Relative information at the foundation of physics by Carlo Rovelli

Dr. Rovelli,

I enjoyed reading your essay and appreciated several of your insights. In particular, I thought you pointed out a couple of vital distinctions, such as the fact that, "Objects are not just aggregate of atoms. They are particular configurations of atoms singled out because of the manner a given other system interacts with them." You also noted that, in addition to the fact that inanimate objects are not simple an aggregate of atoms, that "living systems are those that selection has led to reproduce continuously their own structure by, in particular, making use of the information they have about the exterior world."

It would seem, then, that both living things and inanimate objects in our universe somehow interact with information, which, as you also point out, "has a pervasive and unifying role." I would be curious to know if you think it might be possible that the universe is, in fact, some sort of information system. The fact that, "The world is not just a blind wind of atoms, or generally covariant quantum fields," and that so many various fields of study suggest there is an exchange of information occurring seem to suggest an information system of some sort. Might it be possible that quantum field theory offers us a description of a form of information software at work? Perhaps the Theory of Relativity describes the hardware?

Again, thank you for your thoughts on the matter. Best to you in the future.

Sincerely,

Ralph

Dear Carlo,

thank you for interesting essay; this kind of ideas lead to the theory of fundamental physical informational interaction between objects and other kind of objects selected and controlled by us to become experimental devices (material reference frames, etc.), which can be called "subjects". Your time would not be lost if you check my essay where I show that on this way one may unify quantum and relativity principles in one single principle based on Object-Subject informational interaction:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1612

Valentin Koulikov

P.S. I believe that I have mailed to you my article on this matter a couple of years ago, but unfortunately got no response ("Time Loops and Unification of Quantum and Relativity Principles"), you may find the link to it in References to my essay.

Dear Carlo,

What a remarkable and insightful essay you have written! I found the example of the balls with color and charge especially eye-opening. It immediately made me wonder whether our universe which had to start off in a low entropy state was "prior to that" not in a maximum entropy state by virtue of some kind of interaction that is no longer present in our current universe. I'm sure you have considered that possibility already.

Your essay is short but packs a punch. I am delighted to have read it. I'm not so sure that you will appreciate my essay because in the second half it introduces a principle which I believe undermines the concept of background independence in a quantum theoretical context, which I know is a major focus of your work. I should emphasize that my claim only concerns the compatibility between such background independence and the principle, if the principle is not adopted, then the argument given does not apply. If you do read my paper and find some fault with my argument, I would certainly appreciate hearing from the top expert in the field about it.

Best wishes,

Armin

Dear Carlo,

You are my model in doing theoretical physics especially your relationship interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. You made a bold declaration: "I suggest that this incorrect notion is the notion of observer-independent state of a system (or observer-independent values of physical quantities). I reformulate the problem of the "interpretation of quantum mechanics" as the problem of deriving the formalism from a few simple physical postulates. I consider a reformulation of quantum mechanics in terms of information theory. All systems are assumed to be equivalent, there is no observer-observed distinction, and the theory describes only the information that systems have about each other; nevertheless, the theory is complete." arXiv:quant-ph/9609002v2 Magnifico! I salute you.

I love and in full agreement with what you wrote below and I quote: "And Democritus uses then a powerful metaphor: like twenty letters of an alphabet can be combined in innumerable manners to give rise to comedies or tragedies, similarly the atoms can be combined in innumerable manners to give rise to the innumerable phenomena of the world....Not so after the discovery of quantum theory. If we measure the energy of a harmonic oscillator and we obtain the result that this is between E1 and E2, (in KQID E1 = A (pc) and E2 = S(mc^2)) then there is only a finite number of possible values that the energy can have. This is given by the area of the region of phase space included between the two surfaces E1 and E2, divided by the Planck constant.... The statue that Aristotle wants to be made of more than atoms, is indeed made by more than atoms: it is something that pertains to the interaction between the stone and brain of Aristotle, or ours....To go back to Democritus metaphor: atoms are like an alphabet, but an immense alphabet so rich to be capable of reading itself and thinking itself. With Democritus worlds: "The Universe is change, life is opinion that adapt it- self".

