In his 1989 essay, John Archibald Wheeler has tried to answer the eternal question of existence. He did it by searching for links between information, physics, and quanta. The main concept emerging from his essay is that "every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications". This concept has been summarized in the catchphrase "it from bit". In the Wheeler's essay, it is possible to read several times the echoes of the philosophy of Niels Bohr. The Danish physicist has pointed out how the quantum and relativistic physics - forcing us to abandon the anchor of the visual reference of common sense - have imposed a greater attention to the language. Bohr did not deny the physical reality, but recognizes that there is always need of a language no matter what a person wants to do. To put it as Carlo Sini, language is the first toolbox that man has at hands to analyze the experience. It is not a thought translated into words, because to think is to operate with signs as reminded us by various philosophers from Leonardo da Vinci to Ludwig Wittgenstein. [...]
In his 1989 essay, John Archibald Wheeler has tried to answer the eternal question of existence. He did it by searching for links between information, physics, and quanta. The main concept emerging from his essay is that "every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications". This concept has been summarized in the catchphrase "it from bit". In the Wheeler's essay, it is possible to read several times the echoes of the philosophy of Niels Bohr. The Danish physicist has pointed out how the quantum and relativistic physics - forcing us to abandon the anchor of the visual reference of common sense - have imposed a greater attention to the language. Bohr did not deny the physical reality, but recognizes that there is always need of a language no matter what a person wants to do. To put it as Carlo Sini, language is the first toolbox that man has at hands to analyze the experience. It is not a thought translated into words, because to think is to operate with signs as reminded us by various philosophers from Leonardo da Vinci to Ludwig Wittgenstein. [...]
Whoever it was who first contracted the words 'binary digit' to form 'bit' can hardly have realised that he (she?) was coining a term not only for the smallest unit of information but also for the smallest unit of 'being' – or so the general relativist John Archibald Wheeler would have us believe. 'It from bit' is his declamation of the ultimate fount of significance of every physical quantity: all we can know about photons, fields, black holes – you name 'it' – depends at root, he emphasizes, on yes-or-no indications. Pursuing the implications of this observation through quantised strings, quantum measurement theory, computational representations of physical laws, information theory, thermodynamic entropy, evolution... those, he says, are routes to that happy state of perceived simplicity and beauty when we finally know the Final Answer to the question: 'How come existence?'
Introduction First a word of thanks. When I first came across the papers of John Archibald Wheeler on the foundations of quantum mechanics, most of them reprinted in Wheeler and Zurek (1983), I could not believe what I read. Finally here was a colleague of worldwide reputation, given his many contributions to theoretical physics, who was not afraid to discuss openly the conceptual problems of quantum mechanics. The outstanding feature of Professor Wheeler's viewpoint is his realization that the implications of quantum mechanics are so far-reaching that they require a completely novel approach in our view of reality and in the way we see our role in the universe. This distinguishes him from many others who in one way or another tried to save pre-quantum viewpoints, particularly the obviously wrong notion of a reality independent of us. Particularly remarkable is Professor Wheeler's austerity in thinking. He tries to use as few concepts as possible and to build on this the whole of physics. A fascinating case in point is the title of one of his papers “Law without law,” the attempt to arrive at the laws of nature without assuming any law a priori. For me personally his work on fundamental issues in quantum mechanics has been particularly inspiring. The questions he raises are exceptionally far-reaching and some of his concepts in the foundations of physics are so radical that calling them revolutionary would not do them justice.
In his famous 1989 It from Bit essay, John Wheeler contends that the stuff of the physical universe, or it, arises from information or bits, encoded in yes or no answers. Wheeler's question and assumptions are reexamined from a post Aspect experiment perspective. Information is examined and discussed in terms of classical information and quantum entanglement, or non local state sharing. An argument is made that the universe may arise from or together with quantum entanglement but not via classical yes and no information sharing.
“I refute it thus!” Samuel Johnson famously dismissed Bishop George Berkeley's argument for the unreality of matter by kicking a large stone (Boswell, 1823). In the light of modern physics, however, Johnson's simple reasoning evaporates. Apparently solid matter is revealed, on closer inspection, to be almost all empty space, and the particles of which matter is composed are themselves ghostly patterns of quantum energy, mere excitations of invisible quantum fields, or possibly vibrating loops of string living in a ten-dimensional space–time (Greene, 1999). The history of physics is one of successive abstractions from daily experience and common sense, into a counterintuitive realm of mathematical forms and relationships, with a link to the stark sense data of human observation that is long and often tortuous. Yet at the end of the day, science is empirical, and our finest theories must be grounded, somehow, “in reality.” But where is reality? Is it in acts of observation of the world made by human and possibly non-human observers? In records stored in computer or laboratory notebooks? In some objective world “out there”? Or in a more abstract location? The ground of reality When a physicist performs an experiment, he or she interrogates nature and receives a response that, ultimately, is in the form of discrete bits of information (think of “yes” or “no” binary answers to specific questions), the discreteness implied by the underlying quantum nature of the universe (Zeilinger, 2004). Does reality then lie in the string of bits that come back from the set of all observations and experiments – a dry sequence of ones and zeros? Do these observations merely transfer really-existing bits of information from an external world reality to the minds of observers, or are the bits of information created by the very act of observation/experiment? And – the question to which this entire discussion is directed – are bits of “classical” information the only sort of information that count in the reality game, or does an altogether different form of information underpin reality? In short, where is the ontological ground on which our impression of a really-existing universe rests?
Introduction Does Schrödinger's wave function describe physical reality (“it” in John Wheeler's terminology (Wheeler 1994)) or some kind of information (“bit”)? The answer to this question must crucially depend on the definition of these terms. Is it then merely a matter of words? Not quite – I feel. Inappropriate words may be misleading, while reasonably chosen terms are helpful. A bit is usually understood as the binary unit of information, which can be physically realized in (classical) computers, but also by neuronal states of having fired or not. This traditional physical (in particular, thermodynamical) realization of information (“bit from it”) has proven essential in order to avoid paradoxes otherwise arising from situations related to Maxwell's demon. On the other hand, the concept of a bit has a typical quantum aspect: the very word quantum refers to discreteness, while, paradoxically, the quantum bit is represented by a continuum (the unit sphere in a two-dimensional Hilbert space) – more similar to an analog computer. If this quantum state describes “mere information,” how can there be real quantum computers that are based on such superpositions of classical bits? The problematic choice of words characterizing the nature of the wave function (or a general “quantum state”) seems to reflect the common uneasiness of physicists, including the founders of quantum theory, about its fundamental meaning. However, it may also express a certain prejudice.
This report reviews what quantum physics and information theory have to tell us about the age-old question, How come existence? No escape is evident from four conclusions: (1) The world cannot be a giant machine, ruled by any preestablished continuum physical law. (2) There is no such thing at the microscopic level as space or time or spacetime continuum. (3) The familiar probability function or functional, and wave equation or functional wave equation, of standard quantum theory provide mere continuum idealizations and by reason of this circumstance conceal the information-theoretic source from which they derive. (4) No element in the description of physics shows itself as closer to primordial than the elementary quantum phenomenon, that is, the elementary device-intermediated act of posing a yes-no physical question and eliciting an answer or, in brief, the elementary act of observer-participancy. Otherwise stated, every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications, a conclusion which we epitomize in the phrase, it from bit .