These from Bits by Yutaka Shikano

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

Dear Yutaka Shikano:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Dear Yutaka,

I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. Your thread was one affected by this.

I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes so know that I rated it very highly.

Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Yutaka Shikano:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Dear Yutaka,

Very nice essay with a good logical base to it. In fact you've helped me think more about my essay with regard to the number of samples. The uncertainty principle allows only position or momentum to be know precisely. I examine how information is received and revealed, and until I read your essay hadn't considered whether this mattered to my theory. Please take a look if you get chance.

I am going to rate your essay highly, not only for assisting in furthering my work, but also being great in its own right!

Well done!

Antony

Dear Yutaka:

I very much like your operational point of view. It seems to me that it is key to a better understanding of information. I think I am not clear what you mean when you say

Operational thinking has been formalized as information theory.

Can you explain what you mean here?

Cheers

Olaf