In this talk, I propose an approach to understanding the foundations of physics by considering the optimal inferences an intelligent agent can make about the universe in which he or she is embedded. Information acts to constrain an agent’s beliefs. However, at a fundamental level, any information is obtained from interactions where something influences something else. Given this, the laws of physics must be constrained by both the nature of such influences and the rules by which we can make inferences based on information about these influences. I will review the recent progress we have made in this direction. This includes: a brief summary of how one can derive the Feynman path integral formulation of quantum mechanics from a consistent quantification of measurement sequences with pairs of numbers (Goyal, Skilling, Knuth 2010; Goyal, Knuth 2011), a demonstration that consistent apt quantification of a partially-ordered set of events (connected by interactions) by an embedded agent results in space-time geometry and Lorentz transformations (Knuth, Bahreyni 2012), and an explanation of how, given the two previous results, inferences (Knuth, Skilling 2012) about a direct particle-particle interaction model results in the Dirac equation (in 1+1 dimensions) and the properties of Fermions (Knuth, 2012). In summary, critical aspects of quantum mechanics, relativity, and particle properties appear to be derivable by considering an embedded agent who consistently quantifies observations and makes consistent inferences about them. Goyal P., Knuth K.H., Skilling J. 2010. Phys. Rev. A 81, 022109. arXiv:0907.0909v3 [quant-ph] Goyal P., Knuth K.H. 2011. Symmetry 3(2):171-206. Knuth K.H. 2012. MaxEnt 2012 Proceedings. arXiv:1212.2332 [quant-ph] Knuth K.H., Bahreyni N. 2012. arXiv:1209.0881 [math-ph] Knuth, K.H., Skilling, J. 2012. Axioms 1:38-73. arXiv:1008.4831 [math.PR]
In this talk, I propose an approach to understanding the foundations of physics by considering the optimal inferences an intelligent agent can make about the universe in which he or she is embedded. Information acts to constrain an agent’s beliefs. However, at a fundamental level, any information is obtained from interactions where something influences something else. Given this, the laws of physics must be constrained by both the nature of such influences and the rules by which we can make inferences based on information about these influences. I will review the recent progress we have made in this direction. This includes: a brief summary of how one can derive the Feynman path integral formulation of quantum mechanics from a consistent quantification of measurement sequences with pairs of numbers (Goyal, Skilling, Knuth 2010; Goyal, Knuth 2011), a demonstration that consistent apt quantification of a partially-ordered set of events (connected by interactions) by an embedded agent results in space-time geometry and Lorentz transformations (Knuth, Bahreyni 2012), and an explanation of how, given the two previous results, inferences (Knuth, Skilling 2012) about a direct particle-particle interaction model results in the Dirac equation (in 1+1 dimensions) and the properties of Fermions (Knuth, 2012). In summary, critical aspects of quantum mechanics, relativity, and particle properties appear to be derivable by considering an embedded agent who consistently quantifies observations and makes consistent inferences about them. Goyal P., Knuth K.H., Skilling J. 2010. Phys. Rev. A 81, 022109. arXiv:0907.0909v3 [quant-ph] Goyal P., Knuth K.H. 2011. Symmetry 3(2):171-206. Knuth K.H. 2012. MaxEnt 2012 Proceedings. arXiv:1212.2332 [quant-ph] Knuth K.H., Bahreyni N. 2012. arXiv:1209.0881 [math-ph] Knuth, K.H., Skilling, J. 2012. Axioms 1:38-73. arXiv:1008.4831 [math.PR]
It is generally believed that physical laws, reflecting an inherent order in the universe, are ordained by nature. However, in modern physics the observer plays a central role raising questions about how an observer-centric physics can result in laws apparently worthy of a universal nature-centric physics. Over the last decade, we have found that the consistent apt quantification of algebraic and order-theoretic structures results in calculi that possess constraint equations taking the form of what are often considered to be physical laws. I review recent derivations of the formal relations among relevant variables central to special relativity, probability theory and quantum mechanics in this context by considering a problem where two observers form consistent descriptions of and make optimal inferences about a free particle that simply influences them. I show that this approach to describing such a particle based only on available information leads to the mathematics of relativistic quantum mechanics as well as a description of a free particle that reproduces many of the basic properties of a fermion. The result is an approach to foundational physics where laws derive from both consistent descriptions and optimal information-based inferences made by embedded observers.
