Dear Sir,
Congratulations for your excellent analysis of information theory in relation to describing reality. We will like to further add something to your analysis.
You quote the views of two scientists that information is "physical" and "real" and "occupies the ontological basement". Both argue that information is more basic than quantum fields or energy. They conclude, information, and with it reality, is digital and rests ultimately on the answers to yes/no questions. They claim continuity is an illusion. Differentiating between three types of information, you conclude that: "ontological primacy should not be given to information but to 'things', as has always been the standpoint of realists."
Information is nothing but results of measurement, which is comparison between similars. Without the "things", there can be no measurement. Hence you are right. But then without the perception (information) about "things", they are meaningless, because reality must be perceived as such and the validity of a physical theory is judged by its correspondence to reality. To this extent, the other view cannot be ignored fully. Hence the truth lies in an all embracing theory.
The same applies to your interpretation of "bits" and "its". If we look at the mechanism of perception, we find that each of our sense organs perceive different kind of impulses based on the nature of fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by comparing the electromagnetic field set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. Thus, we cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is a macro characteristic of the weak nuclear interaction. Nose perceives when the finer parts of an object is brought in close contact with the nose to interact with the small buds, which is a macro characteristic of the strong nuclear interaction. Skin perceives when there is motion that is a macro characteristic of the gravitational interaction. By themselves the perception has no meaning. They become "information" and acquire meaning only when they are amalgamated in our memory: for example the statement, "the apple that I saw is sweet to taste, smooth to touch and gives a fragrant smell." Here the individual perceptions are 'bits' and the totality is 'its'. Thus, 'It' is the totality of 'bits'. You also admit it when you say: "The way that they are knit together, as in the taste, shape and color of an apple, defines the structure of the thing." We will discuss Wheeler's views separately.
You say: "The definition of a thing then amounts to a description of the universe from a particular point of view." This is both right and wrong. From the point of view of individual perception, it is right. From the point of view of imperfect (mechanically defective) perception, it is also right. But from the point of view of 'universal perfect perception', it is not correct. By 'universal perfect perception', we mean the result of valid measurement that remains invariant under similar conditions irrespective of statistical data, i.e., the number of times the measurement is conducted.
You have correctly pointed out that: "A symbol can stand for anything, but it must stand for something." This is because number is a perceived property of substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no others characteristics of an object with a similar perception, it is one. If there is a sequence of perception of similars, each of them is given a name, which is called the number sequence. Infinity is like one: without a similar. But whereas in the case of one the dimensions are fully perceived, in the case of infinity the dimensions can not be fully perceived. It is different from a very big number. Zero signifies the absence of something at here-now which was perceived earlier. Negative numbers are related to 'ownership' of the object - it shows the relationship of the object with someone. Mathematics is all about accumulation and reduction of numbers. Linear accumulation is addition and subtraction. Non-linear accumulation is multiplication and division. Complex numbers are 'unphysical' - hence they could not be used in programming. Thus, they could not be used for perception. Since numbers are associated with objects, they are not abstract entities, but "must stand for something."
Your statement that "assuming the existence of things that we cannot see to explain things that we can is a good strategy," is self contradictory. If you "cannot see" something, how can you "assume" it? The content of all assumptions is the form: "this (something) can be like that (your description)." Here you can describe "that" only if you have perceived it earlier. Your perception might relate to different segments and your final description may relate to the assembly of such individual segments. If the assembly of such individual segments is permissible depending upon the fundamental laws of Nature, then your assumption will be proved correct. Otherwise it will be wrong. For example, Helium atom contains equal numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons. But as we higher in order, this relationship becomes unstable because of the fundamental laws of Nature. If you assume such a law based on your perception of helium, it will be wrong. As we have repeatedly described, the atoms can be stable only when they are slightly negatively charged which makes the force directed towards the nucleus dominate the opposite force, but is not apparent from outside. Hence we do not experience it. We have theoretically derived the value of the electric charge of protons, neutrons and electrons as +10/11, -1/11 and -1. The negative sign indicates that the net force is directed towards the nucleus.
In your example of Kepler, the three dimensions were already perceived. What he found out did not appear to violate the fundamental law because a circle with a moving center appears as an ellipse. Though contrary to Kepler's description, the planets orbit around the Sun in circles, because the Sun is moving, the orbits look elliptical, though in reality the ellipse never closes on itself. If we chart the planetary movements against the back drop of stars and galaxies, it will be evident.
