Dear Pual,

Let's answer some questions! The first we had better start with. Isn't that what this essay contest is all about? In quantum mechanics language, information is a discontinuous thing which has a quantity. By discontinuous it is meant that info changes, or is accumulated in definite chunks, and by quantized it is meant that this entity has with each chunk a certain amount of energy. So info always is transferred in a way that we can say so many items of info was added. The number of pieces of info corresponds to a certain increase in energy of the system it's added to. Since the number of bits is definite, one price of information can be isolated and assigned a certain energy/mass or weight. It may also be that information is the smallest discontinous (fundamental undividable) quantity. In the case that info is represented by a yes or know, there are no maybes, which would indicate continuous behavior. Perhaps Shakespear's questioning Hamlet with his heart wrenching statement "to be or not to be, that is the question," said it best. Info represented as 1's or 0's display this fundamental discontinuity. Further, since each speck of info adds an amount of heat or entropy to a system, it can be said the world stores data as energy in states.

For the second, my answer is I don't know, and lots of physicists are likely having to consider their scientic starting points again. I, however, would not move on to your very logical option until all the other options are thoroughly sounded out and have failed. My line of reasoning goes as far as to say that measurement is the physical effect of interacting with what is observed.

Since you do not want to discuss religion here, apart from the fact that "religious feeling" implies no reference at all to a diety, I will not paragraph but will suffice a sentence. Your view, as it relates to science, is out dated and doesn't support all of those who believe or otherwise.

Hello LC,

Without delving into math where I'd be off the grid, but I think the tricky part of this connection of information Shannon deals with in his entropy and that very well expounded on Boltzmann's result is that information has new implications for the view of density in phase space. The differences that show up in the connection you made view-able here from info to thermodynamics suggest that the little bit of "change" that may result from this comparison is interpreted as a physic effect in the Boltzmann sense. As unrelated this may seem, I don't see entropy getting clearer until the electron's motion is better understood, if one can envision the density of electrodynamics dealing with charged points being similar to a particle showing a certain volume in statistical mechanics.

Best,

W. Amos Carine.

William

"In quantum mechanics language, information is a discontinuous thing which has a quantity. By discontinuous it is meant that info changes..."

So what, physically, is this 'information', whether it is "discontinuous" or not is irrelevant. Something is being invoked as existent, QM does not have the right to invoke things and deem them to be existent when they are not, so what is it.

"Since the number of bits is definite"

So what, physically, are these.

"I, however, would not move on to your very logical option until all the other options are thoroughly sounded out and have failed"

But there are no other options. The physical existence we are supposed to be investigating is not one of make believe, it exists independently of us, and we receive a manifestation of it via a physical process. There may or may not be an alternative, one always has to acknowledge the logic that if A there is always the possibility of not-A. However, that is irrelevant, because we can never know it, even if it does exist, because we cannot transcend our own existence. In other words, physical existence is all that we can potentially know, ie be experiencially validated (directly or by hypothesis which is in effect virtual sensing). And in this existence I am not aware of any physical process which operates 'backwards', in the sense that something which is existent after something else which has been existent but now ceased to be so, can have a physical effect on that now non-existent something.

Paul

Paul,

These are some very good points! What physically is information if it is to be defined in any real way? How can we do an experiment which demonstrates the effects of boys of information on other things in a meaningful way? By physical, I mean in terms which goes along with aiding in the understanding of known phenomenon. Further, if info is physical (above sense) is it per but, it could be yes or no flip-of-the-coin questions, or multiples of these in groups of fours like binary code. The only type of definition that I can guess is using the reasoning of L. Cromwell, in his post below, to get a Boltzmann significance or result for information. The vague definition* in the paper also try's to say what info is.

The other option in finding a measurement, besides assuming it already occurred and can't be affected, would be to say a, the measurement process affects the state of that measured, the amount that measuring changed the state of that observed is the value the measuring process obtained. This even the light given of an (opitical) observation of some matter is correspondent of the change of energy that the beam initially enstated to the matter, so that what is seen is the change from a height to low energy state of the matter, which gives of light again.