KQID conceptualizes Erosverse interpretation that is similar to yours as quoted above except that KQID is based on transaction of Giving first Taking later to create and distribute Wang Yaming's bits that encompasses the relationships of core-self with self, family, community, mankind and Multiverse. In this worldview interpretation, Existence including our Multiverse, us and our God/s are properly pregnant within. In KQID, everything emerges from one singularity Qbit Multiverse that projects Einstein complex coordinates( Einstein triangles similar to Pythagorean triangles) on the event horizon of our Multiverse as Minkowski Null geodesics Lm in zeroth dimension that instantaneously project those coordinates in the bulk ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) as the KQID relativity Multiverse. In brief: All things are one Qbit. As a bonus, KQID calculates the dark energy of our Multiverse 1.523 x 10-153Pm/Pv. and how many bits are they in our Multiverse 6.3 x 10^153 bits. I believe the only theory out there that has done so.

Other examples, pertaining to our universe: KQID estimates the first burst of the Bit Bang rather than the Big Bang, with the temperature of about 7.8 x10^126K within 1.43478x10^-147 seconds with the first wavelength λ of the Bit Bang = 1.43478x10^-147 s x c = 4.3x10^-139 meter. These numbers are far higher and lower than the existing standard model. KQID predicts and calculates when our universe will collapse, rather than forever expanding based on the existing model. KQID predicts that when A = S, our universe will inevitably start its contraction and acceleration into a Bit Crush, rather than a Big Crush, hundreds of trillion years sometimes later.

Here is KQID Wang Yaming's one bit

Fu Xi heaven triagram ☰ as the element that are creative, innovative and proactive forces that gives A bits first, whereas the earth trigram ☷ as the element that are receptive, flowing and reactive forces that takes and converts A into S bits later to complete a cycle. The heaven ☰ is doing the first Giving and the earth ☷ is doing the first Taking: Existence emerges. The act of Giving is the beginning of the Taking and the act of Taking is completing the Giving. The Giving first and Taking later principle is the unity of Wang Yangming's one bit. The Giving and Taking collapse the bits-wave function of Giving and Taking. This collapse of the bits-waves function ψI(CTE) means the breaking of symmetry of the state of equilibrium before the Giving and the state of equilibrium before the Taking. This ψI(CTE) is bits-waves function of consciousness (C), time (T) and energy (E). This ψI(CTE) is one Qbit that can be many as our Multiverse ψτ( iLx,y,z, Lm) as long as it does not violate the conservation laws and ΔS = 0. The breaking of symmetry yield at least one or more bit/s as its manifestation of the creation and distribution of new bit/s. if the Giving and Taking do not yield any bit/s, then the act of Giving is not consummated by the act of Taking, thus, there is no collapse of the bits-waves function and no information gain. See excellent article on information gain hypothesis by Pfister and Wehner, arXiv:1210.0194v3. A bit means information gain. Information gain means the breaking of the symmetry from the act of Giving and Taking consummated in the meeting of the mind as well as the actual Exchange of equal value from the respective giver and taker. (jurisprudence of contract law). The act of Giving andTaking are aborted and not consummated without breaking the symmetry and hereby no information gains. This is the KQID simple mechanism of Creation and Distribution of Everything. For example, the FAPAMA Qbit exchanges among the Giving first photons A and Taking later gravitons S that gives electron its mass and the interaction among photons A gives electron its activities. The interactions between electrons and protons/neutrons give rise to atoms, and so on.

KQID FAPAMA Qbit unifies Democritus's bit/qbit worldview, Plato's Idea and Aristotle's form that you mentioned in your essay.

Can you kindly comment on my relationships/transactional of Giving first Taking later principle as the origin of Existence as stated above?

Thanks for your superb contribution in this forum and I rate it accordingly. If you have time please comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time.

Thanks,

Leo KoGuan

Carlo,

In a recent article you have, in effect, pronounced that the future of our world is already fixed and set in stone. Game over. In the face of the likelihood of catastrophic climate change, your's is an uninspiring position.

The article, on the edge website, argues for determinism and complexity, and against free will. Of course no one would disagree that complexity means that physical outcomes in real life can rarely be fully predicted or modelled. But the article failed to mention the logical consequence of ideas that nature is in effect 100% deterministic: all future physical outcomes including every person's future physical outcomes are set in stone already.

