These from Bits by Yutaka Shikano

Hi,

I very much enjoyed reading your essay. You argued that one needs an ensemble to apply information theory so there is no hope of applying it to a single Newtonian particle for example. I was wondering whether this is contingent on the interpretation of probability. If we adopt an interpretation of probability that admits single-case probabilities, such as the Bayesian approach or single-case objective chances, then can we hope for information theoretic derivations of other physical theories, particularly in the case of quantum theory?

Dear Yutaka,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. I hope you will agree that one can not produce material just by thinking. . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

Yutaka,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Dear Yutaka,

Based on the premise by which you are looking at the problem, I will judge your essay highly. I presume your assertions are based on a 'composite' or 'statistical' viewpoint. Your view I suspect also assumes a continuous, infinitely divisible reality.

However, you rightly acknowledge the need to go beyond this to a more fundamental "small-number" samples, IF and that is a big IF, we want to revive the original 'it from bit'. I agree entirely.

Indeed I advocate going beyond "small-number" to the ultimately discrete, non-composite sample, i.e. "each sample member".

You are more knowledgeable in these matters than I am, so I invite you to take a look at a possible scenario where the information-theoretical concept can be applied to a single event. Then you judge for yourself, if 'it' can be derived from 'bit on this "operational way of thinking".

All the best in the competition.

Best regards,

Akinbo

I always like to take advantage of exchanges with professional physicists to clarify a few things. Pardon my indulgence. 1) What do you think of this Planck length as a professional physicist? Is it physically significant? 2) Would you consider existence/non-existence a binary choice, i.e. an It that can appear and disappear?

Dear Yutaka,

A very professional and interesting essay and view. I think it should be placed much higher and am happy to oblige. I was particularly interested in your characterisation of information theory as formalization of operational thinking, and that it is; "not currently applicable to situations where there are only a small number of samples,"

I agreed entirely, but have put much work into finding why and attempting to rectify the position. I believe I have found a viable approach and hope you'll read my essay and give me an assessment, or your views on it's potential.

In fact I identify that our understanding has been limited by this statistical approach itself, and for instance single photon pair comparisons can provide a new insight into uncertainty. A close relationship exists with Godels n-value (fuzzy) logic and Chaos theory, with consistencies with Bill McHarris's findings. It builds a multi component ontology defining and axiomising a model of an underlying mechanism and sequence consistent with recent optical science.

Thank you for an excellent fresh viewpoint on an important subject. I only wish I could write as clearly and succinctly.

Congratulations and very best wishes.

Peter

Dear Yutaka,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

With the utmost respect Professor Shikano,

Please excuse me, I mean no disrespect, but I have tried my hardest to read your very well organized essay, and I am afraid I disagree with its whole premise.

Most of the earth and most of our bodies are made out of water. I am an old decrepit realist, and as I have explained in my essay BITTERS, each real snowflake is unique, once. This must mean that each real molecule of each real snowflake also has to be unique, once. This also means that each fabricated particle or energy wave must also be unique, once. It does not matter how molecules, or particles, or neurons seem to assemble, because each and every molecule, particle or neuron is unique, once. Their momentary assemblage can only be unique, once. The real Universe is unique, once.

The only question Wheeler ought to have asked was:

Is the real Universe simple? The only sensible answer is, Yes.

Is the abstract universe simple? No

Is unique, once simple? Yes.

Is quantum theory simple? No.

I do hope you did not think that I was being impertinent,

Joe

Dear prof. Yutaka,

Your amazing knowledge on information theory is revealed in the simplicity with which you have viewed it and have shown its current limited application in physics, and also the need to expand it to other branches of physics. This you have clearly summed up in your conclusion when you say "These from bits", instead of saying "It from bit". Your objective realistic view is reflected in your final statement that, "It develops Bit and we will surely acquire It from Bit".

Thanks for writing such a simple article which can convince even non-specialists. I have replied to your valuable comments on my essay in my thread.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Dear Yutaka,

I find your essay relevant and interesting.

Thank you for recalling us Landauer's principle that each time a single bit of information is erased (from the memory of the Maxwell's daemon) the entropy of the environment increases an amount of k ln 2. This principle seems to have had a crucial impact on the developement of reversible computation (including quantum computation). It is also recalled in the introduction of the book "Principles of quantum computation and information" (Vol.1) by G. Benenti et all (World Scientific, 2004°.

Best regards,

Michel