Hope this helped clarify shat I meant more even though no strict definitions were imposed,

W. Amos

William

By physical I mean that it is demonstrably existent. And would hope there is no other definition. So as soon as someone starts talking of 'information', I want to know what it is, ie does it correspond with some occurrence in physical existence or is it the creation of a theory about it. Clearly in terms of representing physical existence, I do not expect the devices (maths, graphics, words) to be reality.

Measurement cannot affect the physical circumstance. What is measured has already occurred. And if the act of measuring does have a physical affect, then what happens is that the subsequent physical circumstance is different from what would have otherwise occurred. There was no pre-existent subsequent state. The relationship between the light representation of what occurred, and what occurred, is a different issue, that being a function of the physical properties of what is involved in the interaction that creates the light, and then how the properties of light (ie both the carrier and the effect itself) influence its ability to maintain that representation whilst in existence.

Paul

Hello Paul,

Thank you for sticking with these discussion matters so long. I think what we have upon us a difference of "real" and not lies at the root. I think it's reasonable to suppose the existence for things which are entirely un-demonstratable if effects from them seem to be documented with acceptable certainty. With everything getting so small and all, it seems that the quanta "what is physically demonstrable" in the world is becoming to small to reasonably measure, without the type of interference I vaguely noted and you strictly opposed in the preceding. Yet, at the moment, I see the thing to do is as assuming the reality of that which is unobserved, look further for theory which incorporates such small particulars, yet gives a big picture easy measurable. So, the way to document the physical reality of such tiny teeny pieces is to come up with a representation that has a macro size observably. If the view of the small bits leads to a reasonable ( i.e. correspondent to reality) view, it is as much anything a ground for saying info is real, if but dangerously close to nill.

I'd like to think that regardless of the view on measurement, that this last scheme is agreeable to past development in physics, a history which is lengthy and which I'm not qualified to give. So should one reason with it then? I think this type of thing is how one goes about planning solutions, as long as he's not being reviewed by a history buff.

Best,

W. Amos.

William

"I think it's reasonable to suppose the existence for things which are entirely un-demonstratable if effects from them seem to be documented with acceptable certainty"

Yes it is. When I say proven, valid, known, etc, etc, that encompasses the notion of proper hypothesis. It, obviously just gets awkward to repeat that caveat every time. The point being that physical existence is all that which is potentially knowable to us. And knowing is a function of receiving physical input, forget the subsequent processing of it, all this concern with consciousness/perception, etc is irrelevant.

Now, there are two consequences of this:

-there may be an alternative existence, because what that means is that we are trapped in an existentially closed system (ie our physical existence). But this is irrelevant, because we cannot know it. To put it simply, what we are experiencing might be a shoot-em-up game being played by green giants with 6 heads! We can never know. As this is science we must only concern ourselves with what is potentially knowable

-while it is potentially knowable, we may not be able to know it. But that is a practical (ie physical) issue, not metaphysical. There are two aspects to this: a) no physical input has reached us (or any sentient organism), b) what does may have been 'interfered' with in some way.

This is where proper hypothesis comes into effect. Essentially it is virtual sensing, ie given the rules of sensing, it is establishing what we could have sensed had there not been some identifiable problem. It is NOT overriding our existence and creating assertions about it which have no experienceable basis. Obviously, in respect of that which is directly experienceable, it is taken for granted that this is valid, in the sense that individualism has been eradicated.

"With everything getting so small..."

Yes. What I call a physically existent state involves such a vanishingly small degree of alteration and duration, that there is no way we can differentiate that in experimentation (especially since we are reliant on the capabilities of light to differentiate it, so that we can then see it). So we have to accept that given the existence we experience this must be the 'bottom line'. How this manifests, ie what actually occurs, is another matter (ie physics!). The point is, that the search for that must stay within the rules of our reality, not make things up. There is a big fallacy here that many think they can start with a 'blank sheet of paper' and find out. But reality is not an abstract concept, there is a physical process underpinning it, which must be reflected in any attempts to explain it. To further the analogy, we exist, we are part of it. So there is a 'sheet of paper' automatically. We cannot transcend our own existence.

