I would like to add that anytime someone invokes the uncertainty principle in philosophy, beware.   Also, anytime someone uses it in conjunction with induction, watch out.  Fallacy ahead.  If anything, inductive predictions are based on Bayes theorem, not uncertainty principle.

That detector is designed to detect Higgs Boson and super symmetry IIRC.

They have a general idea of where the particles are going to end up because they carefully took into account the wave functions and potential wells (V(x.) in S.E.). 

All they're doing is controlling the wave. They finely tune whatever they want to measure by magnetic fields and such. They get a higher accuracy on the parameter they want to measure, and less on the other one, but it shouldn't matter since they are measuring that one parameter, they probably don't care about the other one. But it depends on what they're looking for.

Seriously, do you really think they're going to overcome the uncertainty principle?

Information theory is a fundamental part of my beliefs. That along with uncertainty principle and the Zero Point Field.

Which is why I learn as much about them as I can.

Not 'overcome', but 'suspend' with a high probability approaching 100% up to 100% potential luminosity of the beam.

Not just finding a Higgs-boson, but determining the field parameters and amount of 'drag' and incorporating that into theory.

Eventually. I mean shit! it hasn't even been turned on yet.

Call it my one piece of 'faith'.

I understand your point, that's one way of observing things. But the universe is strange. Quantum of matter and energy has a value assigned to it. When we observe matter and energy, it has this mass, position, wavelength(information). So maybe one could say the universe is a giant coding of information. The matter and energy we observe is just results of this coding.

It seems like a chicken or the egg dilemma. Matter and energy can't exist without an information encoding. Information can't exist without matter or energy. So a universe without matter and energy is like a computer with it's memory erased. Here is an article on teleportation that talks more about this:

http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html

But you defend the thesis that there is an "original matter of the universe": information.

Yes. For me the concept of "information" is at the basis of everything we call "nature". The moon, the chair, the equation of states, anything and everything, because we can't talk about anything without de facto speaking about the information we have of these things. In this sense the information is the basic building block of our world.

 

I'm not that familiar with Godel.

I believe his law involves something about algorithms taking an infinite time to compute or something?

That's probably way off.

No. We assign a value to these things.

Not until we measure it.

OK. Where is the information?

Yes it can. All of the matter and energy in the universe existed long before any information had been created at all.

Very true. Actually, NOTHING can exist without matter and energy.

No, a universe without matter and energy would be like memory without a computer. Which is logically impossible since memory is only a description of the state of the computer.

Read again what you wrote. Everything we call nature. We can't talk about anything without speaking about information. Your position assumes that nothing can exist without our awareness of it. But it can, demonstrably. Your point should be that we cannot KNOW anything about anything without information. But our knowing about something is not a precondition for its existence. 

Can we defend the existence of things about which we know nothing? Sure we can. We discover new stuff all the time. Inductively, we would expect that there must be many things in the universe that we have no information about. We can even theorize that there are many things in the universe that NOONE knows about ie they have never been observed by any mind. Can they be said to exist?

I think if we try to make the claim that they don't exist, we put ourselves in an awkward position when it comes to explaining where all these new discoveries come from. So we need a different fundamental ontological condition for existence than just information. I propose that matter and energy should be that condition. If a thing is made of matter and/or energy, then it exists, whether there is any information about it or not.

OK, give us an example of a particle of matter that does not have a position and mass value(information) or a photon that does not have a position and energy level(information). If matter/energy exist they have information. If there is information there is matter/energy. They are codependent.

But they contain information whether people assign a value or not to them. If a tree falls in the forest an know one is there to hear it, the sound it makes contains information about the tree falling. It just happens to not get picked up by ears.

There is information running around your computer. But you're not measuring it right? But the information is still there.

Imagine you are the CPU in your computer. All you can know is values stored in registers and memory. This information is fundumental element of your world, you can't know anything else. Where would you say the information is located?

And visa verse.

You look at a photographs and videos on your computer screen and get the sensation of matter energy. Yet these can not exist without information in your computer.

What do you mean, you can get a memory chip. Power it up, program it with information. It can be stand alone, doesn't need to be part of any computer.

A vacuum of space has zero information, right. When you introduce matter and energy into the vacuum the information count goes up by the amount of matter and energy in the system. So one could say you're introducing information to the vaccuum, matter and energy are observed phenomena due the information introduced into the system.

No that is not what I'm saying. Information exists whether it is observed by a human or not. I'm saying that matter/energy are phenomena caused by information contained in space, not the other way around. It is like we are in a computer and all we can do is read quantum values in memory(space). This information is the fundamental element of the universe not the matter/energy we observe due to information in the memory.

I think quantum physics, relativity and the second law of thermodynamics can only make sense if we view the universe this way. For example, in quantum tunneling , it can appear as if particles can travel faster than the speed of light. What's actually happening is the probable location of a particle is travelling faster than light, not the particle. A transformation of information is going on, not a movement of particles. As it turns out information is what really can't travel faster than the speed of light. It is like the universe has a fundamental clock speed as in a computer, information obeys this speed limit not matter/energy.

