It is impossible to give an assured answer to questions concerning the relationship between Information (for example in the form of BITs) and the physical Universe at the fundamental level (IT). Information is an artifact of human thought imposed on Nature to describe some of its aspects. Nor can experimentation resolve such questions: An observer using an imaging instrument such as a telescope or microscope sees only the final image. There is a Cloud of Unknowing obscuring the true nature of Reality because signals carrying information about physical processes at fundamental scales get distorted, dissipated and subjected to noise in the channel or medium they pass through until they are finally observed at macroscopic scales. A similar Cloud obscures Reality when these experimental results are subjected to fallible logical and mathematical analysis. There is a necessity to examine our philosophy of knowing. By their very nature our best theories are merely our best guesses, and there is no guarantee that better theories may not be discovered contradicting present assumptions and/or presenting new ones. Nevertheless speculation and model-making is allowed. In analog computing devices such as the abacus, a bead is both a thing and a number. Reality may be like that at fundamental scales where its physical and informational content can be regarded as one and the same thing. Rather than BITs being the units of such information however, it is more likely that some sort of physical Bloch-Sphere-like QUBITs making up an ether are the building blocks of radiation and matter, and carriers of zero point energy making up the vacuum. In the theory of everything IT=QUBIT may be the paradigm of choice.
It is impossible to give an assured answer to questions concerning the relationship between Information (for example in the form of BITs) and the physical Universe at the fundamental level (IT). Information is an artifact of human thought imposed on Nature to describe some of its aspects. Nor can experimentation resolve such questions: An observer using an imaging instrument such as a telescope or microscope sees only the final image. There is a Cloud of Unknowing obscuring the true nature of Reality because signals carrying information about physical processes at fundamental scales get distorted, dissipated and subjected to noise in the channel or medium they pass through until they are finally observed at macroscopic scales. A similar Cloud obscures Reality when these experimental results are subjected to fallible logical and mathematical analysis. There is a necessity to examine our philosophy of knowing. By their very nature our best theories are merely our best guesses, and there is no guarantee that better theories may not be discovered contradicting present assumptions and/or presenting new ones. Nevertheless speculation and model-making is allowed. In analog computing devices such as the abacus, a bead is both a thing and a number. Reality may be like that at fundamental scales where its physical and informational content can be regarded as one and the same thing. Rather than BITs being the units of such information however, it is more likely that some sort of physical Bloch-Sphere-like QUBITs making up an ether are the building blocks of radiation and matter, and carriers of zero point energy making up the vacuum. In the theory of everything IT=QUBIT may be the paradigm of choice.
“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?
“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).
Introduction Of John Wheeler's “Really Big Questions,” the one on which the most progress has been made is “It from bit?” – does information play a significant role at the foundations of physics? It is perhaps less ambitious than some of the other questions, such as “How come existence?”, because it does not necessarily require a metaphysical answer. And unlike, say, “Why the quantum?”, it does not require the discovery of new laws of nature: there was room for hope that it might be answered through a better understanding of the laws as we currently know them, particularly those of quantum physics. And this is what has happened: the better understanding is the quantum theory of information and computation. How might our conception of the quantum physical world have been different if “It from bit” had been a motivation from the outset? No one knows how to derive it (the nature of the physical world) from bit (the idea that information plays a significant role at the foundations of physics), and I shall argue that this will never be possible. But we can do the next best thing: we can start from the qubit. Qubits To a classical information theorist, a bit is an abstraction: a certain amount of information. To a programmer, a bit is a Boolean variable. To an engineer, a bit is a “flip-flop” – a piece of hardware that is stable in either of two physical states.
