Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 10/31/13 at 22:43pm UTC, wrote Dear all, Thank you so much for your effort and evaluation. I am very...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 19:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Yutaka, Very interesting essay. I liked your discussion of "physics...

James Putnam: on 8/6/13 at 18:47pm UTC, wrote Dr. Shikano, Quoting from the text: "The famous parallel between...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/5/13 at 23:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Yutaka, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Antony Ryan: on 8/5/13 at 21:20pm UTC, wrote Hi Yutaka, Thanks for the comment over on my page, glad to see you moving...

Antony Ryan: on 8/4/13 at 21:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Yukata, Indeed. My essay is Quantum Gravity, where the large scale...

Yutaka Shikano: on 8/4/13 at 18:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thank you so much for your interesting points. As far as I...

Yutaka Shikano: on 8/4/13 at 18:30pm UTC, wrote Hi Olaf, Thank you so much for your interests. Operational thinking is...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: These from Bits by Yutaka Shikano [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Yutaka Shikano wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 17:30 GMT
Essay Abstract

Is it possible to understand any physical properties once its Hamiltonian or its Lagrangian is known? This understanding process seems not to be useless to find unknown physical phenomena. Therefore, the operational approach is very powerful to overcome this conflict. We tried to reformulate some physical theories from an operational viewpoint following in Brillouin's footsteps,. However, as information theory is not currently applicable to situations where there are only a small number of samples, we could only consider macroscopic physical theories: equilibrium thermodynamics and equilibrium statistical mechanics. The optimal information-theoretical process corresponds to the equilibrium macroscopic system, and its essence is a sufficiently large number of samples.

Author Bio

Yutaka Shikano is the research associate professor at Institute for Molecular Science, and visiting assistant Professor at Chapman University. He got the Ph. D from Tokyo Institute of Technology in 2011. He worked in Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the visiting student and the JSPS postdoctoral fellow at Tokyo Institute of Technology. His current research interest is quantum foundations, dynamical systems, and photo physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Member Matthew Saul Leifer wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 16:40 GMT
Hi,

I very much enjoyed reading your essay. You argued that one needs an ensemble to apply information theory so there is no hope of applying it to a single Newtonian particle for example. I was wondering whether this is contingent on the interpretation of probability. If we adopt an interpretation of probability that admits single-case probabilities, such as the Bayesian approach or single-case objective chances, then can we hope for information theoretic derivations of other physical theories, particularly in the case of quantum theory?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 10:28 GMT
Hi Matt,

Thank you so much for your interesting point. I would like to focus on the case of quantum theory. As you pointed out, we can consider the single-case probability. On applying the single-case probability to the single event in quantum mechanics, I think that we need the same (i.i.d.) samples to verify this probability. The statement of i.i.d. samples implies the rule of probability theory. This seems to be logical mistake. Also, I think that the fact that the operational derivation of physical systems depends on the interpretation of probability seems to be strange.

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 00:16 GMT
Dear Yutaka,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. I hope you will agree that one can not produce material just by thinking. . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 10:36 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara,

> I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

I think that your attitude on science should be changed. Our scientific activities are based on the observation of the Nature. Especially, the fundamental theories on cosmology are based on this attitude. This is not magic but is just the fact on the Nature. Even if your community wants magic, I think that almost all scientists recognize that such activities are not in science. I hope that my personal opinion share our community.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 04:49 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 21:57 GMT
Dear Yutaka

A very thorough analysis, will be better if you come up with more specific comments in the conclusion: How we must expand of "information theory to small-number samples or non-typical sequences" ?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 10:40 GMT
Hi Honang Cao,

> How we must expand of "information theory to small-number samples or non-typical sequences" ?

Sorry. At least for me, I have no obvious answer. This problem is related to foundations of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Especially, the nano-meter-size physical systems can be applied to thermodynamics in the context of optomechanics. However, its boundary seems to remain mystery.

Bookmark and Share



Author Yutaka Shikano wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 10:30 GMT
Hi communities,

Thank you so much for reading my paper on "These from Bits". I found the serious typo as follows.