"So, the way to document the physical reality of such tiny teeny pieces is to come up with a representation that has a macro size observably"

This is true, obviously, because there is only one form in which physical existence occurs. And if we start with a proper analysis of the 'macro' we can discern, generically, the rule. Think about it. Any given 'object' is so because we deem it on the basis of certain superficial physical attributes, ie not how it exists. Indeed, we even contradict that by declaring 'it has changed'. But if there is change then the changed it is something else. We know there is alteration, yet we do not follow this through to its logical conclusion. Which is that there is no 'object', as such, but a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states, which, at a higher level of conception, appears to have a persistence in their existence. Reality is whatever state is occurring at that time.

In simple language, the 'classical' view is correct, had it been properly understood. The relativity/QM view is incorrect, because it relies on some form of indefiniteness in reality, which does not occur.

Paul

If we take your physical hypothesis as true, and there are yet affects seen indirectly, i.e. we don't see the cause but only what happens to other observable bodies, and since non-physical entiries can't affect a physical one (there are no non-physical potentially observed) it follows that the secondary characteristics observed are evidence of a smaller, unobservable physical element. My argument is that that is the case with information, though there is not a paper to cite.

Another point is that what is in our ability to know now is not all that is knowable. Just because it is not observed or measured does not preclude its existence (in the physical).

It was stated we cannot know of another existence. I think it is possible to know that we don't know something. I would at least want to know my health bar, even if the jolly giants personality is unknown to me! Such mentality is the same as saying a God interacts with events of heavenly bodies or our daily lives, which is not tenable. So why should they have editing rights, or even motivation to play such a big, complicated game. I think they could have invented one with such a heating and entropy problem! Then again, one doesn't what what building blocks they had to use to make the binary. Regardless, information is viewed more reasonably as such a source code. That is, of they had to build the console from something, it and what they but are linked by the trait of both being in their world. Similarily, what we see in our technology, information, has to share a common origin in the world of existence.

A free standing question is how do we know what is knowable, but by knowing what it is that we don't know?

After your response to my statement about fundamental building blocks of matter becoming smaller, my argumentation breaks down. Yet I have something to say. Nobody knows how today's big physics problems are to be solved, whether probabilistic or relativistic. Physics developments are getting more abstract, and they are the free invention of the human intellect. At the highest level they are intuited. The road of relativity was started in 1905 by old Al, and I strongly feel it should be pursued from where it left off to its end. If wrong, then well, at least something can be gleaned from mistakes. I'm starting to wonder if it's not just me, that the universe on its base level is just weird! At least that would make me feel a little better,

Thankful for all of the good discussion points,

W. Amos.

William

It does not matter whether we can sense something, or whether what we do sense is a distorted version thereof, that something still existed, if it did. Existence is independent of the mechanisms whereby we are enabled to be aware of it. We are reliant on certain physical processes for that, so we are, possibly, only aware of one particular form of existence. But within that confine, what occurs does so, irrespective of whether we are properly aware of it or not. It certainly does follow that there is a 'bottom line' to whatever exists, whether it is something we can directly experience, or if it has to be experiencially hypothesised. But again, I am back to what, physically, is this 'information' you refer to. Everything referred to must have some form of substantiated physical proof.

"Another point is that what is in our ability to know now is not all that is knowable"

Not necessarily. Whether we can know all that is potentially knowable is a practical matter. The point is that there is only all that we could potentially know (directly or hypothesised). That is, for us, physical existence. We cannot know a form of existence which is not potentially detectable by us. The key word here is potential. There are two levels:

-existence, all of which we can never know whether we know it or not, because we are part of it, and therefore cannot transcend it, in order to establish that

-existence as potentially knowable to us via a physical process. This is, potentially, knowable. In practice we will probably never know it all, but the potential is there, unlike above. This is what we are investigating.

"It was stated we cannot know of another existence. I think it is possible to know that we don't know something"

No it isn't. But watch the above differentiation above. We cannot know something which might just be a possible alternative to our existence. By definition, there is no input available. Within the confines of the potentially knowable, we can know something which is not directly experienceable. And ultimately we arrive at a 'dead end'. That is, if on a certain aspect we achieved all knowledge available, which we would only know by default, because after a sufficient time no new knowledge arose. Then we can deem that as being the equivalent of physical reality. That is all we can do. There is always the logical possibility of an alternative (if A there is always the possibility of not-A).

"A free standing question is how do we know what is knowable, but by knowing what it is that we don't know?"

See above, this is what happens in a closed system. To express it in terms of A:

Given A (where A is 'is'), there is always the logical possibility of not-A, however, this cannot be defined from within A, as a reference from within not-A is required for that. So all that can be defined is A, from within A, and that that is not not-A. But not what not-A is. The corollary of this is that 'is' (ie A) must be definitive in itself (ie a closed system), and therefore possible to discern, albeit only from within. And that is achievable on the basis of the factor which determines inclusivity, ie 'of ', or 'not of', the closed system. This is an absolute reference in so far as it at least delineates A.

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #32

Dear Paul,

I must again thank you for you patience in dealing with me and these concepts which take concentrated mental effort to work through. If the physicality of some entity is not determing by its ability to foster observability (or even where it does), the true scientific impulse I'm drawn to is that everything is knowable or explainable, if it exists. Adding the temperamental clause "if it exists" seems unnatural here. It could be stated that outside of the human comfort bubble, where we usually think from, the statement everything exists would be true. This is stated because in nature, there doesn't exist those possibilities of say the color of a bus that doesn't stop at a place. The human wonderer could spend some time on this question, and no doubt miss his real bus during the time spent contemplating nonexistences! And there always is the possibility that nature is chaotic with no laws, and it is only the observation of a set of events that makes order appear. The only argument that I have is a statement of the physical world growing. It is still a question that has importance today that matter is indefinitely divisible. But as physical knowledge grows and ebbs from different disciplines in thought, I think knowledge will be brought back to life. Or another example, the physical world is a big block of stone, and our experiments are chisels which reveal the true form of the artistic impulse that is already contained in the stone before a hammer is ever swung. I just have a strange feeling that there will be a time when the stones talk.

But back to the question of what physical existence does information have. The only thing I can think of, besides some math with Shannon to Boltzmann figures relating entropy of information to thermodynamics, is a somewhat conceptual one only. It is fundamentally different because it uses a non-existence in it to describe matter. It also uses a similarity to magnetism and attraction. But if information is represented as 1's and 0's, then something is or isn't, and in a bit the numbers distribution also attracts other bits of information that are like it, so that each bit is correspondent to a physical order, creating a kind of tension or force. So information is so much a physical thing, but quantized into little bits or numbers it has a physical effect, the numbers themselves each an element independent of another's existence. Such a view is similar to the discovery of molecules, each atom having its one charge leading to van der waal forces and the like.it's not even important that numbered sequences are used, dots infilled or colored could work. But physically, it would be a very small constituent of matter. The proof would be the effects these information pieces explain in some observed phenomenon.

We cannot know what is not potentially knowable. Why not say all is knowable? This all is what I've fathomed your use of physical world means. This is an interesting point now raised. Can one know something that doesn't have the potential to be known? I say yes. Potential is a hard word, it says we can make nature behave in a certain way in the future. There is nothing one can know that can't be known. Knowledge is invented, it's a creation of the human mind. To define the physical world by our parameters of potential is a tall order. It doesn't matter what is it that we can potentially know, rather, it's all about those thoughts and ideas that bring that unknowable closer to our depiction. So I don't see one set of knowns and unknowns, or their potentials like you seem to if my take on your view is correct.

