Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
I certainly agree, Marcus. One would do much better spending the time reading Seth Lloyd’s book, Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes On the Cosmoshttps://www.wikiwand.com/en/Programming_the_Universe, Knopfhttps://www.wikiwand.com/en/Alfred_A._Knopf, March 14, 2006, 240 p., ISBN 1-4000-4092-2https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Special:BookSources/1400040922. He does not get to meaning, though. Some people have tried to infer physics is based on information, information involves meaning, so physics involves meaning. It usually (but not always) ends up with “The universe is meaningful” or something like that or stronger (intelligent design of some sort). A book that certainly does not do this is David Layzer’s Cosmogenesis. Which does work its way through to meaning, but it is a late arrival. The book that most takes the meaningful universe as a consequence of information being fundamental view is Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen (Editors), Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 398 pp., $30.00, ISBN:9780521762250. The last chapters try to show this supports particularly Christian beliefs. John From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Marcus Abundis Sent: May 28, 2015 3:10 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video While the interviews on the video are interesting, in general, I also find them a bit annoying. I never hear information actually described in a specific way. They could as easily be discussing raw data as far as I can tell. For example, when is meaning associated with information (or data) and how does that meaning arise, who/what is ascribing meaning, etc..? The interview could have gone much further, and did not seem particularly well thought out in advance. Without a clear sense of how information is being used here, subsequent thoughts would seem to be equally unclear or confused (to my mind). ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
While the interviews on the video are interesting, in general, I also find them a bit annoying. I never hear information actually described in a specific way. They could as easily be discussing raw data as far as I can tell. For example, when is meaning associated with information (or data) and how does that meaning arise, who/what is ascribing meaning, etc..? The interview could have gone much further, and did not seem particularly well thought out in advance. Without a clear sense of how information is being used here, subsequent thoughts would seem to be equally unclear or confused (to my mind). ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
Dear John, That makes it clearer, thanks. The notion of symmetry is at the basis of the definition of probabilities (exchangeabilty (de Finetti), which operationalises symmetry, for variables that lie in the orbit of some group action, but whose transformed values do not have observable consequences such as changes of energy). Any state defined by the values taken by variables, such that they deviate from the equiprobable distribution required for exchangeablity, necessarily has a different value taken by any measure of distances between distributions. In that sense, one can correlate information and lack of symmetry, when the symmetric state is taken as reference. Howver, there is more to symmetry than merely providing a reference state. The way the world is described by physics is via symmetry, indeed via local symmetry. The freedom to allow group transformations to variables locally must be coupled with compensatory transformations elsewhere. And this is how interactions get generated, and we have light and other bosonic force mediators. Further, what is facilitated by appeals to notions of symmetry as a primitive principle, are not only ieas that rely on invariance, when the observables under scrutiny are unaffected by the symmetry transformations, but also covariance, where observables get transformed in a particular manner that respects its algebraic/geometric status. Cheers, Srinandan On 26 May 2015, at 22:19, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote: Dear Srinandan, He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries, which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and other means in his Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. More direct connections can be made via the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed, but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But basically it is in the asymmetries. As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well. I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though. John From: Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: May 26, 2015 10:20 PM To: u...@umces.edu mailto:u...