Dear FIS,
now we approach the concept of information and quantum from quite many different angles. Andrei
writes:
>>I am trying to sell the idea that the whole quantum enterprise is
about
> >simplification of description of extremely complex physical
phenomena.
> >I developed models in that the quantum probabilistic model appears as
a
> >projection of more complex classical statistical model.
> >Then I proceed: Wau! In such a case it seems that quantum probability
> >theory and quantum information could be used everywhere where we
could
> >not provide the complete description of phenomena and we just try to
> >create a simplified representation in complex Hilbert space.
> >So one can apply quantum information theory everywhere, from
financial
> >mathematics to genetics.
As the concept of quantum is such a pervasive one, it derives surely from a quite basic concept
itself.
Let me put forward the notion that the idea of a quantum represents one unit of deviation between
the descriptions of the world with regard to the similarities vs. a description of the world with
regard to the dissimilarities.
This is such a fundamental thought that it does indeed need some getting used to.
In a writeup about the origins of counting I narrate a tribe of homo sapiens that discovers
counting. They made use of the similarity property of mammuts and of fingers so that they created
the concept of unit.
What they neglected is to dwell into formal linguistics and go thru elaborating that by saying
<such> is similar to <such> they have chosen this approach against the approach
<such> is different to <such>. Since those times, it is a widely held belief that
counting has something to do with similarities and nothing with dissimilarities. Had our ancestors
decided to stress the dissimilarity properties of mammuts and of fingers, they would have evolved a
counting system that differs to ours by an extremely small amount, statistically.
The difference - inexactitude - between the two ways of enumerating the mammuts and the fingers is
indeed extremely small but does have an expected extent, statistically. This extent can come about
in quite many forms and ways. It appears that applied science calls this "a quantum".
As to Pedro:
dear Pedro, please allow me to add to your statement:
> --none of the current approaches has achieved a breakthrough yet, so the
> need for our exchange of views!
that the approach re similarity-dissimilarity does explain quite many natural constants and ordering
principles, so it is only in a social sense that a breakthrough is yet to diffuse outside FIS.
Within FIS, I believe, there is an emerging consensus that there might be something true about
additions being more complicated than at first meets the eye.
In this sense, I too look forward this year's discussions.
Karl
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Sep 12 16:01:04 2006