This essay contest is about the nature of information and its wider ramifications in physical reality. According to the way my essay envisions the nature of information, what you are saying in the edge article is that the information we acquire about reality cannot be the basis of choices that inject new information, i.e. new outcomes as opposed to deterministic outcomes, into reality. The logical result of your deterministic position is that our environmental fate is already sealed, because at each step of the way what anyone says or does is already fully determined way on into the future for evermore. (My view of information is a different interpretation of what you say in your FQXi essay: "In quantum theory, we can always add new information to the...system...the old information becomes irrelevant.")

Many or most physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians focus on theoretical mystical Platonic mathematical entities, and have seemingly assumed that a vast layer of computing infrastructure underlies normal reality, deterministically producing every physical outcome (using law of nature mathematical equations). But where is the evidence for this crucially important computation layer? If there is absolutely no underlying computation layer, and there is absolutely no mystical magical Platonic realm, then your argument collapses. Lacking a mechanism, there can be no basis for your argument for a deterministic reality.

My essay explains why subjective experience is the essence of information, so I don't agree with the assertion in your FQXi essay that "There is no subjective element in it". However I definitely agree with your repeated assertions that information exists in relationship e.g.: "information...is always the relative information between two systems", "physical systems interact with one another and affect one another" and "The universe...is also the net of information that all systems have about one another".

Cheers,

Lorraine

Dear Carlo

I enjoyed your lucid essay. You make it clear that particles somehow exchange information, but you provide no 'mechanism' by which such information is transmitted - what would be the equivelant of Shannon's information channels, say at the Planck scale?

My Beautiful Universe Theory also found here suggests precisely how the presumed dielectric nodes making up a lattice of the Universe transmit angular momentum (one can call it information about angular momentum!):locally, causally and linearly, and without the need for any sort of observer.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Professor Rovelli

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

With great regards,

Than Tin

Dear Carlo,

Sorry to trouble you. I am not a professional physicist but I have a question I will like to be enlightened about. I am taking advantage of this forum to ask an expert so I can be clear although this may not be the subject of your essay. Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

Hey C. Rovelli,

Neat short essay! I Like here that entropy and information is dealt with as a tool.

Dear Prof. Rovelli,

A good and thought provoking essay. If I understand correctly the idea is first the primacy/importance of the macro variables in determining entropy (that the entropy is a function primarily/only of these marco variables like volume, temperature, pressure) and second the importance of the interaction of two systems and the degrees of freedoms that come into play in these interactions. For example, certainly ignoring interactions or back reaction in black hole evaporation is a bad idea at the end stages where a BH evaporates. But as well this is a difficult problem.

I did have one open ended question -- many times for quantum systems one discusses "entanglement entropy"/von Neumann entropy/fine grained entropy which is defined as -Tr (p log p) with p being the density matrix of the system (I'm am just looking in detail at this so do not have very good intuition which is why I use formulas instead of words). This entanglement entropy has some odd feature in certain situation -- for example unlike usual thermal entropy it is not additive. So my question is "What can one say about entanglement entropy in the context of your arguments?" A quantum entangled system is "interacting" (sort of) but I'm not sure in the sense you mean interaction. In any case I am just beginning to look into this type of entropy and it has some (to me) odd features and it seems your arguments may have something to say in this regards.

Best,

Doug

Dear Carlo,

« Relative information at the foundation of physics »

This title is revealing that information is the basis of our reality.

If reality is made both wave and particle.

Why not « Quantum and Wave Mechanics » ?

And where is the binary « 0 » and « 1 », in nature.

Accordingly to eDuality, see my essay which is less scholarly.

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Respectfully, and good luck.

Please visit My essay.

Carlo,

please help me to understand: does ANYTHING change future outcomes? What DOES change future outcomes?

(Obviously I'm not referring to the issue of complexity, which means that future outcomes in real life usually cant be predicted)

Lorraine

Thanks so much Carlo for replying. Your reply suggests then that what determines whether two constantly related bodies will experience centrifugal force is in their local environment? If so, since it cannot be the bodies themselves it must be in space even if you may want to call this a field.

Following additional insights I have gained from interacting with FQXi community members, including your respected self (on Jun 26 and other days), perhaps you will like to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. Thanks

I wish I had full access to the Wheeler article I mentioned before. I understand he compared his elementary quantum phenomenon to monads.

All the best, sir

Akinbo