Physics is traditionally conceived of as a set of laws that universally governs the behavior of physical systems. These laws, however they are decreed, are believed to govern the behavior of not only everything in the universe, but the form of the universe itself. However, this traditional concept of physics as a universal governance is at odds with our modern theories of quantum mechanics and relativity, which place the observer and information in a central role. In this talk, I aim to rethink the foundations and attempt to build physics from the bottom up based on a very simple foundational idea that all one can possibly know is that things influence one another. I will demonstrate that a great deal of physics can be derived in this context from symmetries alone. For example, one can show that there is a unique consistent quantified description of a network of influence events, which is given by the mathematics of relativistic space-time and results in forces. In addition, making inferences about influence events leads to the relativistic quantum mechanics of fermions. As a result, many ‘fundamental’ concepts in physics and their relationships to one another can be derived from a more fundamental picture based on influence.
At this point in time, two major areas of physics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, rest on the foundations of probability and entropy. The last century saw several significant fundamental advances in our understanding of the process of inference, which make it clear that these are inferential theories. That is, rather than being a description of the behavior of the universe, these theories describe how observers can make optimal predictions about the universe. In such a picture, information plays a critical role. What is more is that little clues, such as the fact that black holes have entropy, continue to suggest that information is fundamental to physics in general. In the last decade, our fundamental understanding of probability theory has led to a Bayesian revolution. In addition, we have come to recognize that the foundations go far deeper and that Cox's approach of generalizing a Boolean algebra to a probability calculus is the first specific example of the more fundamental idea of assigning valuations to partially-ordered sets. By considering this as a natural way to introduce quantification to the more fundamental notion of ordering, one obtains an entirely new way of deriving physical laws. I will introduce this new way of thinking by demonstrating how one can quantify partially-ordered sets and, in the process, derive physical laws. The implication is that physical law does not reflect the order in the universe, instead it is derived from the order imposed by our description of the universe. Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science.
Abstract. At this point in time, two major areas of physics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, rest on the foundations of probability and entropy. The last century saw several significant fundamental advances in our understanding of the process of inference, which make it clear that these are inferential theories. That is, rather than being a description of the behavior of the universe, these theories describe how observers can make optimal predictions about the universe. In such a picture, information plays a critical role. What is more is that little clues, such as the fact that black holes have entropy, continue to suggest that information is fundamental to physics in general. In the last decade, our fundamental understanding of probability theory has led to a Bayesian revolution. In addition, we have come to recognize that the foundations go far deeper and that Cox’s approach of generalizing a Boolean algebra to a probability calculus is the first specific example of the more fundamental idea of assigning valuations to partially-ordered sets. By considering this as a natural way to introduce quantification to the more fundamental notion of ordering, one obtains an entirely new way of deriving physical laws. I will introduce this new way of thinking by demonstrating how one can quantify partially-ordered sets and, in the process, derive physical laws. The implication is that physical law does not reflect the order in the universe, instead it is derived from the order imposed by our description of the universe. Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science.
