Re: [Fis] QM and information

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

> On Jun 26, 2015, at 10:02 PM, Andrei Khrennikov  
> wrote:
> Life is hard... I am afraid that it is impossible to put this qualifier in 
> front "information" used in recent information approaches to quantum 
> mechanics. 
> For Zeilinger and Brukner (this is my private impression from private 
> discussions), information so to say "exists" in nature so to say by itself, 
> it seems it is "meaningless", however, to apply quantum theory an OBSERVER 
> has to appear at the scene, information here is PRIVATE INFORMATION of 
> observer.

I do not know what to call your model here other than Solipsism. It certainly 
has nothing to do with Information Theory or Information Science. Indeed, it is 
unrecognizable I suggest to anyone associated with epistemology or the study of 
Logic in its broadest sense, except to give it that label. Indeed, it further 
affirms an increasing conviction that the discipline of physics has abandoned 
all good reason.


> The same happens in QBism of Fuchs and Mermin (this is again my private 
> impression from private discussions), they start with interpreting the wave 
> function as representing 
> subjective probability about possible results of measurements, but privately 
> they speak about Nature producing chance and hence information.
> 
> see also arxiv.org/pdf/1503.02515v1.pdf section 3.2, in particular, one 
> important citation of Fuchs.
> 
> All this can be disappointing, but it works; quantum people want to say: we 
> do not know what is information 
> but when we get it we immediately understand that this is it. 

Not just disappointing but entirely fanciful. I cannot imagine that “it works” 
in any material sense or in any purely mathematical sense. 

Regards,
Steven


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

[Fis] QM and information

[Andrei Khrennikov]

   Dear Marcus, 

>>I would ask for clarification on whether you speak of "information" in 
>> your examples as something that has innate "meaning" or something that is 
>> innately >>"meaningless" . . . which has been a core issue in earlier 
>> exchanges. If this issue of "meaning" versus "meaningless" in the use of the 
>> term "information" is not resolved >>(for the group?) it seems hard (to me) 
>> to have truly meaningful exchanges . . . without having to put a 
>> "meaningful" or "meaningless" qualifier in front of "information" >>every 
>> time it is use.
 
Life is hard... I am afraid that it is impossible to put this qualifier in 
front "information" used in recent information approaches to quantum mechanics. 
For Zeilinger and Brukner (this is my private impression from private 
discussions), information so to say "exists" in nature so to say by itself, it 
seems it is 
"meaningless", however, to apply quantum theory an OBSERVER has to appear at 
the scene, information here is PRIVATE INFORMATION of observer.
The same happens in QBism of Fuchs and Mermin (this is again my private 
impression from private discussions), they start with interpreting the wave 
function as representing 
subjective probability about possible results of measurements, but privately 
they speak about Nature producing chance and hence information.

see also arxiv.org/pdf/1503.02515v1.pdf section 3.2, in particular, one 
important citation of Fuchs.

All this can be disappointing, but it works; quantum people want to say: we do 
not know what is information 
but when we get it we immediately understand that this is it. 

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