@umces.edu; John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Re: boundary conditions, etc. I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same as information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or even that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering classical electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for galactic distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the large scale structure of the universe is via the field equations of gravity, which brings a coherent package of causal thinking built into it. I did understand the bit on Noether, as energy conservation is indeed a consequence of time translation invariance, but that comes embedded in a continuum description, typically. In biological systems, energy input makes the picture specific to the system one cordons off for study, and often it is hard to adequately describe phenomena by scalar potentials alone due to the currents in the system. And Noether cannot deliver reversibility. To me the message of Sean Carroll in the YouTube video that an equivalent redescription of physics (or biology) in terms of information is not enough, strikes me as sane. Cheers, Srinandan Original message From: Robert E. Ulanowicz Date:26/05/2015 16:16 (GMT+00:00) To: John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video I would like to strongly reinforce John's comments about boundary conditions. We tend to obsess over the laws and ignore the boundary statements. (Sort of a shell game, IMHO.) If boundary conditions cannot be stated in closed form, the physical
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
Caro John e Cari colleghi, Stephen Hawking nel 1975 riteneva che i buchi neri fagocitassero tutto ciò che si ritrovava nelle loro vicinanze, all'interno di una regione detta orizzonte degli eventi. Fin da allora diventò evidente che questa proprietà portasse a un paradosso. Infatti se i buchi neri inghiottono tutto, allora dovrebbero fagocitare e distruggere anche l'informazione, perdendo di ciò che ingoiano qualsiasi traccia. Secondo la meccanica quantistica, però, l'informazione contenuta nella materia non può andare persa del tutto. Circa trent'anni dopo Hawking ha affermato che sui buchi neri aveva torto. Rivedendo la sua teoria sostiene che i buchi neri non si limitano a perdere massa attraverso una radiazione di energia, ma evaporano o rilasciano informazione. Con-tengono un'informazione sulla materia di cui sono fatti che consente di pre-dirne il futuro. In tal modo i buchi neri non evaporano o irradiano un'energia invisibile o enigmatica priva di informazione come se fossero delle inafferrabili e indecifrabili entità cosmiche, e non sfuggono alla (mia) super-legge della combinazione creativa (anche se talvolta stupefacente) di energia e in-formazione. I buchi neri quindi possono considerarsi come speciali scatole nere o magici processi di tras-in-formazione produttivi ( i cui input e output sono materia, energia e informazione) e prospettici. Questo significa che da economista ho: -elaborato una legge che vale anche per l'astronomia e l'intera fisica; -preceduto di circa vent'anni quel che Hawking ha scoperto nel 1998 (Gravitational entropy) e nel 2005 (Information loss in black holes, Phisical review. D 72). Quindi all'INTERNO dei buchi neri si avrebbe una minore entropia (o una maggiore neg-entropia) rispetto alla maggiore entropia (o minore neg-entropia) ESTERNA. La formazione di maggiore entropia ESTERNA (corrispondente ad una minore informazione) dovrebbe essere necessariamente bilanciata da una maggiore informazione INTERNA (corrispondente ad una minore entropia). In base a questo ragionamento o bilanciamento - coerente con la logica della Nuova economia - i buchi neri dovrebbero produrre ed emettere informazione netta al pari di qualunque processo produttivo. Tale asimmetria ESTERNA-INTERNA fa una differenza che è proprio l'informazione. Non sono pochi i saggi che ho dedicato alla capacità creativa dell'asimmetria in qualunque processo di avanzamento scientifico (cfr. soprattutto Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza della scienza, Aracne, Roma, 2014). Quel che ho descritto schematicamente e sinteticamente, cosa di cui mi scuso, di-mostra la mirabile e meravigliosa armonia che governa il mondo. Grazie. Francesco Rizzo. 2015-05-26 23:19 GMT+02:00 John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za: Dear Srinandan, He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries, which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in *Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information*. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and other means in his *Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos*. More direct connections can be made via the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed, but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But basically it is in the asymmetries. As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well. I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though. John *From:* Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] *Sent:* May 26, 2015 10:20 PM *To:* u...@umces.edu; John Collier *Cc:* fis *Subject:* Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Re: boundary conditions, etc. I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same as information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or even that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering classical electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for galactic distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the large scale structure of the universe
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
