"This is not correct. Shannon's theory is about a transmitter and a receiver which have agreed upon a certain symbol alphabet."

As Shannon states on page 44, each "symbol" will be little more than "samples of white noise", for a system operating at the maximum capacity. So any meaning that might be attached to such noise samples, cannot be deduced from any observation of them; any meaning, if such exists, must be extrinsic to any such message/observable. Upon detecting the existence of any such "noise sample", the receiver merely decodes it, by replacing it with some agreed upon binary number, which remains as meaningless to the receiver, as it was to the transmitter.

There never even has to be any meaning - the original message to be transmitted, may itself be nothing more than a meaningless noise sequence.

"Hence it does not make any sense to say that the universe computes itself, if no one is able to pick up that information"

"picking up information" involves nothing more than picking up an oak leaf (and regarding it as an alphabetic symbol). That is the point. Because this makes the recipient of the information, free to associate (by accident, chance, or any other mechanism) any possible meaning, or behavior, with that "picking up" - thereby enabling the "emergence" of a previously non-existent, cause-and-effect relationship. If you decide to slap your face with your right hand, every time you pick-up an oak leaf, but pat your head, every time you pick-up a maple leaf, an observer watching you, might reasonably suppose that an oak leaf means "slap your face" and a maple leaf means "pat your head" and the same observer, seeing every person doing the same thing, might even suppose that there is some "law of nature" necessitating the behavior. The fact that the oak tree, did not intend its leaf to serve that function, is of no consequence. Any repeatable behavior, that becomes associated with "picking up information", becomes the "meaning" of that information, and may take on the appearance of a "law of nature", to any observer witnessing such repeatable behaviors. The law did not cause the behavior, rather, the behavior caused the observer to suppose the existence of a law.

Rob McEachern

I think it is worth pointing out that my essay only mentions Shannon once. His focus was on communication which is not a central part of my essay. He is cited only because he produced some theory on the quantity of information in random variables. This is the only part of his work that is directly relevant to what I am trying to say.

Robert,

""picking up information" involves nothing more than picking up an oak leaf (and regarding it as an alphabetic symbol). That is the point."

How can you know that what Shannon wrote (for example on page 44) isn't also merely meaningless noise?

What you really are exemplifying is (when one logically deciphers your lines of reasoning) either that you

1. do not know that you don't know what you are talking about

or

2. you know that you don't know what you are talking about

In any case I think you wildly mix up various categories like meaning, information, laws of nature and human conditional learning.

Robert,

""picking up information" involves nothing more than picking up an oak leaf (and regarding it as an alphabetic symbol). That is the point."

How can you know that what Shannon wrote (for example on page 44) isn't also merely meaningless noise?

What you really are exemplifying is (when one logically deciphers your lines of reasoning) either that you

1. do not know that you don't know what you are talking about

or

2. you know that you don't know what you are talking about

In any case I think you wildly mix up various categories like meaning, information, laws of nature and human conditional learning.

Philip,

You stated that "Information is the basic material of reality, but the processing of information raises paradoxes...", but the paradoxes only arise, when an inappropriate conception of information is being employed.

Your statement that "because he produced some theory on the quantity of information in random variables" indicates that you have yet to comprehend the significance of his theory; he has proven that there is a finite, often small, amount of information, that can ever be measured, with certainty, from any set of physical measurements whatsoever. That means that any entity manifesting just one such bit of information, can never be measured in any manner, capable of producing two uncorrelated measurements, even when the measurements might otherwise have been independent, orthogonal variables.

This has direct relevance to the validity of Bell's theorem - it is only valid for entities that manifest more than one bit of information. In other words, classical, deterministic entities that manifest only one bit, will behave just like quantum entities. You do not have to understand Shannon's paper to prove that. You can simply run the short code (available on this website) that will produce such objects and perform a Bell test on them, right in front of your very eyes. You can do it on your own computer, in your own home, within an hour, then ponder why it works (and violates the 1987 Garg/Mermin claim that no classical system, can ever reproduce Bell's correlations, with a single detector efficiency above 83%) for as long as you like. And if you feel up to it, you can completely rewrite the code, to convince yourself that it really does work, as Colin Walker did (replied on Sep. 12, 2016)

Stefen,

"How can you know that what Shannon wrote (for example on page 44) isn't also merely meaningless noise?"

Because, I have personally designed and constructed real systems, that do exactly the types of things he is describing. So have legions of other communications engineers. Almost all the modern, wireless communications devices you use, are based on these concepts; so they are not just "idle talk", as quantum information theory is.

"(when one logically deciphers your lines of reasoning)" try logically deciphering the code noted above, after your own, inanimate, classical computer violates Bell's theorem right in front of you - no "quantum computer" required. Then, you too will know.

Rob McEachern

Robert,

I took a look at your paper where your computer program is published ("Classical System for Producing "Quantum Correlations"").

That program is just a mathematical calculation, an algorithm, it is not a physical test that could reveal something about the ontology of the phenomena in question.