That dead end that you speak of, physics isn't there yet, especially the road of relativity is not traveled. I think that road should be taken even if a dead end is reached. Also, I find an attitude without "impossible" in its vocabulary tends to have produced more developments than otherwise in the past. Still, there is the chance that the end of the road is already in sight, and one could turn around and devote energies otherwise.

Your logic makes sense, but almost too much sense to be processed by my own illogical mind! So I totally disagree with your last paragraph, mainly because I think a logical argument must be dropped in face of facts. These facts have yet to present themselves, so any argument I make would be insubstantiated. It is only based on a feeling about what information will lead to.

William

"the true scientific impulse I'm drawn to is that everything is knowable or explainable, if it exists"

Careful, is potentially knowable and therefore explainable. And yes, 'if it exists' is redundant. Indeed, it is really the other way around. What is potentially knowable to us, is existence for us. There is existence of some form or other, but we are only enabled to know of it via a particular physical process. That is we can only know what may, or may not, be one particular form of existence (ie physical existence). But that is all we can potentially know. Whether we do get anywhere knowing even that is another matter.

Non existent is not potentially knowable.

"And there always is the possibility that nature is chaotic with no laws..."

There are an infinite number of possibilities, but none of these are part of existence as knowable to us. That is, there is no experienceable evidence that what is manifest to us is chaotic.

I think in general in your second paragraph you are confusing what is received, but is not actually what is (even within our existentially closed system), which could be labelled as information, with representations thereof. At the end of the day, we have to use representational devices (ie maths, graphics, words) to convey/model our knowledge. There is, or should be(!), no implication that these are existent.

"We cannot know what is not potentially knowable. Why not say all is knowable?"

Because it is not. There is what is potentially knowable. Then there is what we know of this. Which is both not complete and in some cases no doubt wrong. That is, it is not really knowledge because it does not actually correspond with reality, but at this time it appears to do so. It is true to point out that we only have knowledge of existence, ie we can in no sense 'directly access' it.

"Can one know something that doesn't have the potential to be known?"

No, by definition. Because there is no experienceable input available. This being different from the circumstance where there is experienceable input available but we just cannot receive it, because (say) it is too far away, happened too long ago, etc, etc. It is in these situations that based on validated experience we can, following due process, hypothesise what could have been received had it been possible. Note that hypothesis is grounded in the rules of sensing, ie is in effect virtual sensing. It is not an excuse to be able to 'make things up' which have no basis in experienceability.

Re your last para you are still confusing potentially knowable and not potentially knowable from known and not known (ie realised) of that.

Paul

Dear Paul,

What I am still hung up about is what defines potentially knowable from that which is 'nonsense.' It could be a statement of what the physical world can show a change of state in in respect to time. For example, we hear and use the word change all the time, but it's tough to say what it really is, besides not that anymore! The crux of my unwillingness to comply with your definition is that what is knowable seems to lay in the hand of the human made definition of "physical." My style or preference is to rather say that the universe will never be physically defined, yet as our ideas and science progresses, more will be brought out of the previously unknown. This unknown is not a solid thing that is unchanging. The physical universe may be our playing field and that is good and all, but it may not be the full story, other worlds ideas excluded.

William

"What I am still hung up about is what defines potentially knowable from that which is 'nonsense.'"

It is not potentially knowable vrs nonsense, but potentially knowable vrs not knowable. Indeed what is knowable might be nonsense, in the sense that it is only a particular form of existence, as manifest to us, and 'really' what 'actually exists' is something completely different. This is a possibility, but it is of the not knowable, because, even if it exists, it is not manifest to us. Remember, we are existing in what must be regarded as an existentially closed system. Whether it is or not we can never know, because if A there is always the possibility of not-A.

Now, within knowable, ie existence as manifest to us, we can generate knowledge thereof which is either objective or subjective (ie nonsense), that is it either corresponds with what was potentially knowable (physical existence) or it does not.

Change is an form of physical alteration. How one discerns what constitutes a degree of change in respect of any given physical characteristic is another matter. Time is concerned with the turnover rate, ie the rate of change, of existent states (ie the reality at that time).