Shannon's views are nothing but the mechanism of perception of numbers described above and their conformity to the fundamental laws of Nature. Since the higher or lower numbers are perceived in a sequence of one at a time, it can be accumulated or reduced by one at each step making it equivalent to binary numbers. The Morse code is based on the principle of conformity to the certain laws. The rest of Shannon's views are based on the detailed working out of the above principle. You also admit this when you say: "the probabilities on which Shannon based his theory (and are relevant for this essay) were all based on objective counting of relative frequencies of definite outcomes." The rest are only details that conforms this concept. It only it only lays down rules for 'bits' to conform to 'its'. This is the "grammar or programming" of language. The qubits are only a part of this description. You also admit that they can be realized in many different ways that "require great experimental sophistication and rely on the low entropy of the universe"
Your description of "factual information" is nothing but 'bits' that is tested for the conformation of its harmony with 'its', so that it follows some prescribed pattern. You also admit it when you say: "If we receive a picture, we normally understand by information the distribution of colors and shapes we see when looking at it." The "distribution of colors and shapes" are based on earlier perception. This is like "dictionary or compilation of data base" of language.
The configuration that "carries intrinsic semantic information in the sense that different intelligent beings can in principle deduce the law or process that explains the observed structure" means "popular usage or special exclusive programs that may or may not follow general logic" - i.e., it may or may not be in conformity with the general principles. For example, "Wallis and Darwin's law" is still a postulate and has not been proved. They derived the information based on some observation of the same evidence in fossils and living animals that many others had seen. Their views are widely accepted though it is not scientific. Evolution is related to mobility while natural selection is related to survival. Mobility is carried out through external projections of support (feet?). Thus, the virus and the bacteria with their innumerable "feet" were the first to evolve. They were followed by worms of reducing numbers of "feet". Finally the animals with four "feet" were evolved before humans with two "feet" evolved. In this sequence monkeys evolved before the humans, because though they are basically four legged animals, they can walk short distances with two legs. This does not men that monkeys are forefathers of human beings. Among the other animals, those born out of eggs are deficient in one sensory organ. Other four legged animals have all the sense organs, but while some are more developed, others are less developed. Only in the case of humans, these are balanced. Human beings are the only living beings that can unite and copulate facing each other in their normal position.
Your classification of information is incomplete. There are two more types of information. During programming, the computer is also programmed to use the same logic in all "similar cases". While in the case of "factual information" or "compilation of data base" of language the program searches for the compatibility of the next character to proceed further, in the case of "similar cases" the program searches for the sub-group as a whole and reacts to the sub-group to proceed further.
The last category belongs to some "axiomatic postulates that are accepted as evidently proven". This is essential for the programming to begin with. For example, unless we accept the numbers and the binary system as self-evident truths, we cannot start writing a program. Of these, the third; the principle to deduce "the law or process that explains the observed structure" that is "popular usage or special exclusive programs that may or may not follow general logic" is the most important because it follows a law of its own.
It is true that "information theory can in no way change what has always been the starting point of science: that structured things exist, in the first place in our mind and, as a reasonable conjecture given the remarkable correlations in our mental experiences, in an external world" and "the proper task of ontology is to establish the structure of things."
Your views on "Wheeler's Aharonov-Bohm experiment" are fairly accurate. We will like to add the following. While conducting experiments, most people exclude the properties of the measuring instrument that affect the outcome. Electron beams are associated with heat that flows towards positively charged particles (closing in). Magnetic flux is associated with closing on itself fields that are not "hot". This property of "closing in" is common to both. Hence they co-exist (In our second comment under the Essay of Mr. Ian Durham we have given a different interpretation to charge interactions that is different from Coulomb's law. We have explained spin differently under the Essay of Mr. Gene T. Yerger).
Since the electric fields and magnetic fields move at right angles to each other and to the direction of motion, it is obvious that when a magnetic flux is present in the coil, the electron beam would be deflected. The degree of deflection also follows a predictable pattern (not uncertain pattern) depending upon the strength of the magnetic field in the coil. The detector-elicited information is only the result of measurement that shows the strength of the existing magnetic field in the coil. It is not correct to claims that it "derives its very existence entirely from discrete detector-elicited and information-theoretic answers to yes or no quantum binary choices: bits". But the existing magnetic flux (it) in the coil is a part of the total magnetic field (bits).
While explaining the implications of acceleration much beyond the general impression in one of the threads under the Essay of Mr. Biermans, we had discussed about Newton's laws of inertia to show that there is nothing called inertia of rest and there is something called Inertia of Restoration, which is known as elasticity. We generally agree with description that the Universe is "a set of possible configurations that nature has selected" except that in our model we describe the complete theory that describes how the Universe evolved from singularity, how the forces evolved, how time and space evolved and how the structure formation evolved. We will discuss it separately. We will also show that the same laws govern both micro and the macro worlds. The quantum world is not fuzzy as it is made out to be. We have discussed entanglement, double slit experiment and decoherence under various Essays. We have defined space, time, infinity, and reality, etc., precisely in our Essay. You may refer to those.
Regards,
basudeba