The World As A Hologram

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Of course not. That's crazy. Reality is my opinion, and only my opinion. And I'll prove it just as soon as I untangle the really long sleeves of this jacket the put on me and out of this small but comfortably padded room.

Hey! I thought that was you next door. Could you keep it down? I can barely hear what my imaginary talking monkey is saying.

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Watched the video and think its pure speculation.

When someone starts to postulate about bits and the universe it seems like it would lead to some type of intelligent design.

Meaning everything is programmed to act and behave a certain way. Otherwise I would like to see someone jump in a black hole or try to reprogram the universe.

[WyattDerp]

Originally Posted by uberrobonomicon4000

When someone starts to postulate about bits and the universe it seems like it would lead to some type of intelligent design.

Meaning everything is programmed to act and behave a certain way.

One has nothing do with the other in this context. "Bit" is just a word of saying "unit of information". And even if what you said made any sense, then at best you're dismissing it as invalid because you don't like the result? Huh. It doesn't even lead to the result, but you're not to find out because you aborted.

And even if the Universe was "programmed" in whatever way you may mean, from that would not follow that parts of that same universe can simply "reprogram the universe". Just like me writing this sentence doesn't mean the letters can just reassemble themselves into a different one.

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Originally Posted by WyattDerp

One has nothing do with the other in this context. "Bit" is just a word of saying "unit of information". And even if what you said made any sense, then at best you're dismissing it as invalid because you don't like the result? Huh. It doesn't even lead to the result, but you're not to find out because you aborted.

And even if the Universe was "programmed" in whatever way you may mean, from that would not follow that parts of that same universe can simply "reprogram the universe". Just like me writing this sentence doesn't mean the letters can just reassemble themselves into a different one.

I know what a bit is, but it’s much more than a unit of information. Yet, at the same time a bit means absolutely nothing.

In physics, I’m sure they are referring to some type of particle, which has properties and acts and behaves a certain way given a specified set of parameters.
However, even like water, can you tell me it cannot change its state? You can look at it in nature and realize it can go through several different states (or changes). So nothing is predefined or programmed to act or behave a certain way.

I’m not knocking your post or the video because I enjoyed the part on holograms. I found interesting when he related 2D environments to actual 3D. It makes me think of X-men holograms, which were true holograms.

[WyattDerp]

Originally Posted by uberrobonomicon4000

In physics, I’m sure they are referring to some type of particle, which has properties and acts and behaves a certain way given a specified set of parameters.

I think it's more information theory than physics, it's not referring to a particle.

However, even like water, can you tell me it cannot change its state? You can look at it in nature and realize it can go through several different states (or changes). So nothing is predefined or programmed to act or behave a certain way.

That doesn't follow. If a ball rolls down a slope, the fact that it does roll down the slope doesn't prove it's not "programmed" to act that way.

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Originally Posted by WyattDerp

I think it's more information theory than physics, it's not referring to a particle.

eh... if that is the case then physics doesn't have much to say about particles.

Originally Posted by WyattDerp

That doesn't follow. If a ball rolls down a slope, the fact that it does roll down the slope doesn't prove it's not "programmed" to act that way.

I believe you are making the same point, yet missing it at the same time.

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Originally Posted by uberrobonomicon4000

I know what a bit is, but it’s much more than a unit of information. Yet, at the same time a bit means absolutely nothing.

Both in classical and quantum information theory, it has a very specific meaning.

In physics, I’m sure they are referring to some type of particle, which has properties and acts and behaves a certain way given a specified set of parameters.

The fundamental framework for quantum physics and quantum field theory is mathematical. At the heart of QM is the idea of a quantum system's "state". Information theory defines information through probabilities (more or less). The reason binary code is useful is because a bit can take on one of two possible state, and therefore it has alternatives. Information theory defines information through alternatives. Quantum mechanics describes physical reality via a mathematical apparatus with no obvious, direct connection to physical reality. The ways in which a particular quantum system is characterized is mathematical, and does not correspond in any one-to-one fashion with characteristics of the physical system. In this it differs fundamentally from classical physics, in which things like location, velocity, momentum, etc., were represented as variables which characterized as system in a one-to-one fashion: a "particle' would have specific 3D coordinates at some time t, would have a mass, would be traveling with a particular velocity, etc.

In quantum physics, this isn't possible. Mathematically, we represent quantum systems (such as a photon) as being characterized by different possible states at the same time. For simplicity, one could think of these descriptions as a probability function. Thus the manner in which we describe physical reality at the quantum level is probabilistic. Some argue that it is irreducibily so, but whatever the actual relation between the mathematical descriptions of quantum systems and physical reality, information theory provides an excellent way of describing physical systems. Information is defined by alternatives, and quantum systems are literally described in terms of "existing" in alternate states.