"The crux of my unwillingness to comply with your definition is that what is knowable seems to lay in the hand of the human made definition of "physical."

No we (or indeed any sentient organism) does not 'create' it in any sense, we receive it, which is a physical process. The fact that this means there is the possibility of an alternative, ie something outwith this process, is irrelevant, because we cannot know it. In other words, there comes a point where we have, scientifically, to accept that what is, is what is. We cannot transcend our own existence. And that is one of the major problems at the moment, under the guise of hypothesis assertions which transcend what is knowable are being put forward as potentially knowable.

Paul

PS: I am all to aware I have 'too many' knows (or derivatives thereof)but have yet to come up with a better label. The alternative is around aware.

Paul,

What I meant by "nonsense" was the considering the state of a not-A. So it is like waiting for a bus to stop, and finally asking a passer by when the bus is coming, to find out that there is no bus coming, because it is not a stop. Asking the question of what color was the non-existent bus would be nonsense in that case. It could be a million non-existent colors. So what is the line between and all of the possibilities which don't exist. I take the stance of saying everything is knowable to us, and that which is unknowable eventually gets drawn into the knowable as we develop as thinkers and human beings. The things which are known are drawn from the great unknown but reason and feeling of wonder. I don't know how that fits into a logical system, but perhaps the best leaps are intuitive rather than part of a regime or system. I don't mean that it is too rigid, only that thinking with these requirements in mind instead of about the physics limits the power spent otherwise. This mentality may also be why the physicist is called the poor philosophizer, yet in this muddled way we must strive.

When we receive individual bits of information, they mean nothing. being showed a graph of a box, and then another different, by itself does not mean they moved. It is only by thinking that the two are linked by the mental connection this box is the same and was displaced. There is nothing inherent about nows or isolated instances that gives character to space or time-like behavior in itself. It is a human creation to say space is what the box went through, and it had to have a rate of change.

It is tough not to use the same words over and over again when the same idea is repeated. I ran into this with "information" in my essay.

Best,

W. Amos.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #37

Amos,

A very important point you bring up is that of "space being made out of the same thing as the matter in it." I noted that Einstein said, "there is no space absent of field."

I'm curious about other points in your essay. For example you say "there would have to be evidence to disprove [it from bit]" I would think that one would ask for evidence to prove it. The artwork is a very nice example, but it is an analogy, not a proof.

I'm confused by your claim that "the info is part made out of bits and part of the sum or big picture, and also that the laws of reality are nothing more themselves and compositions of bits" I certainly agree with you that the 'bit' take on the world is *useful* for some purposes, just as the derived concept of temperature is useful. But the world is not created from derived concepts, just conveniently described by them.

I was not aware of Fisher information before your essay. A review of Frieden's book on Fisher info claims it is at best mathematically equivalent to orthodoxy and adds nothing empirical, while it is associated with "some really bad metaphysics". Do you believe that is a mistaken interpretation?

You seem to be presenting a speculative approach to understanding information, and rightly claim that science is pursued by initially granting the truth of some statement, at least temporarily. So I am uncertain what you believe and what you are merely testing as speculative science. You've read my essay so you know that I believe that energy exchange produces information when the energy changes the state of (writes into) some system.

From comments above it seems that you base your idea of 'physical' information on Bell's Alice and Bob experiments. It is worth the effort to ask yourself what conclusions one would draw from these experiments if Bell had not stated his theorem "proving" that local reality is incompatible with the results. While most physicists apparently accept his theorem as the final word, there are still ongoing analyses of what is, in essence, a very simplistic theorem.

In any case, you have written a very nice essay. Thanks for participating, and good luck with your career!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

William

OK so "nonsense" equals not potentially knowable. And OK with your example in the sense that this incident, ie of a bus passing, will not occur (assuming this is mot a bus route and a bus just doesn't happen to use that roads!). The real point is it did not occur, so it is not potentially knowable.

