View Poll Results: "It from bit" or "Bit from it"?
It from bit 6 33.33%
Bit from it 6 33.33%
None of the above 6 33.33%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

Register to reply

It from bit or Bit from it

by bohm2
Tags: bit from it, it from bit
Share this thread:
apeiron
#55
Oct7-12, 05:27 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
The Bohmian model isn't a mechanistic model. Non-locality and contextuality is a necessary feature. And holism is a central feature or so it's been argued. While I have come across some papers that question the holism in Bohmian, I'm not sure how non-locality and contextuality can be seen as "mechanical".
The interaction between particle and pilot wave was being treated as a mechanistic issue in the Riggs paper you cited surely?

But this is way off the point of your OP. What is relevant to the OP is how various interpretations might apply to "it from bit".

My general answer on that is that "it-ness" would be defined in the systems view as the "realm" of indeterminate potential or vagueness. And "bit-ness" is the information - the classically present local degrees of freedom - that the system decoheres through its holism.

This is a complex model of causality that is triadic (hierarchical) rather than dualistic or monistic.

So if it-ness = vagueness, and bit-ness = classical/decohered local degrees of freedom, then the story requires the third thing of the global decohering structure - the constraints that act top-down to decohere the bits from the it. This is where holographic principles for example become important as they are now giving us a way to model global material constraints, removing any spookiness in the story.
bohm2
#56
Oct8-12, 08:14 PM
PF Gold
bohm2's Avatar
P: 691
I think the Bohmian interpretation, tends to to favour a dual-aspect monism. Thus, information (bit) as represented by the wave function and matter (it) as represented by the particle are on equal footing like 2 sides of a coin. And neither is reducible to the other and neither supervenes on the other. And neither reduces to a more fundamental entity. At least, that is my understanding. I think this dual-aspect monism carries all the way to the macroscale so that the mental and physical can be seen as two equiprimordial aspects of a single underlying reality. But I'm not sure how anyone can make any such commitment since the concept of "physical" isn't well defined.
apeiron
#57
Oct9-12, 02:17 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
I think the Bohmian interpretation, tends to to favour a dual-aspect monism. Thus, information (bit) as represented by the wave function and matter (it) as represented by the particle are on equal footing like 2 sides of a coin. And neither is reducible to the other and neither supervenes on the other. And neither reduces to a more fundamental entity. At least, that is my understanding. I think this dual-aspect monism carries all the way to the macroscale so that the mental and physical can be seen as two equiprimordial aspects of a single underlying reality. But I'm not sure how anyone can make any such commitment since the concept of "physical" isn't well defined.
Even granted dual aspect monism - which explains nothing, simply states something to be in a way that contradicts our instinct for reality to be reducible via its interactions - I can't see how you would map the concept of information to the pilot wave. The position of the particle is not also information - an uncertainty we can limit?

And the "inside" of a wavefunction seems the opposite of information, as only uncertainty (indeterminacy) exists inside of it. Except in the pilot wave ontology where there is all this hidden structure, all these grooves, that would certainly be informational, but not in any way we could access (unlike measurements of the particle)?
bohm2
#58
Oct9-12, 08:15 PM
PF Gold
bohm2's Avatar
P: 691
Quote Quote by apeiron View Post
And the "inside" of a wavefunction seems the opposite of information, as only uncertainty (indeterminacy) exists inside of it. Except in the pilot wave ontology where there is all this hidden structure, all these grooves, that would certainly be informational, but not in any way we could access (unlike measurements of the particle)?
I don't understand this part. Do you mean this point as argued by Harrigan and Spekkens:
There is a different way in which ψ could be an incomplete description of reality: it could represent a state of incomplete knowledge about reality. In other words, it could be that ψ is not a variable in the ontic state space at all, but rather encodes a probability distribution over the ontic state space. In this case also, specifying ψ does not completely specify the ontic state, and so it is apt to say that ψ provides an incomplete description. In such a model, a variation of ψ does not represent a variation in any physical degrees of freedom, but instead a variation in the space of possible ways of knowing about some underlying physical degrees of freedom.
Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...706.2661v1.pdf

Also note that in the macroscopic pilot wave model that I linked, the pilot wave does carry information (but not information for us):
The waves emitted earlier and having propagated faster than the walker itself, come back towards the droplet carrying information on the geometry of the borders. The walker avoids the nearing obstacle as a dolphin or a bat would do, even though it has no brain to process the signal.
Walking Droplets: a form of wave-particle duality at macroscopic scale
http://users.df.uba.ar/dasso/fis4_2d...010/walker.pdf
This information is stored because each bounce generates a sustained localized state of Faraday waves. The information being stored in waves, the data about the trajectory are cumulated in an interference pattern due to the waves’ linear superposition. Later, as the drop collides again with the interface, it ‘reads’ this cumulated information and the local slope of the distorted surface determines the direction and amplitude of the next jump.
Information stored in Faraday waves: the origin of a path memory
http://stilton.tnw.utwente.nl/people...Walker_JFM.pdf
As a result the wave field is the linear superposition of the successive Faraday waves emitted by past bounces. Its complex interference structure thus contains a memory of the recent trajectory. Furthermore, since the travelling waves move faster than the drop, the wave field also contains information about the obstacles that lie ahead. Hence, two non-local effects exist in the wave-field driving the motion of the droplet: the past bounces influence directly the present (direct propulsion) and the trajectory is perturbed by scattered waves from distant obstacles in a kind of echo-location effect. This interplay between the droplet motion and its associated wave field makes it a macroscopic implementation of a pilot-wave dynamics.
Probabilities and trajectories in a classical wave-particle duality
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/...1_1_012001.pdf

Similar arguments are represented in the other papers linked in that thread, so I don't find you arguments at all convincing.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
In binary can we have a value with deci centi mili or more lower valued prefix? Computers 14
Could a Black Hole be the cycle of Dark Matter powered by Dar Energy:? General Physics 3
Difference between Identical , Equal , Equivalent Calculus & Beyond Homework 9