However, even like water, can you tell me it cannot change its state? You can look at it in nature and realize it can go through several different states (or changes). So nothing is predefined or programmed to act or behave a certain way.

It is the possibility of different states that motivates the term "bits" (or qubits).

I’m not knocking your post or the video because I enjoyed the part on holograms. I found interesting when he related 2D environments to actual 3D. It makes me think of X-men holograms, which were true holograms.

Dimensionality reduction, thought, is in this case much more a matter of mathematics than it is holograms. Quantum physics describes reality at a very small scale. But as everything is composed of things at that scale, it is supposed to describe everything. It doesn't (or at least not well, as among other things it conflicts with the only theoretical framework within physics which rivals QM- relativity). At the macro-level, gravity is not just ensuring what goes up must come down, but is a fundamental component to current models of the cosmos. Spacetime curvature, the lack of an absolute reference frame, etc., all relates to gravity. But gravity doesn't currently "fit" well within quantum mechanics. So there are various ways in which physicists have incorporated gravity to create relativistic quantum mechanics, but the problem is we don't currently have much in the way of testing these various solutions. The holographic principle plays a role in some solutions. But again, the term is based on the re-incorporation of information theory into physics (it had been rather central earlier, as it relates to entropy, but it wasn't really needed). The basic description of all matter is one of possible states, and therefore "bits" of information.

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Both in classical and quantum information theory, it has a very specific meaning.

Bits and Qubits are two entirely different things.

One refers to QM and the other doesn’t, as in QM refers to entanglement. Meaning a bit or "qubit" can be in two different places at once. An original bit, an electrical bit, can’t, while a photon can, depending the mathematical probability (or state).

I'm not ignoring the other part of your posts. I will respond to it later.

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Also, something else consider, if a black hole is something not even light can escape then what type of particle are we talking about?

That is, if a bit (Qubit according to QM) is considered to carry or have information, then that information has to be present in some type of particle and travel in or through some type of medium.

So that bit or qubit needs to be clearly defined before it can be considered a particle.

Is it the Higgs Boson? Is it anti-gravity? Is it plasma? How do you capture that particle to transmit data or represent it?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Originally Posted by uberrobonomicon4000

Bits and Qubits are two entirely different things.

One refers to QM and the other doesn’t, as in QM refers to entanglement.

"Before analyzing in detail the resulting distinction between quantum and classical information, let us take note of some common misconceptions about the relationship of information to the physical world related to the increasingly popular idea that information is physical in nature. The greatest and most common error of this sort is naively to identify information with the physical systems that may be used in communicating it."
Jaeger, G. (2009). Entanglement, information, and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Springer.

They are not entirely different, but very similar. For one, both are part of information theory and derive their origins from there. For another, both were used before to characterize physical systems. Finally, this:

Meaning a bit or "qubit" can be in two different places at once

is a fundamentally problematic way of looking at qubits. The reason that information theory and its formalism was adopted in physics is in part to avoid (or bypass) the inconvenience of describing physical systems using classical formalisms (math), but without being able to relate the mathematical descriptions (classical formalisms) of the physical systems to the systems themselves. This is still an area of much debate, but the use of information theory provides a way to frame experimental results, methods, findings, etc., which is useful, free of any interpretative framework for the measurement process, and capable of stimulating further progress.

However, as soon as one relates qubits to quantum systems, one has introduced the same problem which has plagued modern physics since Einstein and Bohr had their no-holds-barred combat match about the completeness and interpretation of quantum mechanics. By using information theory, one can adopt the probabilistic interpretation of QM without actually applying this to the physical systems. The fact that the mathematics imply e.g., an electron as being in more than one location in physical space is avoided entirely. Additionally, while the probabilistic interpretation still implied that the photon actually was somewhere in some form (an interpretation that couldn't be validated), the use of information theory makes this irrelevant. It only considers possibility states as abstractions. The success of QM formalism (which is incredible) is maintained, but the problem of making physics actualy describe the physical is put aside.

In this way, a qubit is exactly like a bit, but is not binary. Of course, qubits do have some relation to actual physical systems. However, so do bits used in standard computing. The difference is not particularly important, as a central reason for the adoption of information theory and "qubits" in quantum physics is the abstract nature of mathematical characterizations of quantum systems. So not only do both bits and qubits come from the same source (the formalizing of information by Miller, Shannon, Weaver, and others), they are both used to describe abstractly elements which can be realized in some sense physically yet need not be (as the section I quoted above is careful to point out).

An original bit, an electrical bit, can’t, while a photon can, depending the mathematical probability (or state).

An original bit isn't electrical at all: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information

Neither "bit" nor "qubits" exist in places at all. They are descriptions of possibilities. One is a description in which two states are possible, and only two states, are possible. It could be the flip of a coin.