Typo:

The last 7 line in Section 1: Rolf William Landauer’sfamous quote: -> John Archibald Wheeler’sfamous quote:

Sorry for inconvenience.

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:50 GMT
Yutaka,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
Hi Jim,

Thanks a lot for your glance to my essay. I understand your situation to read many essays. When you have a time, please read it.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT
Dear Yutaka,

Based on the premise by which you are looking at the problem, I will judge your essay highly. I presume your assertions are based on a 'composite' or 'statistical' viewpoint. Your view I suspect also assumes a continuous, infinitely divisible reality.

However, you rightly acknowledge the need to go beyond this to a more fundamental "small-number" samples, IF and that is a big IF, we want to revive the original 'it from bit'. I agree entirely.

Indeed I advocate going beyond "small-number" to the ultimately discrete, non-composite sample, i.e. "each sample member".

You are more knowledgeable in these matters than I am, so I invite you to take a look at a possible scenario where the information-theoretical concept can be applied to a single event. Then you judge for yourself, if 'it' can be derived from 'bit on this "operational way of thinking".

All the best in the competition.

Best regards,

Akinbo

I always like to take advantage of exchanges with professional physicists to clarify a few things. Pardon my indulgence. 1) What do you think of this Planck length as a professional physicist? Is it physically significant? 2) Would you consider existence/non-existence a binary choice, i.e. an It that can appear and disappear?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Thank you so much for your consideration on my essay. Before trying to solve the problem, we have to carefully judge the "big problem". The message of my essay is my consideration process on this. If you agree with this, I am so happy.

Also, I replied to your questions:

1) What do you think of this Planck length as a professional physicist? Is it physically significant?

2) Would you consider existence/non-existence a binary choice, i.e. an It that can appear and disappear?

The above two questions from you seems to be based on the binary choice to be applied to physical theories. On the Planck length, we conventionally think about the physical scale of quantum mechanics even in relativistic theory of gravity. We want to know whether this boundary is rigid or not. The boundary between existence and non-existence is also the same. Recent development on theoretical consideration to be seen in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2945 , this boundary seems to not be rigid. However, nobody experimentally demonstrate this boundary as far as I know.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 18:27 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 14:19 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you so much for reading my essay. I have never thought your mentioned points. As my personal project, I will try to construct theory of information with small number of samples. If you or your colleagues are interested in this, please let me know or contact yshikano_at_ims.ac.jp

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 09:29 GMT
Yutaka,

Excellent. Much needed. Thank you, and do please stay in touch on it.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 14:52 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you so much for your download. Please enjoy reading my essay. As mentioned in my post at your essay, I really enjoyed reading your essay.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 14:53 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Joe,

Thank you so much for reading my essay. I think that the stand point is completely different from you. I would like not to say something in the Universe. My essay focuses on the operational viewpoint of the abstract physical theories such as Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics. Therefore, from my essay and such viewpoints, I cannot say the realistic natural phenomena.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 03:24 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:39 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you so much for reading my essay. I am very happy to your comments.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:33 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:43 GMT
Dear Michel,

Thank you so much for reading my essay. I did not want to criticize successful development from the seminar concept of the Landauer principle. These developments are very useful to deeply understand the topics. In my essay, I would like focus on the operational viewpoint. From that viewpoint, I would like to claim what the small number of information is or can be characterized.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 12:36 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 07:13 GMT
Dear Michel,

Thank you so much for your understanding. Since I always discuss several physics with Izumi Ojima, I know and have already red your pointed-out paper. Thank you so much for it.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 07:19 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you so much for your comment.

> I question whether "These from Bits" has the same meaning, however, as Wheeler's (Landauer's?) saying.

Yes. The same concept is the Wheeler one. However, I pointed out that the conventional amount of information cannot be used in physics contexts.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 22:38 GMT
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”.