"So what is the line between and all of the possibilities which don't exist "

Answer: whether it potentially could manifest to us. Something does not exist, for us, if it did not occur, or possibly occurred but not within the form of existence knowable to us. Because, for a scientific explanation of our physical existence, we cannot just 'make it up'. There has to be a basis built on, and a derivation confined by, what has proven experienceability. There are countless occurrences happening billions of miles away which we do not know, but they are potentially knowable. Nearer earth, there is an anomaly in an orbit which demonstrates that something else is there which we cannot detect directly.

"I take the stance of saying everything is knowable to us, and that which is unknowable eventually gets drawn into the knowable as we develop as thinkers and human beings"

No. Everything which is potentially knowable, is potentially knowable (apologies for the grammar). It is then a matter of whether we will get to know that or not. Although it appears superficially intellectual to start with no presumptions, this is not only not possible, it is wrong. Because we are part of existence, so there is an inherent presumption, and, putting that a different way, physical existence is not an abstract concept, it occurs in a definitive form. So, the danger in ignoring that and thinking 'all options are possible' is that one is selected which does not correspond with reality, as it is to us. Of course, having selected that then a theory based thereon can become self-fulfilling. If at any time there appears to be a contradiction, because actually it does not correspond with reality, one just invokes some corrective mechanism. The underlying problem being that since it has no real basis, then it is difficult to falsify.

Paul

Hello Klingman,

The basis of what I am saying there is that the information view is right until it is very evidently and clearly wrong, and may be pursued without harm up to that point where it may be a dead end. It's kind of like this. If you have a theory, say on heavily using information, and some experiment or observation shows support of not it but another theory which does justice to the numbers, then this is in a way evidence that disproves the info one, or at least makes it distasteful to one who like correspondence with reality in result. But also on the other side of it, if one has a theory of info with predictions, and confirmation of these garners support. So before any of these two happen or come to pass, there is the pursuit of an idea to develop it to the point where incoming experimental results can have a say on the issue. This is with any idea, and goes along the lines of presenting one's own thoughts cleary enough to be analyzed by another or a comunity.

On your second point, or should we say objection, I meant only that combining the view of information being manifest as a more physical quantity, like heat or resistence in a wire, would make it a canidate for treatment in physics like other ponderable bodies are, like energy even. Simply put, if information interaction lead to manifested physical states, they must be treated as such. This requires bringing a definition to information which is either physical in itself, or lets arise a physical situation.

Onto the third, everyone is entitled to their interpretation of a subject matter, but some better fit reality than others! Not being a mathematician with a keen sense of intuition in their field, I would be hard put to say whether it will be important in the long run or not. However, sometimes such less founded ideas act as important steps in problem solveing, even if they are temporary. I mainly included it as a counter point. But I would say it adds nothing new, but may be a new way to look at the old. In what it deals with entopy, there may be some value, but the bottom line is if it is useful, and this won't be known until some physics view is formulated that might benefit by being espoused to this type of information.

Dealing with the fourth, which may be molded with the last, I am speculatively proposing that information be delt with physically as an energy or it's own. This entails that information it worth a certain amount of energy, and it is the change of information which leads to energy chaning and not a physical change that excites a difference in information. The exactness of bringing a physical definition to info is up in the air, yet it is meant that info itself has physical qualities. Here, perhaps it comes to mind that this is like a carrier for a field, yet this is not known either without more than a feeling to back up the type of losely bound progression here. The only thing I can think of to help out Bell's friends have a more normal relationship is to suggest vaguely that if the local is to be compatible with experiments, then the other things measured must change somewhere, enabling a more realistic view of things. What these exacts are is a question to ponder, and I think you express a valid point in that old accepted results or interpretations of them need to be continuely questioned until understood enough in a different way to not raise the hairs on one's skin!

Thankful of the interest and valid points,

W. Amos.

William

The response to that is that they are not beliefs. Beliefs are assertions about the not knowable in the guise of statements about the knowable, or incorrect assessments of the knowable. What I say is just a simple generic (ie we still need to find out what occurs) statement about how we are aware of existence and how that must occur.

Paul