I don't think that Bell's inequality shows indeterminacy, m3aning randomness, or chance. It does show entanglement. There are quantum that are reversible (some are macroscopic). In most measurements there is quantum decoherence, which breaks up entanglement, and has been compared to thermodynamic dissipation. In my review of Time's Arrow's Today: Recent Physical and Philosophical Work on the Direction of Time, edited by Steven F. Savitt, Cambridge University Press, 1995. I wrote:
"The chapters by physicists James Leggett and Phil Stamp deal with the distinction between quantum decoherence and dissipation. Although it has been widely remarked that quantum mechanics is formally reversible, many have thought that the "collapse of the wave packet" implies that measurement imposes a direction on time. Leggett and Stamp thoroughly refute this position by distinguishing between decoherence and the usual statistical mechanical dissipation. Although they are not essential to the basic argument, "macroscopic" quantum systems demonstrate that decoherence is reversible. The so-called collapse of the wave packet introduces nothing new to the problem of the direction of time." John Collier Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier > -----Original Message----- > From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal > Sent: Tuesday, 15 November 2016 5:21 PM > To: FIS Webinar <Fis@listas.unizar.es> > Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime? > > > On 13 Nov 2016, at 10:48, Andrei Khrennikov wrote: > > > Dear all, > > I make the last remark about "physical information". The main problem > > of quantum physics is to justify so called IRREDUCIBLE QUANTUM > > RANDOMNESS (IQR). It was invented by von Neumann. Quantum > randomness, > > in contrast to classical, cannot be reduced to variations in an > > ensemble. One single electron is irreducibly random. > > > > The operational Copenhagen interpretation cannot "explain" the origin > > of IQR, since it does not even try to explain anything, "Shut up and > > calculate!" (R. Feynman to his students). Nevertheless, many top > > experts in QM want some kind of "explanation". The informational > > approach to QM is one of such attempts. Roughly speaking, one tries to > > get IQR from fundamental notion of "physical information" as the > > basic blocks of Nature. > > > > This is very important activity, since nowadays IQR has huge > > technological value, the quantum random generators are justified > > through IQR. And this is billion Euro project. > > > > Finally, to check experimentally the presence of IQR, we have to > > appeal to violation of Bell's inequality. And here (!!!) to proceed > > we have to accept the existence of FREE WILL. Thus finally the > > cognitive elements appears, but in very surprisingly setting.... > > > Bell's inequality shows only indeterminacy and non-locality in the Mono- > world QM theory. I have shown that local and deterministic Mechanism > (simple Descartes Mechanist hypothesis in cognitive science) implies the > *appearance* of non-locality and indeterminacy, and this before I knew > anything about QM. QM without collapse (non-copenhague > theory) confirms Descartes' Mechanism (in cognitive science, not in physics). > The indeterminacy and non-locality are an appearance emerging from our > abstraction with respect to the many computations, which can be proved to > exist from the universally accepted assumption of elementary arithmetic. > > You are logically valid in QM + the assumption of a unique reality, which > needs the assumption that brain are not Turing emulable. But that seems to > me quite speculative and almost like an ad hoc assumption to avoid the > computationalist solution of the mind-body problem. Better to continue the > testing and abandon Mechanism only when we find good evidences against > it, I think. > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > Yours, andrei > > > > Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of Applied Mathematics, Int. Center Math > > Modeling: Physics, Engineering, Economics, and Cognitive Sc. > > Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden > > My RECENT BOOKS: > > http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p1036 > > http://www.springer.com/in/book/9789401798181 > > http://www.panstanford.com/books/9789814411738.html > > http://www.cambridge.org/cr/academic/subjects/physics/econophysics- > and > > -financial-physics/quantum-social-science > > http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642051005 > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of John Collier > > [colli...@ukzn.ac.za ] > > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:19 PM > > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; 'Alex Hankey'; 'FIS Webinar' > > Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime? > > > > More on Quantum information and emergent spacetime, this time by Erik > > P. Verlinde: > > Emergent Gravity and the Dark > > Universe<https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 > > > > > > > There is a less formal review at > > http://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html > > > > I consider the idea very speculative, as I have seen no work on > > information within a spacetime boundary except for this sort of work. > > > > Of course, meaning need not apply. I doubt that it is bounded by > > language, but it at least has to be representational. Perhaps more is > > also required. I am reluctant to talk of meaning when discussing the > > semiotics of biological chemicals, for example, but could not find a > > better word. A made up word like Deacon's "entention" might work best, > > but it still would not apply to the physics cases, even though the > > information in the boundaries in all cases but the internal > > information one can tell you about the spacetime structure within the > > boundary. That seems to me that it is like smoke to fire: > > smoke doesn't mean fire, despite the connection. > > > > John Collier > > Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, > > University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet > > Leydesdorff > > Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2016 9:29 PM > > To: 'Alex Hankey' <alexhan...@gmail.com>; 'FIS Webinar' > > <Fis@listas.unizar.es > > > > > Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime? > > > > Dear Alex and colleagues, > > > > Thank you for the reference; but my argument was about "meaning". > > "Meaning" can only be considered as constructed in language. Other > > uses of the word are metaphorical. For example, the citation to > > Maturana. > > > > Information, in my opinion, can be defined content-free (a la Shannon, > > etc.) and then be provided with meaning in (scholarly) discourses. I > > consider physics as one among other scholarly discourses. Specific > > about physics is perhaps the universalistic character of the knowledge > > claims. For example: "Frieden's points apply to quantum physics as > > well as classical physics." So what? This seems to me a debate within > > physics without much relevance for non-physicists (e.g., economists or > > linguists). > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > > ________________________________ > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Professor, University of Amsterdam > > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; > > http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, SPRU, > > <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> University of Sussex; Guest Professor > > Zhejiang Univ.<http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, > > Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > > <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html > > > Beijing; > > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of > > London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > > From: Alex Hankey [mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:07 PM > > To: Loet Leydesdorff; FIS Webinar > > Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime? > > > > Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues, > > > > Are you aware of Roy Frieden's > > 'Physics from Fisher Information'. > > His book was published in the 1990s. > > I consider it a very powerful statement. > > > > Ultimately everything we can detect at both macroscopic and > > microscopic levels depends on information production from a quantum > > level that forms Fisher Information. > > > > Frieden's points apply to quantum physics as well as classical > > physics. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Alex Hankey > > > > > > On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff > > <l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net > > >> wrote: > > Dear Marcus, > > > > When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must > > confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and > > the physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature. > > > > "Meaning" is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires > > interhuman communication. However, its use in terms of the living > > and/or the physical is metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can > > this consider (with Maturana) as a "second-order consensual domain" > > that functions AS a semantic domain without being one; Maturana (1978, > > p. 50): > > > > "In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation > > within a second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer as > > if its nervous system interacted with internal representations of the > > circumstances of its interactions, and as if the changes of state of > > the organism were determined by the semantic value of these > > representations. Yet all that takes place in the operation of the > > nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of changing > > relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal > > network." > > > > Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an > > explanatory gap. And then, once connected, a further link to "space- > > time" is also easily located . . . > > > > Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going > > to the phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves > > one with an explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly > > specialized language in which "mass" and "information" are provided > > with meanings different from classical physics. > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fis mailing list > > Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> > > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > > > -- > > Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of > > Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle > > Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 > > Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 > > > __________________________________________________________ > __ > > > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > > Mathematics and Phenomenological > > > Philosophy<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fis mailing list > > Fis@listas.unizar.es > > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
