Bit from It by Julian Barbour

Dear Julian,

The one problem I might have with what you say is that information in the Shannon sense does not include what appears to be a sematic depth you associate with it. The association of ontology seems to imply something with respect to realism which may not be quite operative. This is in particular since a quantum bit is just a particular way of formulating a quantum state. In effect there is an isomorphism between the quantum state and qubit. We then have nonlocality issues with quantum states, and Bell inequality violations which illustrate there is no underlying realism to quantum mechanics.

I have done work with quantum information with respect to black holes and it is in Discrete Time and Kleinian Structures in Duality Between Spacetime and Particle Physics. This covers some of the issues which the associated AdS sspacetime. There is a discrete quotient group, which as it turns out subsequent to submitting this has to do with a discrete structure on the Calabi-Yau form. This results in a "stringy derivation" of integer paritions.

The Bit from It or It from Bit I touch on in my essay, but where in effect I leave that up in the air. Quantum mechanics is really in effect devoid of reality outside of its measurement or reduction of states in some classical setting. The classical reality, though it is built up from quantum states, or may interfering quantum paths, or further from lots of quantum bits, is what we can say has "ontology," or is what we can tangibly identify as real. It also is what we might call "continuous, even if that breaks down when a small enough of a unit is looked at. This appears to connect with the ρ as evaluating the probability for some outcome, which you state in your paper.

I rather suspect the answer to this question is beyond our grasp, at least at this time. The process by which certain quantum states are stable under decoherence or quantum noise, and thus constitute a classical world, is marginally understood. Further, this einselection model requires invoking a prior estimate on such stability, which makes the einselection somehow observer dependent. The role of consciousness is utterly beyond our scope. It might require that to understand this in completion requires we have an understanding of how the universe through IGUS (information gathering and using systems) within the universe are able to completely characterize the universe itself. So the universe as a quantum computer, if we are to use that idea here, in effect generates a Turing machine which is capable of executing everything, including how that universal Turning machine is classical. This seems mathematically impossible.

Cheers LC

I much enjoyed reading your essay as to find it to be both a clarification and continuation of J.S. Bell's central complaint regarding the confusion inflicted when 'words' find themselves into theory as to be taken to have meaning exceeding what is reasonable.

"The concepts 'system', ' apparatus ', 'environment', immediately imply an artificial division of the world, and an intention to neglect, or take only schematic account of, the interaction across the split. The notions of 'microscopic' and 'macroscopic' defy precise definition. So also do the notions of 'reversible' and 'irreversible'. Einstein said that it is theory which decides what is 'observable'. I think he was right - 'observation' is a complicated and theory-laden business. Then that notion should not appear in the formulation of fundamental theory. Information? Whose information? Information about what? "

-J.S. Bell, "Against 'Measurement' ", Physics World (August, 1990)

Dr. Barbour,

I have read a book of yours in the past about Dynamics and Newton's Laws of Motion and I liked it. However, I do not agree that you proved that things, not information, are primary.

When we observe things, it is not the things themselves we observe but the electromagnetic energy they emit. Therefore, physically, we cannot verify this realism and it remains in the realms of metaphysics.

I am confused how this essay is not rated higher than 7.3.

Perhaps because the author ignores that what he calls 'factual' information is actually 'algorithmic' information? that is information where individual meaning of a message can be somehow defined, in opposition to Shannon's information that is purely probabilistic and suffers of the caveats of probability when it is about single objects rather than distributions.

The author of the paper, who unfortunately seems to have no time to drop a line in this discussion section, overlooks (perhaps because he is not aware of) the current state of information theory.

Albert,

You seem to deny that it is "the things themselves we observe but [only] the electromagnetic energy they emit." Why is the 'electromagnetic energy they emit' to be granted reality?

By your remarks it would seem that absolutely nothing is 'provable', and everything is meta-physical. I don't disagree with that, but it not only applies to Dr Barbour, but to everyone here.