That is most interesting, Francesco. It agrees with my understanding, but there are people reluctant to call it ‘inofrmation’. I don’t know what else to call it. Cheers, John From: Francesco Rizzo [mailto:13francesco.ri...@gmail.com] Sent: May 27, 2015 8:27 AM To: John Collier Cc: Srinandan Dasmahapatra; u...@umces.edu; fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Caro John e Cari colleghi, Stephen Hawking nel 1975 riteneva che i buchi neri fagocitassero tutto ciò che si ritrovava nelle loro vicinanze, all'interno di una regione detta orizzonte degli eventi. Fin da allora diventò evidente che questa proprietà portasse a un paradosso. Infatti se i buchi neri inghiottono tutto, allora dovrebbero fagocitare e distruggere anche l'informazione, perdendo di ciò che ingoiano qualsiasi traccia. Secondo la meccanica quantistica, però, l'informazione contenuta nella materia non può andare persa del tutto. Circa trent'anni dopo Hawking ha affermato che sui buchi neri aveva torto. Rivedendo la sua teoria sostiene che i buchi neri non si limitano a perdere massa attraverso una radiazione di energia, ma evaporano o rilasciano informazione. Con-tengono un'informazione sulla materia di cui sono fatti che consente di pre-dirne il futuro. In tal modo i buchi neri non evaporano o irradiano un'energia invisibile o enigmatica priva di informazione come se fossero delle inafferrabili e indecifrabili entità cosmiche, e non sfuggono alla (mia) super-legge della combinazione creativa (anche se talvolta stupefacente) di energia e in-formazione. I buchi neri quindi possono considerarsi come speciali scatole nere o magici processi di tras-in-formazione produttivi ( i cui input e output sono materia, energia e informazione) e prospettici. Questo significa che da economista ho: -elaborato una legge che vale anche per l'astronomia e l'intera fisica; -preceduto di circa vent'anni quel che Hawking ha scoperto nel 1998 (Gravitational entropy) e nel 2005 (Information loss in black holes, Phisical review. D 72). Quindi all'INTERNO dei buchi neri si avrebbe una minore entropia (o una maggiore neg-entropia) rispetto alla maggiore entropia (o minore neg-entropia) ESTERNA. La formazione di maggiore entropia ESTERNA (corrispondente ad una minore informazione) dovrebbe essere necessariamente bilanciata da una maggiore informazione INTERNA (corrispondente ad una minore entropia). In base a questo ragionamento o bilanciamento - coerente con la logica della Nuova economia - i buchi neri dovrebbero produrre ed emettere informazione netta al pari di qualunque processo produttivo. Tale asimmetria ESTERNA-INTERNA fa una differenza che è proprio l'informazione. Non sono pochi i saggi che ho dedicato alla capacità creativa dell'asimmetria in qualunque processo di avanzamento scientifico (cfr. soprattutto Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza della scienza, Aracne, Roma, 2014). Quel che ho descritto schematicamente e sinteticamente, cosa di cui mi scuso, di-mostra la mirabile e meravigliosa armonia che governa il mondo. Grazie. Francesco Rizzo. 2015-05-26 23:19 GMT+02:00 John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.zamailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za: Dear Srinandan, He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries, which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and other means in his Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. More direct connections can be made via the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed, but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But basically it is in the asymmetries. As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well. I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though. John From: Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.ukmailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: May 26, 2015 10:20 PM To: u...@umces.edumailto:u...@umces.edu; John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Re: boundary conditions, etc. I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video. Collier and Muller
Dear Srinandan, Dear John and All, At the Vienna Information Summit, I will present a paper in the Symmetry Section of Gyuri Darvas entitled Symmetry and Information; Brothers in Arms. I wished by this title to convey the idea that symmetry and information somehow emerged together from a prior state of some kind. I do not state explicitly that asymmetry IS information and I was not aware of John's work on symmetry, even if I had seen reference to it earlier. But then, is it not possible to be aware of John's work 'all at once'. It requires several iterations; I have purchased Muller's book to get myself to the next stage of knowledge here. The point and possible value of the Logic in Reality approach, what it brings to the table, still can I believe be seen in some of the implications of John's note: some people talk only of the laws/symmetries, others only of asymmetries. Darvas clearly shows that one cannot be considered without the other, and LIR states that it logical hence scientific that both the energetic partly symmetricalsubstrate of information and its ontological and epsitemological properties influence one another (interact). Laws are both information and the final cause of the regularities in the information, and Logic in Reality addresses and tries, with difficulty, to express in what way words like 'both' and 'at the same time' express how reality 'really' evolves. I would be glad to forward a copy of my extended abstract for Vienna to anyone who is interested. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: John Collier To: Srinandan Dasmahapatra ; u...