,
Kevin Clark
California NanoSystems InstituteUniversity of California Los AngelesLos 
Angeles, CA 90095, USA

 

   

 On Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:55 AM, John Collier  
wrote:
 

  #yiv5789374128 #yiv5789374128 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 
4;}#yiv5789374128 filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 
4;}#yiv5789374128 p.yiv5789374128MsoNormal, #yiv5789374128 
li.yiv5789374128MsoNormal, #yiv5789374128 div.yiv5789374128MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv5789374128 a:link, 
#yiv5789374128 span.yiv5789374128MsoHyperlink 
{color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5789374128 a:visited, 
#yiv5789374128 span.yiv5789374128MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5789374128 
span.yiv5789374128EmailStyle17 {color:windowtext;}#yiv5789374128 
.yiv5789374128MsoChpDefault {}#yiv5789374128 filtered {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 
72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv5789374128 div.yiv5789374128WordSection1 {}#yiv5789374128 
Apparently some physicists think so.    
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-spacetime/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20161102
    John Collier Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, 
University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier    
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


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

[Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

2016-11-03 Thread John Collier 
Apparently some physicists think so.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-spacetime/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20161102

John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

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