Dear Lorraine,

Like Laplace said, it's all about the data.

- Shawn

Dear Manfred,

Great observation on your part. They're called databases, not "infobases", for a reason.

- Shawn

Dear Jochen,

thanks so much for your extremely kind comments and the interesting remarks.

Let me address your valuable questions. You are somewhat right that Bekenstein bound brings along a huge amount of theoretical background from quantum thereory and gravity. I cite this just to prove that there exist formal arguments in support of what I want to tell, but, in fact, my ideas are more fundamental and try to be free of that theoretical baggage. My main argument is not as formal, but perhaps can be conceived as an operational approach that takes as a primitive the Landauer's principle.

As for saving the finite information by appealing to "computable analysis" only instead of removing realm nummbers, I don't see any arguments against this at the moment. It looks to me as an alternative approach. However, I should think more about its consequences determinism in that case. I discuss some other alternatives in my paper with Gisin (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.03697.pdf).

Indeed, you hit the nail on the head on your comment on intersubjectivity, if you are thinking of some supposed constant of nature. With my intersubjective requirement of measure I mainly had in mind two agents measuring the very same object in different moments. We have received several comments on what is the status of constants of physics (say the charge of electron) in the FIQ-based model of physics. While this is still object of our research, my current understanding is that -assuming that the Universe has been expanding from a very localized region- the peculiarity of constants of nature is that they have been determined with very high precision in the first instants of the Universe. So, even if they are now in space-like separated regions when the get measured, very many of their digits are already stable.

All the best!

Flavio

Dear Wilhelmus,

hank you for your interesting comments and your appreciative words.

I will have a look at your essay soon.

Cheers,

Flavio

Dear Shawn,

the whole point of my view is that there is ALWAYS an element of genuine randomness. If you accept my alternative interpretation, even the lenght of a metal rod would not be fully determined.

Cheers,

Flavio

Flavio I enjoyed your essay. In my essay "Clarification of Physics --" I introduced a new definition of information and relate it to intelligence, mathematics and the creation of the physical world. I think you will find it interesting. Also I would appreciate your comments on my essay. John D. Crowell

    Dear Flavio,

    OK, sounds good. Thanks for your reply, and patience.

    Can you explain in a word or two where the classical randomness comes from? Chaos?

    - Shawn

    Dear Flavio,

    Thank you for your comment on randomness.

    It reminds me of the Microsoft browser lottery, where one was presented five browser options, in some random order. Instead of using the pseudorandom number generator built into the browser, like Microsoft did, it could have relied on human randomness (e.g. based on the system time mod 120 at time of browser lottery initialization).

    https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/02/microsoft-browser-lottery-do-js-random.html

    "A period for the 5! = 120 permutations might be produced from the integer system time [added: in microseconds] mod 120."

    - Shawn

    Dear Flavio,

    Right, you'd get the length of the metre rod by measuring it many times, and taking the average +/- the standard deviation?

    Last reply, I promise. :)

    - Shawn

    Dear John,

    thanks for reading my essay. I will go through yours and leave you a comment if i have something to say about it.

    Cheers,

    Flavio

    Flavio,

    Re "Information is a well defined mathematical concept (defined by Shannon and others) and I used it in that sense in my essay", Author Flavio Del Santo replied on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 20:58 GMT:

    Your "information" actually represents information about information; it is higher-level information. Higher-level because logical steps have to be taken to derive your so-called "information", as well as mathematical calculations. Your "information" cannot be a foundational basis of anything.

    The actual foundational information in the world seems to be fully categorised: categories like mass, charge and velocity, which exist in fixed relationships with other such categories. Your/ Shannon "information" is a derived category of information, with associated numbers (that can seemingly only be derived by entities that have a capacity to perform logical steps as well as do mathematical calculations).

    Mass is a category of information; velocity is a category of information; but you and Shannon and Shawn and others are in effect saying that information is a category of information. See the problem? The problem is the inappropriate labelling of a CATEGORY of information with the label "information".

      Dear Flavio,

      Now do you see? When I said that the essay was interesting, I wasn't kidding around! :D

      - Shawn

        P.S. So what I'm trying to say is that there are many existing and potential categories [1] of information in the world. Shannon "information" is seemingly one of these categories of information . But Shannon "information" shouldn't be called "information" because it is only one of many existing and potential categories of information.

        Lorraine

        1. Not Platonic categories, but categories that exist from certain points of view, where categories are built out of logical analysis and/or mathematical relationships involving other such categories. E.g. mass and velocity are categories.

        We call it data, and data about the data is called metadata.

        - Shawn

        Dear Carlo,

        thank you so much for your kind appreciation of my work!

        All good wishes,

        Flavio

        Dear Flavio,

        Thank you for a well-written and highly accessible essay. I particularly appreciate your historical perspective on classical indeterminism.

        I totally agree with your distinction between empirical observations, which only address finite-resolution states, and the "orthodox" interpretation, which assumes that variables (e.g. coordinates of position and momentum) are infinitely precise. As I emphasize in my essay, PIP describes a conceptual model and interpretation of physical reality, based on assumptions that cannot be empirically verified.

        You note that the orthodox interpretation of classical mechanics is causal and deterministic. Causality implies that cause precedes effect in time, i.e. time asymmetry. Time asymmetry, along with determinism, is typically (I suspect necessarily) attributed to an initial low-entropy low-probability state. The origin of an exceptional low-probability initial state, one that has deterministically led to the current universe including this essay and response, is problematic. In addition, a deterministic model cannot formulate a definition of entropy as a fundamental property of state. This makes the asymmetrical increase in entropy a property of perception, rather than an objective property of nature. A much simpler and objective explanation for time asymmetry is irreducible indeterminism, as you propose. Determinism is not empirically necessary, and indeterminism is a far more reasonable, and objective, explanation of time asymmetry and causality.

        Your alternative conceptual model, FIQ-based Interpretation, is very similar to my alternative conceptual model, DCM. Both replace infinite precision variables with finite precision variables. In DCM, I relate finite precision to a new physical property of state, ambient temperature. Ambient temperature is based on the recognition that absolute zero does not exist and no system is perfectly isolated from its ambient surroundings. The universe's background microwave radiation permeates all of space and it defines a positive ambient temperature for the universe as a whole.

        The DCM defines irreducible objective randomness by the partition function of statistical mechanics, evaluated at the ambient temperature (see end-note 7 in my essay, and "reinventing time" reference). It is immediately evident that that the PIP and the orthodox interpretation represent a special case, in which the ambient temperature is assumed equal to absolute zero. Absolute zero, however, is an unattainable idealization and does not exist in physical reality.

        You conclude that no experiment will ultimately discriminate between determinism and indeterminism. While I agree that there will always be some wiggle room for anyone who wants to maintain determinism, the cost is abandoning objective time asymmetry and causality or asserting that the universe's evolution is nothing but the playing out of fate for an exceptionally crafted, and unexplained, universe.

        Harrison

          Shawn,

          As a former long-time computer analyst and programmer, I can tell you that "data" and "metadata" are pretty well meaningless labels. You, being a software developer, would understand this. "Data" and "metadata" don't get to the essence of what information is.

          "Shannon information" is a category with associated numbers that does not define information, and does not get to the essence of what information is because there are plenty of other existing and possible somewhat similar categories and associated numbers.

          It is not necessary to define information; but it IS necessary to say that information is a thing that can only be represented with categories and numbers, where categories are understood to have an internal relationship structure.