@umces.edu Cc: fis Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:19 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Dear Srinandan, He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries, which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and other means in his Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. More direct connections can be made via the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed, but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But basically it is in the asymmetries. As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well. I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though. John From: Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: May 26, 2015 10:20 PM To: u...@umces.edu; John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Re: boundary conditions, etc. I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same as information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or even that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering classical electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for galactic distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the large scale structure of the universe is via the field equations of gravity, which brings a coherent package of causal thinking built into it. I did understand the bit on Noether, as energy conservation is indeed a consequence of time translation invariance, but that comes embedded in a continuum description, typically. In biological systems, energy input makes the picture specific to the system one cordons off for study, and often it is hard to adequately describe phenomena by scalar potentials alone due to the currents in the system. And Noether cannot deliver reversibility. To me the message of Sean Carroll in the YouTube video that an equivalent redescription of physics (or biology) in terms of information is not enough, strikes me as sane. Cheers, Srinandan Original message From: Robert E. Ulanowicz Date:26/05/2015 16:16 (GMT+00:00) To: John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video I would like to strongly reinforce John's comments
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
Cari Tutti, davvero, L'INFORMAZIONE è la legge fondamentale di tutte le scienze, compresa l'economia, e dell'intera esistenza comprese nel pluri-verso o nei pluri-versi. Sostengo questo da circa 40 anni ed ho rielaborato la scienza economica. Tutto ciò l'ho ribadito da quando ho il piacere e l'onore di partecipare alla Fis. Ma siccome scrivo nella mia lingua italiana, talvolta mi sembra di essere muto e inascoltato. Pazienza! Non mi resta che esprimere l'accordo col pensiero di tanti , tra di Voi, autorevoli studiosi e scienziati che ho la possibilità di leggere. Comunque, sono aperto anche all'armonia del dis-accordo. Grazie e buon lavoro. Un abbraccio umano e culturale. Francesco Rizzo. 2015-05-26 0:29 GMT+02:00 Ken Herold kher...@hamilton.edu: Released recently--what about the biological? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATWa2AEvIY -- Ken ___ 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] It From Bit video
Re: boundary conditions, etc. I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same as information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or even that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering classical electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for galactic distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the large scale structure of the universe is via the field equations of gravity, which brings a coherent package of causal thinking built into it. I did understand the bit on Noether, as energy conservation is indeed a consequence of time translation invariance, but that comes embedded in a continuum description, typically. In biological systems, energy input makes the picture specific to the system one cordons off for study, and often it is hard to adequately describe phenomena by scalar potentials alone due to the currents in the system. And Noether cannot deliver reversibility. To me the message of Sean Carroll in the YouTube video that an equivalent redescription of physics (or biology) in terms of information is not enough, strikes me as sane. Cheers, Srinandan Original message From: Robert E. Ulanowicz u...@umces.edu Date:26/05/2015 16:16 (GMT+00:00) To: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Cc: fis fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video I would like to strongly reinforce John's comments about boundary conditions. We tend to obsess over the laws and ignore the boundary statements. (Sort of a shell game, IMHO.) If boundary conditions cannot be stated in closed form, the physical problem remains indeterminate! (The aphorism from computer science, Garbage in, garbage out! is appropriate to reversible laws as well.) Then there is the issue of the continuum assumption, which was the work of Euler and Leibniz, not Newton. Newton argued vociferously against it, because it equated cause with effect. The assumption works quite well, however, whenever cause and effect are almost simultaneous, as with a force impacting an object, where the force is transmitted over small distances at the speed of light. It doesn't work as well when large velocities are at play (relativity) or very small distances and times (quantum