So my question is what you think this algorithm conclusively says about the ontology of the phenomena in question? Since you wrote that in the simulation it is possible to detect every particle (page 4) and you are aware of the fact that therefore the simulation is merely a calculation of some sorts, I wonder how you nonetheless can think that such a simulation can ever say something conclusive about real detector behaviour in real physical experiments?

Stefan,

The code is not just a "mathematical calculation", it produces real, physical images of "coins" on your computer screen, that you can see with your real physical eyes, and photograph with your real physical camera. Feel free to analyze your own photographs of them, if you think it will produce a different result than just analyzing the images produced on the screen. Better still, feel free to 3D-print the images, to make real, physical coins, then analyze those coins, if you believe it will make a difference.

You seem to not comprehend that Bell's theorem, is a theorem. Theorems are merely statements in symbolic logic, not physical theories. The only thing that makes any theorem take on any relevance to physics, is the axioms it is founded upon; if the axioms have relevance, then the theorem does. Otherwise it does not. So the question is, do Bell's axioms, including his unstated, idealistic assumptions, of (1) perfectly identical particles and (2) perfect (error free) detection, have any relevance in the real world?

What the code demonstrates, is that some peculiar, real "particles", that violate Bell's unstated, idealistic assumptions, will also violate his theoretical claim that no real classical particles can violate the theorem. In other words, Bell tests amount to nothing more than a "reduction to an absurdity" demonstration, of the falsity of Bell's assumptions. Rather than proving that the quantum realm is "absurd", the entire 50 year history of Bell's theorem and associated tests, merely proves that his assumptions regarding the existence of "perfect" particles and perfect detectors, are absurd, idealistic caricatures, of the behavior of some "real" particles and real detectors (the detector in the code, is a real, commonly-used, signal processing detector - a matched filter).

Rob McEachern

Robert,

"You seem to not comprehend that Bell's theorem, is a theorem. Theorems are merely statements in symbolic logic, not physical theories. The only thing that makes any theorem take on any relevance to physics, is the axioms it is founded upon; if the axioms have relevance, then the theorem does. Otherwise it does not."

Suppose i could show that the set of axioms *you* use for claiming that Bell's assumptions are absurd - *are themselves absurd*. then, consequently you haven't in any way shown that you can reduce Bell's assumptions to be absurd. Would you then *ad hoc* introduce a new axiom for saving your abstract musings about what is really going on at the level of single particles or would you realize that the things you assumed have nothing to do with physical reality?

Bells theorem is a subject that has been argued about at length in FQXi forums and elsewhere without a hope of conclusion. It is not the subject of my essay so before this comment section gets overwealmed I respectfully ask you to take any such discussion elsewhere.

Philip,

you say "...and if the calculation cannot be related to known physics in some way then it is a mathematical dead-end".

Questions:

- of what epistemic kind is "cannot be related" ?

- who or what is the knower of "known physics"?

Heinz

    This is not really a deep epistemological statement. I am being deliberately weaker than to say that it must make a testable prediction because that is too much to expect at this level. It just needs to connect to space, time, gravity, quantum field theory. If you think known physics is something different then you will want it to connect to that.

    11 days later

    Hello, I liked a lot, I agree that the informations are the basis but if I can , can you tell me what is really an information for you generally. For this I d like to see what are for you the foundamental mathematical and physical objects , do you consider strings and a 1D main Cosmic field creating these topologies, geometries, quantum nechanics or a geometrodynamics and fields stoill or coded particles ? because the informations it is this also, we must consider their phiscality. Like that I can see your general philosophy about this universe, this physicality, regards , good luck for the essay Contest, your essay is relevant, one of my favorites, regards

      Dear Phil and Robert,

      I beg to differ with the concept of information used in this conversation. If I tell you whether a coin is heads or tails, I give you 1 bit of data. Alone, that datum contains log(1) = 0 information.

      - Shawn

      Dear Phil,

      Your essay's awesome! Only one inconsequential problem: I think you spelled desert as dessert? Were you hungry when you wrote that paragraph? :)

      - Shawn

        It is like I said a good general essay, that is said I cannot agree about the maths like the main pure essence of our universe , like the multiverses , they are just assumptions due to mathematical extrapolations. The problem is probably philosophical. The same for the Theory of theories, it is not possible because we are simply limited in our knowledges and we have many things to add at this universal puzzle. I beleive strongly that the physics are the pure essence of our universe, not the maths, the maths imply too much cobnfusions when they are not well utilised, of course the maths are essential to prove our assumptions, I just say that they imply odd assumptions and interpretations in considering a finite universe , unique in evolution. The informations so like I said need to be described with determinis, what are their soruces and what are they really like foundamental objects, and what ptoduce them philosophically speaking. Without this you cannot explain deeper their meanings. The mathematics are for me a tool permitting to better understand these physics wich are the foundamental main piece. Not the opposite, maybe your error is there about these maths, and the informations. Tell me more and maybe I can be conviced, that said very good general essay. Regards

        I'm I glad you liked it and yes I confess that I am a terrible speller. Without spell checkers it would be much worse. Letter patterns to not etch into my brain for some reason.