We can't know if we are living in a virtual reality world like the Matrix. All we can know is at the fundamental level of our observable universe is finite or quantized bits of information.

The virtual particles are a matter/anti-matter pair. i.e they eliminate each other so the time uncertainty allows for it to be broken for a very short time.

I'm pretty sure information is stored on energy states, so I think the information will change.

What's Entropy? lulz j/k

Not sure how that question is valid, since it would be fallacious given your own standpoint. It seems that you are arguing for the standard definition of information (observables of energy or matter transceived and interpreted). It is not true that vacuums store zero information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_expectation_value), and it is true that vacuums are a permissible means of information transferral.

Or, one could say that creating a perfect vacuum is akin to dividing by zero - physically impossible doesn't quite cover it since in order to do either given natural axioms we would have to tear logic a new one.

I think you straw manned each other there.

Information exists whether it is observed by a human or not: It is known that the act of measurement often destroys the precise state of an observable. When photons of light pass through glass, the photons that entered on one side are not the same as the ones exiting on the other. What occurs when the glass observes and then transmits light has more to do with electrons changing position than the permeability of matter. Only a hand full of the original photons (so called ballistic photons) really make it out the other side, the rest are reconstructed from the electron cascade known as refraction.

Given that information is an interpretable observable, glass qualifies as an observer. Furthermore, as I have already implied there is no such thing as "no matter or energy" as long as we are talking about a place that has either space or time. Finally, while we cannot be certain the state of information prior to observation we can emphatically say that there is information to be observed. Since every interaction boils down to observations and observers, matter and energy and information are meaningless without any one of the three.

This is now well supported by experiment as of the May 12th issue of Science. A photon entering a medium of highly entangled matter changes the electron state on one side thereby changing the net electron state on the other, which then emits a photon on the other side. Meanwhile, a virtual photon is created and backpropagates toward the source photon at something like -300c.

Regardless of what exists, it is necessary to be able to make predictions in order to support theory. The theory predicts the phenomena mentioned, to the dismay of several dead German physicists and the joy of one. Whether observables retain a state prior to observation is a matter of interpretive opinion, and it cannot be said to really be either way based on QED.

If you subscribe to Many Worlds Interpretation, in order to be consistent you must say that the particle IS actually somewhere but possibly not in this universe. If you subscribe to the Copenhagen Interpretation you must also say that the position of an observable prior to observation is meaningless. The "Shut Up and Calculate" Interpretation says just that - anything beyond the math according to the theory is meaningless.

Still other interpretations have additional requirements, but none of them actually affect the predictions of QED or the experimental results so far. So both of you are making baseless assertions.

We can know if we are living in a virtual reality (more accurately described as a sub-reality of another one), and this is discussed in another thread. So far the fundamental reality of what we perceive is most accurately described by QED, which says next to nothing about the philosophical "reality of reality."

This would be more productive as a philosophical discussion under the axioms of quantum logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic).

However as I pointed out, nowhere in the accepted definition of information is an observer mentioned. Observable does not imply observed, thus information exists despite its translation. The essential requirement here is that it is translatable.

How would you support that? How will you treat the known axioms and evidence to show that this wouldn't ultimately lead to last-Thursday-ism and the resulting tremendous complication?

Application of Occam's razor. Is it simpler to transfer a state or reconstitute it from previous interactions? If it is the former, then the state travels through time (likely being observed by other states) to get to the present point of observation. If it is the latter, then current interaction must be individually rebuilt from all previous relevant interactions leading to a constant growth in complexity which isn't particularly useful or explanitory.

I'm not sure whether that question can be answered. It's similar to asking "where are my keys when they aren't in my pocket?" We can use induce where information probably was between observations with tremendous precision and furthermore look for additional interactions (natural observations such as stimulated photon emission caused by an incident photon) which took place in the meantime to support the idea.

Information is simply an observable prior to or during observation. It is a true identity because of the way we define it. Anything that is unobservable, non-transmittable, or un-interpretable under any physically possible condition is not information. Anything that satisfies all three requirements is information regardless of whether it is in fact observed, transmitted, or interpreted. The definition only addresses possibility, not present fact.

If it is true that information only exists for as long as it is observed then a suitable alternative method of causation is required. No interpretation states that information only exists as long as there is an observer - quite the contrary. In a situation where for a time there is no observer the information takes on a finite state. In the case of Schrodinger's Cat we end up with a Hadamard array that represents both states.

The use of intermediate state stability under certain rules is what makes quantum computing a reality today. The fact that those rules allow us to use certain "imaginary" intermediates (see Hadamard gate, phase shift gate, and other devices that don't exist in transistor circuitry) is what makes emulating them on a classical computer look like a slide-rule trying to emulate Guitar Hero.

You can deny it philosophically, but as far as practicality goes it's almost a non-issue. Here are some loose inductive arguments showing why:

Logical reiteration of past events is an essential requirement for time, and must transfer upward to any system emulating another over time. Any system complex enough to emulate another system required time to reach a point where it was competent enough to do so, something had to develop it. It is an accepted axiom that complexity is derived from simplicity, not the other way around. Thus, simple rules are usually the answer. Since it is simpler to make predictions derived from the idea that our world is a root world rather than a derivative world it is likely the case that our world is a root world.