phenomena) -- whence the need arose to develop the exceptional sciences, thermodynamics, relativity and quantum physics. I would suggest it doesn't work well at very large distances, either. Consider galaxies, which are on the order of 100,000 or more light years in diameter. (I was surprised to learn recently that we really don't have decent models for the dynamics of galaxies.) Gravitational effects are relatively slow to traverse those distances, so that cause and effect are not immediate. (Sorry, I don't think quantum entanglement is going to solve this conundrum.) If cause and effect are widely separated, then the continuum assumption becomes questionable and by implication, reversibility as well. Now Noether demonstrated that reversibility and conservation are two sides of the same coin. So I see it as no great mystery that we encounter problems with conservation of matter and energy at galactic scales or higher -- witness dark matter and dark energy. Of course, I am neither a particle physicist nor an astrophysicist, but merely someone writing from my armchair. So I invite anyone on FIS to put me straight as regards my speculations on these issues. Cheers, Bob U. Interesting question, Ken. I was not overly impressed with the video because it didnât explain one of the most crucial points about the use of information in dealing with quantum gravity, for which we as yet have no good theory. The issue with both black holes and the origin of the universe process is that the boundary conditions are dynamical. You can have as many laws as you could want and still not have a physics if the boundary conditions are ignored. Usually they are added in as an initial state, or sometimes ad hoc but when they are changing, especially if they are mathematically inseparable from the laws, there is a problem with relying on the laws alone to explain. With black holes there is a question of whether or not information disappears at their event horizon. There is a similar issue for the observable portion of the universe at any given time. It is hard to see how the questions can even be posed without referring to information. Any boundary in basic physics can be conceived the same way, and if all masses and energies come from geometry (in a Unified Theory) then information is all there is in basic physics. I have argued for some time now that biological systems are much more defined by their boundary conditions, which are typically
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
Dear Srinandan, He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries, which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and other means in his Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. More direct connections can be made via the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed, but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But basically it is in the asymmetries. As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well. I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though. John From: Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: May 26, 2015 10:20 PM To: u...@umces.edu; John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video Re: boundary conditions, etc. I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same as information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or even that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering classical electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for galactic distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the large scale structure of the universe is via the field equations of gravity, which brings a coherent package of causal thinking built into it. I did understand the bit on Noether, as energy conservation is indeed a consequence of time translation invariance, but that comes embedded in a continuum description, typically. In biological systems, energy input makes the picture specific to the system one cordons off for study, and often it is hard to adequately describe phenomena by scalar potentials alone due to the currents in the system. And Noether cannot deliver reversibility. To me the message of Sean Carroll in the YouTube video that an equivalent redescription of physics (or biology) in terms of information is not enough, strikes me as sane. Cheers, Srinandan Original message From: Robert E. Ulanowicz Date:26/05/2015 16:16 (GMT+00:00) To: John Collier Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video I would like to strongly reinforce John's comments about boundary conditions. We tend to obsess over the laws and ignore the boundary statements. (Sort of a shell game, IMHO.) If boundary conditions cannot be stated in closed form, the physical problem remains indeterminate! (The aphorism from computer science, Garbage in, garbage out! is appropriate to reversible laws as well.) Then there is the issue of the continuum assumption, which was the work of Euler and Leibniz, not Newton. Newton argued vociferously against it, because it equated cause with effect. The assumption works quite well, however, whenever cause and effect are almost simultaneous, as with a force impacting an object, where the force is transmitted over small distances at the speed of light. It doesn't work as well when large velocities are at play (relativity) or very small distances and times (quantum phenomena) -- whence the need arose to develop