...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:22 GMT
Dear Héctor,

Thank you so much for your comment. I think that this is not too much mathematical concepts in my essay. Anyways, I am interested in your essay too. See you on your threads.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 10:30 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Dear Antony,

Thank you so much for your points. However, this problem is in classical physics. Of course, this is in quantum mechanics. While your comments slightly help my thoughts, this is not direct answer.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 21:59 GMT
Dear Yukata,

Indeed. My essay is Quantum Gravity, where the large scale Universe meets the infinitesimally small. I hope my high rating helped your ranking!

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Olaf Dreyer wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 18:07 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:30 GMT
Hi Olaf,

Thank you so much for your interests. Operational thinking is the step-by-step understanding or event sequence. Originally, information theory tries to construct this thinking process quantitatively. Therefore, my quote is summarized. Does my answer satisfy your criticisms?

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 18:49 GMT
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”.

...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 20:04 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 12:00 GMT
Dear Yutaka,

Excellent essay and a good strategy to "seize" (understand) the nature of the information and its "place" physical picture of the world. You need to be much higher total rating.

I fully agree with your search strategy: «As my personal project, I will try to construct theory of information with small number of samples.» Totally agree with you that «the operational viewpoint» well as the "ontological" leads to "grasp" of nature information. In this regard, only one question.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.
htm

In the russian version of the paper that thought shorter: "the truth should be drawn and presented to" an unlimited number »of viewers".

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Please read my essay with "the ontological viewpoint»."

Best regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Yutaka Shikano replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:44 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thank you so much for your interesting points. As far as I understand, Alexander Zenkin pointed out the different way to construct the meta-theory. Surely, such problems should be considered. However, my pointed-out problem is different. While the single event cannot construct the theory, we can tell something. For examples, the single-particle trajectory can be predicted by solving the Hamiltonia w/ the initial condition. Therefore, while I agree with Alexander Zenkin consideration, this essay is not related too much.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share



Author Yutaka Shikano wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear all,

Thank you so much for your reading and scoring. I will reply my threads tomorrow. Sorry for inconvenience.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
Hi Yutaka,

Thanks for the comment over on my page, glad to see you moving up the rankings, I'm glad my score helped. I'm going the other way.

Oh well.

All the best,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:04 GMT
Dear Yutaka,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:47 GMT
Dr. Shikano,

Quoting from the text:

"The famous parallel between thermodynamics and information theory is the para- dox of Maxwell’s demon [4], explained as follows. Consider a molecular gas inside a box. The box contains a partition that divides it into two regions, and the partition has a window that can be either open or shut. The demon operates this window. When the demon sees molecules moving at higher speeds, he guides them to the left side of the box via the window. Similarly, the demon guides molecules moving at lower speeds to the right side of the box. The demon repeats this process repeatedly. Eventually, the tempera- ture in the left of the box increases, and vice versa. This seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics, and was taken as the paradoxical issue."

The definitions of thermodynamic properties are precise and ideal. Clausius' definition of thermodynamic entropy is precise and ideal. The ideal for temperature is that there are no faster molecules. The ideal for thermodynamic properties in general is that large numbers of molecules are involved. It seems to me that Maxwell violated the second law causing his demon to follow suit.

I have rated your essay just now. Your forthright opinion is invited. Thank you.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:58 GMT
Dear Yutaka,

Very interesting essay. I liked your discussion of "physics imperialism" vs the operational approach, and the relation with the "it" and "bit" question. And the provisional conclusion "these from bits", and the need to extend information theory to small-number samples of non-typical sequences. Good luck!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 22:43 GMT
Dear all,

Thank you so much for your effort and evaluation. I am very happy to receive the fourth prize of this essay contest. I found the typos on my original essay. The modified essay is attached.

--- The list of change ----

The last 7 line in Section 1: Rolf William Landauer'sfamous quote: -> John Archibald Wheeler's famous quote:

The last 7 line in Section 4: Landauer's famous slogan ... -> Wheeler's famous slogan ...

Reference 9 information is updated.

----------------------------

Best wishes,

Yutaka

attachments: fqxi4.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.