I found your remarks on Dean Rickle's thread much more cogent.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

"I am the recipient of two large FQXi research grants, the current one for ``The nature of time and the structure of space''. "

What does the author of "The End of Time" have to say about the nature of time? A specific question: Why is space real and time is not?

For this contest from Dr. Barbour I am reading about different definitions of information. I wonder though: Intelligence needs information in order to reveal itself, so, what is information from the point of view of intelligence? In other words: What is interpreted by experience before theory begins?

James

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your sensible elucidation of 'information'--much needed. I fully agree that information must reflect real structure, and that 'bit' is a concept derived from experience with real things, not the other way around.

You are quite right that "A dot on a screen is not the unadorned answer to a straight question." Your example of the information preserved in rocks, about their geological history, is very much to the point. It amazes me that some thinkers see information "encoded" everywhere, without asking, encoded by whom and for what purpose? Yet, as you note, "Wheeler is explicit: bits are detector-elicited answers to yes or no quantum binary choices." This forcing of answers from nature as a binary decision response seems to be the latest evolution of an idea expounded by Aristotle (and which, ironically, he feared could produce only "monsters of nature", not true descriptions). It then progressed as Bacon's procuring nature's secrets under "torture". What next, one wonders?

I believe there are cultural reasons for the current information craze. I explore some of these in my own submission ("topic/852"), which I invite you to read. I also suspect that interest in the utility of 'information' as an ontological basis for 'reality' probably stems in part from its promise as a common bridge between the categories of 'mind' and 'matter'. In that context, its adaptation into physics from cognitive psychology can be no better than the understanding of physicists of the mind-body problem.

Best wishes,

Dan Bruiger

Information certainly has to do with 'its' but not with 'bits'. Why not, because bits are truncated, frozen, pieces of code. While a code can be considered information, for the sake of argument, it is only an incomplete symbol used to represent information.

James

Dr. Barbour,

You are welcome to use whatever description your deem to be appropriate to describe the value of what I ask or what I say. Perhaps silly is the correct description; however, I request that you say that is so. Otherwise, I assume that my points are irrefutable.

James

Dear Julian,

Congratulation for your clear essay on a fundamental Skakespearian question: bit from it or it from bit, (to bit or not to bit). I totally agree with your conclusion than "The set of all onta is the ultimate Shannon source." and argue that the answer is "It from bit from thing".

I would like to reconcile your point of view with Wheeler's and his followers. You write "It is a mistake to believe that the digits 0 and 1, being abstract, represent the immaterial". The main point is there: what does sounds that a bit is immaterial ? Is it totally abstract and not made of any 'thing' where a thing is not necessarily made of matter; or is it just not made of matter.

An immaterial bit can be both, not made of matter for Wheeler and made of thing for you. Here is how:

For me a bit is a topological feature of a very fundamental structure, a trivalent network in graph theory, or a set of cardinal 3 subsets in set theory (both are equivalent); This feature may be that if the node is in a 3-loop it holds value 1 otherwise value 0.

With this definition, I agree with you, bit is made of thing, the thing being one or three nodes, or cardinal 3 subsets; but remains immaterial, not made of any matter, nor having coordinates in any space background; because matter only get sense at a larger scale (a supernode of 48 bits). So, "They do not exist in isolation. A bit is not a single-digit atom of reality as it from bit implies."

But they exists together in a simple network that is a proto-space, encoding space, bosons and fermions.

Time is another story. Configurations (spin networks) are linked by pachner moves, forming spin foam, with a causality but no need of absolute clock. So my conclusion is: "It from bit from thing"; This "thing" is well documented in my essay.

Best regards

Ray

Dear Julian,

Your essay is very interesting. However, I have a remark. You use the Shannon theory of information in your essay. The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem gives a result on the frequencies showing when it is possible to discretize a continuous signal without losing information. This result is often used in engineering. Considering the Planck time, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem implies that the frequency of a particle must be limited if we don't want to lose information. For instance, it implies that the energy of a photon must be limited.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

Dr. Barbour,

With all due respect for your qualifications: I think that your theoretical positions are near, actually beyond for me, to being unrealistic. Good luck to you in this contest and in the future.