        Thanks for you questions. I think we have different philosophy so may not find agreement, but sometimes it can be insightful to discuss such things so long as we respect the differences.

        For example you say that physics is the pure essence of our universe. To you I am sure this has some relevant philosophical meaning which I am happy to respect. For me however it is just a definition of physics and I want to understand the real logic of how the universe works, not just definitions.

        "Physicality" is like "reality" and "existence". These are all words to express what we experience and separate it from things which are merely "mathematical" or "imaginary" or "fictional". In my philosophical view however, reality is relative to the observer. There is no absolute distinction between real and imaginary or between physical and mathematical other than through connection to our experience as observers. I don't know how these distinctions can be made without referring to observers explicitly or implicitly.

        You ask what is information. It is a good question. I could say that it is defined by Shannon's formulas but that may just lead to further questions about what is probability etc. For now the best I can do is say that information is axiomatic. It is one possible starting point. If it leads to something that resembles physics then we have made progress and can wonder more deeply about what information is.

        You ask if fundamental entities are fields or particles. They are both. this is understood already on quantum field theory. They are different interpretation of the same mathematical construction. I think it is a feature of physical law that it can be understood in ways that seem different but which are in fact mathematically equivalent. There is a lot of that in what we already understand.

        Dear Professor Gibbs,

        Thank you for giving us a Wonderful historical introduction to Physics and Computer algorithms, I was very lucky to read it!!!

        By the way, I just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the " real open thinking" is supported. I hope to get some comments from your learned wisdom. Have a look at my essay please.

        "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

        =snp.gupta

        Dear Dr Gibbs, you are welcome, and thanks for developping your ideas. I like the respect that you have even in having different points of vue , it is rare. I agree that it is Always interesting to share and discuss different general works and philosophies.

        I respect so your ideas, we just consider diffently the origin and main cause of the reality. I love the mathematics you know ,like the ideas of Mx Tegmark , I just see differently in considering that the physics are the main piece of puzzle and that these maths are a tool to prove these physics, sometimes we have odd extrapolations due to maths and maybe we must be prudent about them and how we interpret them.

        I try also to understand this universe at all scales, and its philosophy but it is not easy, I have developped and improve each Days this theory os spherisation and these 3D coded spheres but I cannot affirm of course , like the strings we cannot affirm what we have at this planck scale and in philosophy, but we evolve each Days also and complete this puzzle with determinism, it is the most important when the logic is respected after all.

        I agree about these relative observations, we must relativate after all Always what we observe and try to converge with our universal laws and objects and how they act at all scales.

        I like too the works of Shannon, and we search what are really these informations, for me considering a gravitational coded aether made of coded 3D spheres, I see these informations so like that, 3D spheres and they permit the evolution, the ineteractions of exchanges, the properties of matters and the Waves particles duality. I have considered specific finite series sent of this central cosmological Sphere and the space disappears in my reasoning with specific series.

        Of course like your reasoning all this can be axiomatised and respect the foundamental deterministic laws.

        About the Waves fields particles duality, I agree, I consider mainly that said that the particles are the basis , and if the aether is gravitational and made of 3D spheres in motions oscillations, so we can respect also these fields, but the main essence is particles, all is particles and they oscillate and are in contact due to this aether, so that respect the fields. But like I said we cannot be sure , nor about the strings or the points and geometrodynamics or My 3D spheres, or a pure mathematical universe.

        An important point philosophical also is why we are and why we exist? what is the cause of all our codes, particles and fields and this evolution? the sciences Community is divided, a part Thinks that a kind of infinite eternal consciousness create the codes and informations, and the others Think that all comes from the hasard with maths and probabilities, but there also we cannot affirm even if I am persuaded I must say that we have a kind of God of Spinoza.

        We evolve and we find answers each Days, after all it is the most importsnt, we complete this universal puzzle.

        I thank you for your answer and its relevances, a pleasure to discuss about these things, I liked like I told you your ideas and I respect a lot your works and essay, I wish you good luck for this contect, one of my favorites I must say because you are general and skilling, friendly , regards Dr Gibbs

        Hi Phil.

        Congrats to an interesting essay.

        It is true that all equations can be seen as a simulation, which I have become clear of by reading nobody else than Wheeler. What a guy!

        In later years I have also been part of a project doing simulations (Joseph Kover) and with binaries (Allen Framton and Keith Bowden) and it was amusing for Keith because he said - oh, you have rediscovered the combinatorics... so I have read some about the history.

        But it did not quite turn out to be combinatorics after all, and we got some nasty numbertheory, so we got a bit perplexed. Numbertheory came out of binaries!!! We started with nothing but light as the fine structure constant, describing time in its interactions...

        Happily the deadline is extended so maybe I have my own contribution here, maybe with Steve Dufourny, if we can agree on the details? His model interest me. My interest is on consciousness as you know. I think of Penrose ideas linked with gravitation as an informational 'Indras net'. But the gravity is difficult with its curvatures. Maybe degeneracy comes to my help?

        Must read your essay in detail. Congrats again.

        Ulla Mattfolk.