The Foundation of Reality: Information or Quantum Mechanics?
The nature of information is the key question for those pondering the laws of physics.
kfc 05/18/2009
- 12 Comments

We've all come across the mind-blowing weirdness of quantum mechanics; that it makes its predictions in probabilistic rather them deterministic form, that it does not allow unknown states to be copied and that one quantum object can instantly influence another regardless of the distance between them, but not in a way that allows faster-than-light communication.
That's one helluva a theory and in recent years physicists have discovered an entire class of theories that do the same kind of thing. The question is which one do we choose?
A few can be ruled out because they simplify various computational tasks in implausible ways. But the rest have seemed more or less equivalent. Until now.
Marcin Pawlowski at the University of Gdansk in Poland and a few pals say that the addition of a single additional consideration, quickly and easily separates the non-physical theories from the physical ones.
The idea is based around information and can be stated simply. The rule is this: the sending of "m" classical bits causes an information gain of, at most, "m" bits.
It sounds bewilderingly simple and perhaps it is. Pawlowski and co say that without this principle, non-physical theories allow extra information to be sent. They point out that the rule applies only to classical bits. In the real quantum world, extra infromation can be sent using the ideas of super dense coding.
The team say because the idea distinguishes between physical and non-physical versions of quantum mechanics, it must be a fundamental property of the universe.
Perhaps. The problem with this argument is that the new rule so far gives no insight into the nature of quantum mechanics (or information) and seems to have no predictive power. That's not going to be much use to anybody.
The truth is that this team is not the first to consider the role that information plays in quantum mechanics.
There are no shortage of theorists who recognise the problem of understanding the nature of information as the outstanding mystery of our era.
Various teams are wrestling with the problem of producing a quantum version of Shannon's Theory of Communication which describes how a classical message created at one point in space can be recreated at another. The problem is how to describe in very general terms the rules that govern how a quantum message created at one point in space can be recreated at another.
Others are attempting to redraw the laws of quantum mechanics in terms of quantum information alone.
Roy Frieden at the University of Arizon in Phoenix, has already derived the laws of physics, including the Schrodinger equation, using the powerful idea of Fisher information (although the method has not produced the kind of predictions needed to make it mainstream).
All this work stems from the growing realisation that it is not the laws of physics that determine how information behaves in our Universe, but the other way round. The implication is extraordinary: that somehow, information is the ghostly bedrock of our Universe and from it, all else is derived. That really is mind-blowing.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0905.2292: A New Physical Principle: Information Causality



tulcod
6 Comments
My personal theory
I have personally thought about the foundations of reality before (I'm interested in physics but definitely not a real physicist), and what I highly suspect is the truth is the following.
Consider the theory of forms, and imagine that the forms in a world of forms are theories. This world of forms has no rules (thus there is nothing keeping such a world from existing, thus it exists), so there is no equivalent of Newton's first law of gravity, and there is no such thing as time either, so everything can exist. Physical theories, mathematical theories, anything. In fact, all logically possible theories, and likely all logically impossible theories as well, since logic is just a theory too, are in this world of forms. Our world is just one of those theories, existing solely because the Idea of such a world exists.
This is a theory I can live with, it's keeping me away from religion. We exist because if we wouldn't exist, there would need to be a "law of inertia" keeping us from existing, which would imply the existence of another theory, so something else would exist. My theory implies something of a MWI for physical (and other) theories. Also note that this has interesting implications on the is-math-created-or-discovered-discussion.
Perhaps things suddenly make sense for the physicists in Poland now, perhaps this is just another random post from a random guy on this web of fake knowledge.
Reply
morganxander
1 Comment
Re: My personal theory
Wow. I agree one hundred percent. I have formulated a similar theory. Except that instead of saying "forms," I used concepts. For instance, a man that does not have a concept of color may physically see orange and red, but if asked to distinguish between an orange and red circle, he will not be able to, because he has no concept of color. So we are experiencing all sorts of things, but they are beyond human conception/imagination and so do not exist for us.
Reply
stephan.froede
6 Comments
Re: My personal theory
Sorry, I think your theory was first made up ca 2500 years ago by Plato.
Some philosophers think that the theory of forms is to unflexible to explain anything useful. Some even say it is plainly wrong and misleading, or they are saying this theory is only a product of human imagination read our wish to see forms.
So it is more like a fata morgana.
Reply
tulcod
6 Comments
Re: My personal theory
Hey, first of all, I love the fact that others even want to discuss about this.
However, since when do philosophers make sense? If a philosopher's not writing a book on an unrelated topic, (s)he's pessimistically walking around the world because (s)he's a nihilist, and if there's one thing which doesn't make sense, it's nihilism. Plus, philosophers usually don't know crap about physics.
You're right, though, this is actually simply a different use of Plato's theory, with a few added backup arguments.
Reply
ZephirAWT
299 Comments
Re: My personal theory
I do believe, things exists in objective way, if they're existing in patterns, multiple instances (analogies) or probability gradients, so they can be distinguished from pure noise. If nothing would exist, we couldn't distinguish the existence from nonexistence.
Reply