Since every programmed system uses statements, every programmed system emulating another has limitations such that it will contain statements which are internally inconsistent and thus produce physical impossibilities which would ordinarily follow from all other rules within the emulation. It is computationally easier to build an emulation from a series of complex rules than a single simple one. All limitations in a system are unnecessary for a natural system. These limitations would quickly become apparent and very confusing to an observer inside the emulation. Since no logical inconsistencies have been found within our world, it cannot be the case that we are living in an emulation.

Close. As noted in the article, in order to dig into quantum logic we have to drop the distributive law of logic for propositions. For example, quantum logic means it cannot be known from a given true statement such as

"Ann is standing left of Tom, Tom is left of Amy"

whether it is true or false that

"Ann is left of Amy."

even though it would make sense ordinarily since if Ann is a particle then she can be in two places at once, or so similar to Amy that it's impossible to describe either without the other.

Regardless of the dictionary definition of information, by "accepted definition" I am referring to the prior to agreed meaning of that thing which we are talking about. Thus, to expand what you are asking:

Without an observer, where is the observable? In what sense does an observable exist prior to observation?

Now, if an observable does not exist prior to its observation then what is it that we are observing? Thus, it cannot be that observation leads to the observable, predicate does not specify subject, and the universe isn't the product of its future contents.

Then you must accept my next premise, which is derived from pragmatism,

which I think you may have misinterpreted.

When I refer to observation I am usually not referring to human observation. I use observation as a specific kind of interaction. I refer to interactions which collapse the wave function as observations, and refer to interactions which don't simply as interactions.

It is sometimes the case that the net result of several interactions is an observation and sometimes the case that several observations lead to one interaction.

It seems as though you're equivocating knowledge with information, when they are not the same.

Perhaps if I establish specific identities for each it will become clear:

One can know a fact, one can know a theory, etc. One can only know the identity of a hypothesis, but only be informed about a hypothesis - once you know it it becomes a theory or fact depending on its plurality. If you define information differently then you take away the stability of its meaning and it lends to self-contradiction.

If something is un-observable (as I illustrated above observable means it undergoes collapse) then nothing can interact with it. The universe would be completely random. What you're inadvertently doing by claiming that information doesn't exist prior to knowledge is making mankind a homunculus for the universe while giving no reason for us ourselves not to have a homunculus.

It is not everything and nothing. If it was then we couldn't make any predictions. To use the example of Schrodinger's cat again:

1. When we close the box, the cat is half alive and half dead since there is a 50% chance it died right away.
2. As time passes, the chance that the cat is dead remains the same but the probability increases.
3. The longer we wait, the state superposition shifts closer to "dead cat" by a specific amount according to the half life of the radioactive material in the box.
4. If we run the experiment a multitude of times, we find that the time waited prior to observation precisely matches our predictions unless
5. Quantum mechanics is wrong in which case
6. The cat never dies according to net probability which would also mean that
7. Evolution is wrong because
8. Evolution works by the same method.

The law of identity only says that an existant must be identical to itself and says nothing of its state. In mathematical terms cat y at the time t when it's in the box of doom has state f(y,t) such that:

f(y,t)=[t/sqrt(2)]*[1,1;1,-1]

We could precisely identify the cat by integrating its state probability equations from t to complex infinity (a super-task, but not an impossible one), and that would give us its likely position even at the beginning of time as we know it.

Regardless, quantum mechanics doesn't care about how we define what a cat is. We probably wouldn't call a cat at t=0 a cat except that we already know that all of those particles are going to be a cat later.

Yes, there are several small ones. Here is a starting point for the relevant info on that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction-free_measurement

And here is a quantum computer in action:

By saying that you are contending that it is possible to create a

"consistent formal, recursively enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths,"

such that

"an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can (not) be constructed."

In blatant disregard for the known fact that

"any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete."

Which is Gödel's first incompleteness theorem. Thus, you are implying via logic that logic is illogical - circulus in propter. This is an undeniable fact of coherency, not a mere lack of ability!

The brain in a vat is a philosophical question, and has no bearing on the way things ACTUALLY are. It only works as long as you accept the implied premise that "a sentient being is capable of physically violating the rules of logic," and if you accept that then you must accept the resulting not insignificant probability that magic is real and waiting right around the corner. It's an actual slippery slope.

If it were just twiddling in our heads then quantum computers shouldn't work, since we discovered the components using the conclusions drawn from the math. Remember that in order to conduct science we first form a hypothesis using the math and then test it. Time and again the correctly obeyed math has resulted in discovery, and the poorly constructed equations have resulted in pseudoscience and failure. Though it's true that sometimes when you trade a cow for beans you get magic beans, it's not something we can (or should) count on.

The classical model is supported by the quantum model, and it is only our lack of experimental evidence for our predictions that prevents us from understanding the universe beyond QED.  There aren't any discrepancies as long as we stick to the mathematical implications and don't try to draw any conclusions from the various interpretations until the hypotheses we have already are verified.