Re: [Fis] QM and information

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

 On Jun 26, 2015, at 10:02 PM, Andrei Khrennikov andrei.khrenni...@lnu.se 
 wrote:
 Life is hard... I am afraid that it is impossible to put this qualifier in 
 front information used in recent information approaches to quantum 
 mechanics. 
 For Zeilinger and Brukner (this is my private impression from private 
 discussions), information so to say exists in nature so to say by itself, 
 it seems it is meaningless, however, to apply quantum theory an OBSERVER 
 has to appear at the scene, information here is PRIVATE INFORMATION of 
 observer.

I do not know what to call your model here other than Solipsism. It certainly 
has nothing to do with Information Theory or Information Science. Indeed, it is 
unrecognizable I suggest to anyone associated with epistemology or the study of 
Logic in its broadest sense, except to give it that label. Indeed, it further 
affirms an increasing conviction that the discipline of physics has abandoned 
all good reason.


 The same happens in QBism of Fuchs and Mermin (this is again my private 
 impression from private discussions), they start with interpreting the wave 
 function as representing 
 subjective probability about possible results of measurements, but privately 
 they speak about Nature producing chance and hence information.
 
 see also arxiv.org/pdf/1503.02515v1.pdf section 3.2, in particular, one 
 important citation of Fuchs.
 
 All this can be disappointing, but it works; quantum people want to say: we 
 do not know what is information 
 but when we get it we immediately understand that this is it. 

Not just disappointing but entirely fanciful. I cannot imagine that “it works” 
in any material sense or in any purely mathematical sense. 

Regards,
Steven


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] QM and information

[Andrei Khrennikov]

   Dear Marcus, 

I would ask for clarification on whether you speak of information in 
 your examples as something that has innate meaning or something that is 
 innately meaningless . . . which has been a core issue in earlier 
 exchanges. If this issue of meaning versus meaningless in the use of the 
 term information is not resolved (for the group?) it seems hard (to me) 
 to have truly meaningful exchanges . . . without having to put a 
 meaningful or meaningless qualifier in front of information every 
 time it is use.
 
Life is hard... I am afraid that it is impossible to put this qualifier in 
front information used in recent information approaches to quantum mechanics. 
For Zeilinger and Brukner (this is my private impression from private 
discussions), information so to say exists in nature so to say by itself, it 
seems it is 
meaningless, however, to apply quantum theory an OBSERVER has to appear at 
the scene, information here is PRIVATE INFORMATION of observer.
The same happens in QBism of Fuchs and Mermin (this is again my private 
impression from private discussions), they start with interpreting the wave 
function as representing 
subjective probability about possible results of measurements, but privately 
they speak about Nature producing chance and hence information.

see also arxiv.org/pdf/1503.02515v1.pdf section 3.2, in particular, one 
important citation of Fuchs.

All this can be disappointing, but it works; quantum people want to say: we do 
not know what is information 
but when we get it we immediately understand that this is it. 

yours, andrei
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis