These from Bits by Yutaka Shikano

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

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 Yutaka,

Yours is a fascinating essay. I missed Brillouin's work in 1956/62. I first became aware of info theory with Amnon Katz's "Statistical Mechanics: An Information Theory Approach" in 1966. I've been enamored of this perspective ever since. Nevertheless, you've provided another new perspective. I had not thought of information theory as formalizing operational thinking nor of equilibrium thermodynamics itself as being operational because of the adiabatic process. In this sense it is most interesting that you propose to provide such operational formulation of statistical mechanics based on the cost to write (erase) information in the operational apparatus, i.e., in the demon. Your development is too abbreviated for me to make the jump between each step of your argument, but it seemed to hold together.

In short you set a goal of providing operational formalism for any physical theory, found one lacking such, and proceeded to supply such. Congratulations!

I question whether "These from Bits" has the same meaning, however, as Wheeler's (Landauer's?) saying. The general argument seems to be that information, in the current interpretation, gives rise to physical matter. You seem to show that information gives rise to physical theories of material processes. I agree with you, while rejecting the idea that matter actually arises from 'bits' of pure information.

I have set a different goal in my essay, and invite you to read and comment upon it.

Thanks for a very stimulating essay. I will also read your arXiv paper, which probably has more detailed info.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman