Dear Julian,

I think you have done a magnificent job in the essay. It is such an eloquent stand for realism.I was not just interested but thoroughly enjoyed your presentation. You speak with authority and clarity and such good sense. I do so agree that realism is necessary because otherwise we are left with just the abstraction that can neither nourish nor sustain us.

The question...

view entire post

Dear Julian,

I think you have done a magnificent job in the essay. It is such an eloquent stand for realism.I was not just interested but thoroughly enjoyed your presentation. You speak with authority and clarity and such good sense. I do so agree that realism is necessary because otherwise we are left with just the abstraction that can neither nourish nor sustain us.

The question of what is meant by information and consideration of its position in the hierarchy of reality is foundational. I have avoided using the term information because I am aware that there is debate surrounding it and its correct meaning.Your essay is a useful clarification.

I liked your mentioning of timeless configuration.I am convinced that it is the change of those configurations that generates the sequence earlier to later from which we get the passage of time. So time emerges from an entirely spatial phenomenon. But you express it so so well.The experience of time in my opinion is a little different due to the temporal distortion incorporated due to signal transmission and processing delay. Creating another level of reality that is the experienced and observed space-time.

I think you were brave to bring the subject of consciousness into your discussion. It is a bridge between physics and biology and psychology that is not yet firmly constructed and those that dare to cross need to be very cautious.I am not convinced that all information exists in external reality and is merely transmitted to the consciousness.That seems a physicists viewpoint that regards the organism merely as a passive receiver of information rather than co-creator.

Some information is internally generated. The apple in external reality is not red. Nor does it have a particular hue or shade. That is determined by the processing of combinations of pre amalgamated received information, not faithful digital conversion of individual it to bit. Other factors come into play such as the hues of other neighbouring objects in the environment. Their arrangement the gives areas of shadow and full light. There is interplay between information channeled through the brighness channel and those from the colour channels, that have amalgamated the colour balance information from different cone cells.

There is a great amount of literature about the visual process which has a bearing on this matter.From the interception of photons by the retina all the way up to the processing in the visual cortex.Selecting one such paper at random "Combination of subcortical color channels in human visual cortex". Erin Goddard, Damien J. Mannion,,J. Scott McDonald,,Samuel G. Solomon, Colin W. G. Clifford, 2010 Journal of vision.

So the organism fabricates the experienced reality as the mathematician fabricates the mathematical model and neither are the external reality itself. They are both in their own way mere insubstantial representations of reality, that mimic imperfectly the external ontological reality.

I suspect that as a previous winner of an FQXi prize your essay will get many interested readers. Congratulations, I think you will do well.

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

The essay is beautiful and I agree with the conclusion "Bit from It", in a way I will try to make clear. But I disagree with the way the conclusion was reached - it seems to me that the central part of Wheeler's 'ontology' "It from Bit" was overlooked, and this makes it look naive, while it is in fact very profound.

In a classical world, Wheeler's "It from Bit" would be obviously silly....

view entire post

The essay is beautiful and I agree with the conclusion "Bit from It", in a way I will try to make clear. But I disagree with the way the conclusion was reached - it seems to me that the central part of Wheeler's 'ontology' "It from Bit" was overlooked, and this makes it look naive, while it is in fact very profound.

In a classical world, Wheeler's "It from Bit" would be obviously silly. When we measure something, we can write down the outcome as a string of digits, and by collecting all these digits we can determine the state. In such a world, "bit" would indeed originate from "it".

But Wheeler is discussing the quantum world. And for Wheeler, the quantum world is not just "classical world" plus "probability". Julian Barbour said: "Crucially, even if individual quantum outcomes are unpredictable, the probabilities for them are beautifully determined by a theory based on 'its'", but this is not the whole story. If this would be all, then he would indeed be right to say "I see nothing in Wheeler's arguments to suggest that we should reverse the mode of explanation that has so far served science so well". Julian Barbour tries to understand how Wheeler could do so trivial mistakes: "Wheeler's thesis mistakes abstraction for reality", and "A 'bit' has no meaning except in the context of the universe". Yet, there is no such a gross mistake.

Wheeler's "It from Bit" can be understood in the context of the "delayed choice experiment". He realizes that it is not enough to specify the outcome, but also what we measure - for example "which way" or "both ways" in the Mach-Zehnder experiment. But he realizes that our choice of what to measure determines how the state was (yes, in the past). This is the key problem of quantum mechanics, and this is the fundamental obstacle of all realistic interpretations of quantum mechanics: we choose "now" what to measure, and our present choice dictates how the state was, long time before we made our choice. We can think that there is an ontology behind the outcomes of our measurements, as in the classical world. But the "delayed choice experiment" shows that the "elements of reality" depend of the future choice of our measurements. And the outcomes depend of these choices too. So, it is in fact "the choice of what to measure" (Hermitian operator) plus "the outcome" (eigenvalue) that forms the "Bit" from Wheeler's "It from Bit". And the "It" is in fact the eigenstate corresponding to the obtained eigenvalue, given that the observable was that particular Hermitian operator. Wheeler was not that naive to think that eigenvalues determine eigenstates by themselves, without considering the Hermitian operator, so he accounted well for the prescription "A 'bit' has no meaning except in the context of the universe".

The central point of Wheeler's "It from Bit" is that the reality of today depends on the choices we make tomorrow, when we decide what to observe, and of the outcomes of the observations. He compares this with the game of 20 questions, when we try to guess a word by asking 20 yes/no questions, under the prescription that the choice of the word is not done at the beginning. The person who "knows" the word changes it by wish, so long as it remains consistent with the answer she already gave to our question. Wheeler wants to emphasize by this the similarity with the quantum state we try to determine, but which depends on what we choose to observe. This is why he was led to the idea that the state of the universe (it) results from the observations (bit).

I give more credit than Julian Barbour to the "It from Bit" philosophy - I view it as a way to present a central problem of quantum mechanics. I think, nevertheless, that it is exaggerated to conclude from this, as many do, that the world is digital. It may be or it may be not, but we should not force the conclusion. After all, the "It from Bit" philosophy is intended to clarify some points of a theory based on continuum - Quantum Mechanics.

My viewpoint on "It from Bit" is that we should regard the outcomes of measurements as "delayed initial conditions" for the Schrödinger's equation. I presented my view in this article and this video. A solution of a partial differential equation like Schrödinger's is determined by a set of initial conditions. Classically, the initial conditions can be determined from future observations. In Quantum Mechanics, the future observations determine the state in the two meanings of the word "determine": passive - "find out what it is" (by the selection of an eigenvalue of the observable), and active - "choose what it is" (by the choice of that observable). Another central problem is that two consecutive observations of the same quantum system are incompatible, if the observables do not commute. That is, they impose incompatible initial conditions to the wavefunction. But, the second measurement is not, in fact, a measurement of the same system. The system interacted with the first measurement device, and this measurement device has many degrees of freedom which are not determined yet. So, the second observation measures in fact the composed system - the observed system plus the apparatuses used for the previous observations, and all the past interactions of the observed system. This may offer enough degrees of freedom to maintain the unitary evolution and to avoid a discontinuous collapse of the wavefunction.

My interpretation comes with a realistic wavefunction, which is not yet determined among the possible wavefunctions, but whose "delayed initial conditions" are determined by all future and past observations. I think that we cannot avoid the idea of "delayed initial conditions", no matter what "It" we choose to consider as the underlying ontology.

My view is therefore that "It from Bit" and "Bit from It" are reciprocal: a set of possible "It"s (solutions to the Schrödinger's equation), a set of possible "Bit"s (observations, delayed initial conditions) and the Universe is a pair (It, Bit), so that the "It" and the "Bit"s are compatible.

Cristi Stoica

view post as summary

Dr Barbour,

You say: "What we observe and interpret as the outcome of an individual quantum event does not reside in space and time; it is embedded in a configuration."

If the configuration is in space and time and the 'outcome' is embedded in a configuration, then the 'outcome' should at least be in time if not in space.

The 'outcome' of an 'event' is 'embedded' in a...

view entire post

Dr Barbour,

You say: "What we observe and interpret as the outcome of an individual quantum event does not reside in space and time; it is embedded in a configuration."

If the configuration is in space and time and the 'outcome' is embedded in a configuration, then the 'outcome' should at least be in time if not in space.

The 'outcome' of an 'event' is 'embedded' in a 'configuration'. I supposed this simply means that "the abstract information is embedded in the corporeal formation". Is it?

You said nothing that clearly names and describes the fundamental component of the 'event' or 'configuration'. What is the fundamental component of the 'event' or 'particle' or 'configuration'? If for instance there is the quantum event or the quantum particle or the field configuration, then what is its fundamental component? Or if 'components', then what components? What is being vented, particulated or configured? And what components belong to the 'it' and what components belong to the 'bit'?

-

Regarding the "it from bit" or "bit from it", I think it has always been and ever will be that we have "it and bit" in unison and thus neither one derived from the other!

From my point of view, we have the kinematic configurations (the phenomena) - from the kinematic voids to the kinematic black holes and all the kinematic things in-between (e.g., the quantum particles, the familiar life-forms, etc.). The noumena are 'embedded' in all these phenomena -- all the realized events of the past as resolved in the present and all the possibilities of events of the yet to be resolved future.

In every kinematic configuration is the input-process-output (IPO) capability of intelligence or consciousness; and there are all degrees of intelligence or consciousness according to the IPO capabilities of the kinematic configurations.

The noumena and the phenomena are always realized in unison - concurrently. The current noumenal 'mental' state is always realized in unison or concurrent with the phenomenal 'brain' state.

I think phenomenal events generate phenomenal events; and the noumenals simply occur along with the phenomenals -- the bits along with the it, information along with the formation.

The mental conception of an idea may occur before the 'object' idea's incorporation; the conception precedes the incorporation, which suggests "it from bit" -- essentially the "thing in itself" before the "thing".

But, evidently, the current noumenal conception of the 'object' idea is that which is in the current phenomenal state of the brain -- the current incorporation of the current mental conception but not the remembered or predicted 'object' idea's incorporation itself. There is thus the "thing in itself" (the information) and the "thing" (the formation) in unison.

Therefore, it may be the "it and bit" -- and not the "it from bit" nor the "bit from it"!

Rafael

view post as summary

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...

view entire post

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

view post as summary