The Quantum theory deals with the microscopic structure of the Universe that describes the finer details of nature at the subatomic domain.To a physicist, quantum mechanics is one of the three great pillars supporting our intuition of evocative, bewildering and fascinating natural World as we continuously struggle with the inescapable strangeness of the subatomic domain as if something strange is always afoot.It is well accepted fact that quantum mechanics is a physical theory that describes the way things behave at subatomic level which is quite dazzling in its precision and explanatory power.A test of quantum electrodynamics, the oldest and best understood of the modern quantum theory that involves measuring the way an electron behaves in the vicinity of a magnetic force. Many of the technological and social changes that have revolutionized our lives have actually risen out of the fundamental theoretical research carried out with only motivation to understand the World in a better way than ever. For example, the invention of transistor actually came with the fundamental theoretical research on the Uncertainty Principle which states that the uncertainty of the position of a particle times the uncertainty of its velocity is always a constant. If we double the certainty of the position of the particle, we have to make half the certainty of its velocity and vice versa. Quantum theory is perhaps the prime example of the infinitely esoteric in the sense that it describes a World in which a particle really can be in several places at once and it moves from one place to another by exploring the entire Universe simultaneously-the theory of simultaneity. The diverse and complex Universe is actually made of a few tiny particles according to the rules of quantum theory which is so simple that can be summarized on the back of an envelope. The more we understand about the elemental nature of the Universe, the simpler it looks. We have already discovered that everything in the diverse and complex Universe is nothing but the different assemblies of atoms, and the wide variety of atoms are constructed using the three building blocks at the sub-atomic domain i.e. subatomic particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. We have also discovered that protons and neutrons ate made up of combination of three entities called quarks. And that is where things stop as far as recent discovery is concerned. But the recent progress in particle physics inspiring the quest for the ultimate unified theory of physics that can describe everything in the Universe in one go. The discovery of Boson particle certainty will revolutionaries the Newton's mass concept and gravity into whole new looks. To an optimistic point of view, we must hope the best out of the progress in physics.
In the Preface to this book, we started with Alice and Bob having very different views of their observations. Alice used an optical telescope and reported nothing unusual about a distant galaxy that she could see. Bob, on the other hand, detected intense radio activity in that galaxy. Our question was: who has the true view of that galaxy? We advised the reader that the answer is not Alice . Neither is it Bob . The answer is not both of them , nor is it neither of them . It is not a trick question either. So what is the answer that this book would supply? Our answer will come presently. While this book has set forth a definite mathematical perspective on empirical physics, it has contained quite a lot of commentary that might be disparaged as metaphysics or philosophy. Such commentary is generally frowned on in science, because it has no empirical content. It is vacuous. In our defense, we point out the obvious: science is not a robotic activity; it is carried out by humans and these are driven by their metaphysical, philosophical, and emotional imperatives. For instance, the hard-core scientific view that quantum theory needs no interpretation but only application is itself a philosophy. It is no more than a conditioned response, based on opinion and subscription to current scientific norms. It is, indeed, a philosophy of how to do quantum mechanics. So we all do it, in one way or another. Our concern in this book is that the way that we do it should be based soundly on scientific principles. The quantized detector approach that we describe and use in this book is our attempt to do just that. There is an excellent paper on all of this that has the provocative title “Quantum Theory Needs No Interpretation,” by Fuchs and Peres (2000). It seems on the face of it to dismiss any sort of “interpretation” of quantum mechanics. In fact, close reading of it confirms (to us at least) the agenda that we have set out in this book. Yes, quantum mechanics needs no interpretation, when it is being applied to processes that take place in the information void .
In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. The conventionally-called “physical/objective reality” around my conventionally-called “physical/objective body” is actually a geometric mathematical model (being generated/mathematically-modeled by my brain) – it's actually a subset/component/part/element of my brain’s mind/consciousness. A reality is a situation model (SM). Our universe is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton (aka state machine) which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of our universe) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). Our universe has the same nature as a Game of Life system – both are autonomous objective parallel-computing automata. If we are happy to accept randomness, then it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation do not exist objectively. The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective universe) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program directly-fatedly. A Turing machine’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or directly-fated) worldline of any elementary particle within this world. Besides the Schrodinger equation (or another mathematical equation/function which is yet to be discovered) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of our universe, every other causality (of our universe) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation (or the aforementioned yet-to-be-discovered mathematical equation/function) only. Consciousness plays no causal role (“epiphenomenalism”), or in other words, any cognitive/behavioural activity can in principle be carried out without consciousness (“conscious inessentialism”). If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, then time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective universe, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of our universe.