the exceptional sciences, thermodynamics, relativity and quantum physics. I would suggest it doesn't work well at very large distances, either. Consider galaxies, which are on the order of 100,000 or more light years in diameter. (I was surprised to learn recently that we really don't have decent models for the dynamics of galaxies.) Gravitational effects are relatively slow to traverse those distances, so that cause and effect are not immediate. (Sorry, I don't think quantum entanglement is going to solve this conundrum.) If cause and effect are widely separated, then the continuum assumption becomes questionable and by implication, reversibility as well. Now Noether demonstrated that reversibility and conservation are two sides of the same coin. So I see it as no great mystery that we encounter problems with conservation of matter and energy at galactic scales or higher -- witness dark matter and dark energy. Of course, I am neither a particle physicist nor
Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
I would like to strongly reinforce John's comments about boundary conditions. We tend to obsess over the laws and ignore the boundary statements. (Sort of a shell game, IMHO.) If boundary conditions cannot be stated in closed form, the physical problem remains indeterminate! (The aphorism from computer science, Garbage in, garbage out! is appropriate to reversible laws as well.) Then there is the issue of the continuum assumption, which was the work of Euler and Leibniz, not Newton. Newton argued vociferously against it, because it equated cause with effect. The assumption works quite well, however, whenever cause and effect are almost simultaneous, as with a force impacting an object, where the force is transmitted over small distances at the speed of light. It doesn't work as well when large velocities are at play (relativity) or very small distances and times (quantum phenomena) -- whence the need arose to develop the exceptional sciences, thermodynamics, relativity and quantum physics. I would suggest it doesn't work well at very large distances, either. Consider galaxies, which are on the order of 100,000 or more light years in diameter. (I was surprised to learn recently that we really don't have decent models for the dynamics of galaxies.) Gravitational effects are relatively slow to traverse those distances, so that cause and effect are not immediate. (Sorry, I don't think quantum entanglement is going to solve this conundrum.) If cause and effect are widely separated, then the continuum assumption becomes questionable and by implication, reversibility as well. Now Noether demonstrated that reversibility and conservation are two sides of the same coin. So I see it as no great mystery that we encounter problems with conservation of matter and energy at galactic scales or higher -- witness dark matter and dark energy. Of course, I am neither a particle physicist nor an astrophysicist, but merely someone writing from my armchair. So I invite anyone on FIS to put me straight as regards my speculations on these issues. Cheers, Bob U. Interesting question, Ken. I was not overly impressed with the video because it didnât explain one of the most crucial points about the use of information in dealing with quantum gravity, for which we as yet have no good theory. The issue with both black holes and the origin of the universe process is that the boundary conditions are dynamical. You can have as many laws as you could want and still not have a physics if the boundary conditions are ignored. Usually they are added in as an initial state, or sometimes ad hoc but when they are changing, especially if they are mathematically inseparable from the laws, there is a problem with relying on the laws alone to explain. With black holes there is a question of whether or not information disappears at their event horizon. There is a similar issue for the observable portion of the universe at any given time. It is hard to see how the questions can even be posed without referring to information. Any boundary in basic physics can be conceived the same way, and if all masses and energies come from geometry (in a Unified Theory) then information is all there is in basic physics. I have argued for some time now that biological systems are much more defined by their boundary conditions, which are typically dynamical and changing, than by their energy flows, so information flows dominate, though energy flows place limits, so I have talked of the information and energy budgets being partially decoupled in biological systems. So information is important to biology because understanding its flow can answer questions about dynamical boundaries, just like in basic physics. The energy (and matter) flows I will leave to the biophysicists, but the paragraph above suggests that these are information flows as well. I like the potential for unification here. Cheers, John From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Ken Herold Sent: May 26, 2015 12:30 AM To: fis Subject: [Fis] It From Bit video Released recently--what about the biological? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATWa2AEvIY -- Ken ___ 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] It From Bit video
Released recently--what about the biological? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATWa2AEvIY -- Ken ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