James

Dear Julian

"The catch, all too often forgotten, is that an inertial frame of reference is needed to define the motion."

That sentence alone sums up the problem that remains central today. Do you think physics may recognise it one day?

Peter

Dear Julian

I have read your essay which is interesting. I am aware that information is important to convey or storage data among physical entities, but, it seems to me that it is not a fundamental concept for physics. I believe that more fundamental concepts like space, time, matter, force, etc. should be properly addressed first. In this sense my essay is aim at giving ontological arguments of space and time. These can serve to build stronger basis for a new edifice of physics. Perhaps, you may be interested in seeing my work. Amazingly Helmut Hansen treat the same topic as you do. You should read his too.

Kind Regards

Israel

If Holographic Universe exist, then the time really an illusion.

Julian would be right.

Hello, Mr. Barbour:

I still have your winning essay on the nature of time. It's like a fractal to me, I find new structure upon re-reading. new insight and ways of thinking. Anyway, your's and Mr. Rickles and several of the top essays in the contest are what inspired me to join this third one and give it a try.

Mine was one of thelast entries as I frantically proof-read, re-read, and gathered the gumption to actually enter. Then I noticed your entry a couple days before with dread. It's one thing to enjoy you essay as a non-competitor, etc....

Anyway please check out my essay, "A Method to Measure Consciousness, and Demonstrations of Worldy Multiplicity" when you can, and comment if you can. There is no reason here to try to bolster you ego, so I'll just be honest: if you read and/or comment on my own essay, that to me would be a sucess no matter the outcome of this contest. (and encourage me to continue my mid-life foray into natural philophy proper)

Anyway, I'll be back with my comments. But I wanted to past a reply just submitted on another author's thread, as it is germaine to all of the essays, it seems (post follows):

Importantly, though, it would seem there is an over-arching theme (framework) emerging from these essays (among others). That is a debate about hidden dimensions and/or hidden internal structure in the subatomic particles.

The LHC website has a surprising result that is so far unexplained: when protons collide with enough or more force to produce more than 122 particle products or so, the excess partiles travel off in the same direction! Clearly, either a heretofore unknown internal structure is being revealed, and/or those particles are expeiriencing the same force (or the same resultant forces).

FRom your thread, you have touched upon this in your essay, with the help of other's results. In my own essay is an explanation for this. I plan on continuing to develop the implications of my essay whatever the results of this competition, due to the excitement and critical thinking that I've been forced to hone therein. There is another exciting result from my essay, I am learning.

Another article in last months scientific american; where a theoretical physicist bemoans the fact that as a group they are having great trouble picturing what is going on with their various models of reality, due to the great complexity of the equations. Again, the path is laid out in my essay, and the clarification of modern theoretical concepts can be explained " in language a patient bartender can understand".

This is simple, and I can contribute to the advancement of our understanding if given the opportunity.

Pleasure,

TommyG.

Dear Dr Barbour and all you folks,

I just read Paul N Butler's essay at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/849. This may be good reading for you, too.

Rafael

Absolutely castel. good essay so far. it is fantastic actually. up to page six...

Nevertheless before continuing with the essay, I must ask no-one in particular: isn't ad hoc introducing a new dimension just adding a degree of freedome? So really you could prove anything with that device. However, to in addition add on a second assumption (degree of freedom) doubly a device to explain a theory? To whit, that the new dimensions are so small as to be not observed just a facile attempt to further remove the consequences of a possible false proposition from its conclusions?

{This is so fun.}

Then again, the LHC experiment recently confirmed for quark-gluon plasmas that the assumption of perfect fluids in theoretical models is correct! Just like the thing you describe, with the "wind" analogy,, mr. jurgenson. Fascinating. In the Mr. Spock sense; not the objective one.

I will continue that essay, and comment tomorrow in this, this thread very few (if any) will actually ever see, much less read lol.

TO BE IMMEDIATELY TRUNCATED