Hi Matt,

Thank you so much for your interesting point. I would like to focus on the case of quantum theory. As you pointed out, we can consider the single-case probability. On applying the single-case probability to the single event in quantum mechanics, I think that we need the same (i.i.d.) samples to verify this probability. The statement of i.i.d. samples implies the rule of probability theory. This seems to be logical mistake. Also, I think that the fact that the operational derivation of physical systems depends on the interpretation of probability seems to be strange.

Yutaka

Hi communities,

Thank you so much for reading my paper on "These from Bits". I found the serious typo as follows.

Typo:

The last 7 line in Section 1: Rolf William Landauer'sfamous quote: -> John Archibald Wheeler'sfamous quote:

Sorry for inconvenience.

Yutaka

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara,

> 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.

I think that your attitude on science should be changed. Our scientific activities are based on the observation of the Nature. Especially, the fundamental theories on cosmology are based on this attitude. This is not magic but is just the fact on the Nature. Even if your community wants magic, I think that almost all scientists recognize that such activities are not in science. I hope that my personal opinion share our community.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Hi Honang Cao,

> How we must expand of "information theory to small-number samples or non-typical sequences" ?

Sorry. At least for me, I have no obvious answer. This problem is related to foundations of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Especially, the nano-meter-size physical systems can be applied to thermodynamics in the context of optomechanics. However, its boundary seems to remain mystery.

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

    17 days later

    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?

      Hi Jim,

      Thanks a lot for your glance to my essay. I understand your situation to read many essays. When you have a time, please read it.

      Best wishes,

      Yutaka

      Dear Akinbo,

      Thank you so much for your consideration on my essay. Before trying to solve the problem, we have to carefully judge the "big problem". The message of my essay is my consideration process on this. If you agree with this, I am so happy.

      Also, I replied to your questions:

      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?

      The above two questions from you seems to be based on the binary choice to be applied to physical theories. On the Planck length, we conventionally think about the physical scale of quantum mechanics even in relativistic theory of gravity. We want to know whether this boundary is rigid or not. The boundary between existence and non-existence is also the same. Recent development on theoretical consideration to be seen in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2945 , this boundary seems to not be rigid. However, nobody experimentally demonstrate this boundary as far as I know.

      Best wishes,

      Yutaka

      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

          Dear Peter,

          Thank you so much for reading my essay. I have never thought your mentioned points. As my personal project, I will try to construct theory of information with small number of samples. If you or your colleagues are interested in this, please let me know or contact yshikano_at_ims.ac.jp

          Best wishes,

          Yutaka

          Dear Sreenath,

          Thank you so much for your download. Please enjoy reading my essay. As mentioned in my post at your essay, I really enjoyed reading your essay.

          Best wishes,

          Yutaka

          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 Joe,

            Thank you so much for reading my essay. I think that the stand point is completely different from you. I would like not to say something in the Universe. My essay focuses on the operational viewpoint of the abstract physical theories such as Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics. Therefore, from my essay and such viewpoints, I cannot say the realistic natural phenomena.

            Best wishes,

            Yutaka

            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

                Dear Sreenath,

                Thank you so much for reading my essay. I am very happy to your comments.

                Best wishes,

                Yutaka

                Dear Michel,

                Thank you so much for reading my essay. I did not want to criticize successful development from the seminar concept of the Landauer principle. These developments are very useful to deeply understand the topics. In my essay, I would like focus on the operational viewpoint. From that viewpoint, I would like to claim what the small number of information is or can be characterized.

                Best wishes,

                Yutaka

                Dear Yutaka,

                I understood what you did, this is very serious professional work. I also red your PRE paper.

                I am giving you a high mark.

                Some time ago, I was busy with the problem of 1/f low frequency noise and tried to model it with (quantum) thermodynamics, you can have a look when you have time

                http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2945

                My topic in this contest is different

                http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

                May be you can review it.

                All the best,

                Michel

                Dear Michel,

                Thank you so much for your understanding. Since I always discuss several physics with Izumi Ojima, I know and have already red your pointed-out paper. Thank you so much for it.

                Best wishes,

                Yutaka