What is information? A short answer could be: Anything that changes our minds and states of thinking! Information is virtual. It can be carried by speech, an image, scratches on a stone, patterns in a photon field, the connections of neurons in our brains or even by the wavefunction of an electron. Information does not depend on the actual means of transmission nor does its identity change when changing the carrier. Information is physical. It needs to be sustained by a physical substrate and rearranging that substrate to contain the wanted information requires to spend energy or work. Without a physical world, information can not be stored, processed, or transmitted. Our world is permeated with different representations of information. Actually Information about the physical laws governing our Universe can be found everywhere and in everything. Could it then be that the real fundamental elements of this world are tiny bits of information? Could we get it from bit?1 A number of researcher investigate this possibility, and several of their attempts to recover physical laws from the principles governing information are reported about in this special issue on physics of information. The articles by Gregg Jaeger,2 by Ariel Caticha,3 and by John Skilling and Kevin Knuth4 address the reconstruction of quantum mechanics from information theory. Furthermore, Kevin Knuth and James Walsh5 show how to recover space-time from particles sending each others signals in an initially geometry-free setting. A central element of most works on information is the concept of a probability. Probabilities can be defined via various routes. Most familiar might be their definitions by the frequentists school as relative frequencies of events (in the limit of infinite amounts of such). A more general definition of probabilities is the Bayesians' one, which regards probabilities as quantifiers of statements, expressing how much those should be expected to be true. Although this definition looks subjective on the first glance, it rests on a solid mathematical theorem by Richard Cox6 that any extension of binary logic to a continuum of single valued truthfulness quantifier that respects a minimum of requirements must be isomorphic to probability theory. And this definition turns out to embrace the frequentists' definition in case that infinite numbers of comparable events are actually available and can be counted. The majority of authors of this special issues seem to favor the Bayesian perspective, which is probably a result of our own, the guest editors', preference and not necessarily a reflection of the prevailing position of contemporary scientists. The different views on probabilities of frequentists and Bayesians are addressed by the article of Allen Caldwell.7 He builds a bridge between these antagonistic camps by explaining frequentists' constructions in a Bayesian language. In particular, his argumentation why the omnipresent p-value in statistical and experimental literature might often capture a relevant signal of model misfit is reassuring, given that a large fraction of our medical system is based on decisions backed up by p-values. A Bayesian might add that it would be even more reassuring, if a system rigorously build on logic and its continuous extension would be used for decisions affecting live-or-death questions. The laws governing probabilities themselves seem to reflect that of more elementary mathematical structures. Kevin Knuth shows how these emerge from lattice theory, which deals with relations in partially ordered sets like that of collections of possibilities.8 The sum rule of probability theory is a direct consequence of the underlying lattice structure. Interestingly, a number of other theories are resting also on such lattices and therefore exhibit their own versions of sum rules: measures of sets, mutual information, the Euler characteristics of topological spaces, as well as quantum mechanical interactions that are quantified by pairs of numbers, the real and imaginary parts of complex probability amplitudes (see also4). The theory of information has very practical application in physics and elsewhere. Manfred Opper discusses how the solutions of stochastic differential equations can be inferred via variational methods, which have their origin in thermodynamics.9 Torsten Enßlin introduces information field theory (IFT), the information theory for fields, as a means to infer the configuration of a physical field from incomplete and noisy data.10 The mathematical apparatus for this is that of quantum field theory (QFT), just with ordinary probabilities instead of complex probability amplitudes as in the latter. Could it be that the difference between IFT and QFT is just be the same as between classical information theory and quantum mechanics, the transition from real valued to complex valued quantifier for statements? Anyhow, any practical inference machinery, be it for dynamical systems or for fields, requires sophisticated numerical methods. Michael Betancourt reviews Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods to calculate expectation values over high dimensional probabilities.11 Theo Steininger and coworkers present the NIFTy3 software package for numerical information field theory calculations, which can handle very high dimensional field inference problems.12 Finally, in an article focused on the subtleties of the Monty Hall problem and mostly aiming at information theoretical entertainment, Torsten Enßlin and Margret Westercamp investigate the possibility that human intuition might be more rational than contemporary psychology thinks.13 A number of possible topics for an issue on physics of information are not addressed here. We would have loved to have articles on Landauer's principle, which states that erasing information has to cost energy, on QBism, a Bayesian version of quantum mechanics, on artificial and biological neural networks, as well as any other aspect of the information-soaked biological world. What has a reader of this special issue to be equipped with in order to follow the lines of thoughts? In addition to the usual physicist's education, the minimal additional equipment are the basics of probability theory and the concept of entropy. Most of the other concepts used in the articles rest on those and are introduced there. Let A, B, and C be propositions (or possibilities). The probability P ( A | B ) of A being true assuming that B is true is a number between 0 and 1, with P ( A | B ) = 1 expressing certainty of A under B ( B ⇒ A ) and P ( A | B ) = 0 expressing certainty of not A being the case under B ( B ⇒ ¬ A ).
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.