COMi wu S wiNTROPY AND THE PHYSICS OF INFORMATION THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1988 WORKSHOP ON COMPLEXITY, ENTROPY, AND THE PHYSICS OF INFORMATION HELD MAY-JUNE, 1989 IN SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO Edited by Wojciech H. Zurek, Los Alamas National Laboratory ‘and Santa Fe Institute Volume VIL SANTA FE INSTITUTE STUDIES IN THE SCIENCES OF COMPLEXITY ‘Addison-Wesley Publishing Company ‘The Advanced Book Pragram lifoenia Reading, Massachusetts Mills, Ontario Wokingham, United Kingdom Amster Bonn Syeiney Singapore» Tokyo» Masri San JuanPublisher: Allan M. Wylde Prodsction Manager: am V. Renee (Marketing Manager: Laura Lely About the Santa Fe Institute ‘The Santa Fe Institute (SFI) is a multidisciplinary graduate research and teach- ing institution formed to nurture research on complex systems and theis simpler elements. A private, independent institution, SFT was founded in 1984. Ite pri mary concern is to focus the tools of traditional scientific disciplines and emerging now computer resources on the problems and opportunities that are involved in the multidiseiplinary study of complex systems—those fundamental processes that sliape almost every aspect of human life. Understanding complex systema is critical > realising the fall potential of science, and may e expected to yield enormous Director of Publications, Santa Fe Institute: Ronda K, Butler-Villa intellectual and practical benefits. ™ " “Technical Assistant, Santa Fe Institute: Della, Ulibarri All tls from the Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complezity series will carry thi poltery design (cirea A.D. 950-1150), drawn by Betsy Jones. “Library of Congress Cataloging: in-Publication Data ‘Complex entropy, an the physics ofinfdemarion: proceedings ofthe SFL ‘Workshop entitled, *complesiry, entropy, and the physics of information, held May 29 ro June 10, 1989/edined by Wojeiech Zurck pem.—(Santa Fe Insite sie in the sciences of complex Proceedings: 8) Tacluces bibliographical references and index. 1 Physical measurements—-Congresses 2, Computational complexity —Congresss. 3. Btropy—Congresses. 4. Quantum dheory—Congreses. 1. Zurek, Wojeiech Hubert, 1951~. IL Series: Proceedings volume inthe Santa Fe Tostiate studies inthe sciences of ‘complexing 8 QC39.$48" 1991 530.1'6—ae20 90.683 ISBN 0-201-51509-1.—ISBN 0-201 -$1506-7 (pbk) ‘This volume was typeset using TpXtures on a Macintosh HT computer. Cmera-ready ourpet fom an Apple LaseeWiterPhs Pinter. Copyright © 1990 by Adalison-Wesley Publishing Company, The Advanced Book Program, 350 Bridge Parkway Rechvood City, CA 94065 llrightsreserved. No parrof this publication may be reproduced stored inaretrival system, ‘orceansmitted in any formor by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording. ‘or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed inthe United Seates of América, Published simulrancously in Canada ABCDEFGHT}-MA-943210Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity PROCEEDINGS VOLUMES Volume Editor Title I David Pines Emerging Syntheses in Science, 1987 = 1 Alan 8. Perelson ‘Theoretical Immunology, Part One, 1988 I Alan 8. Perelson ‘Theoretical Immunology, Part Two, 1988 IV Gary D. Doolen et al. Lattice Gas Methods of Pactial Differential Equations, 1989 v Philip W. Anderson et al. The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, 1988 VI Christopher G. Langton Artificial Life: Proceedings of ‘an Interdisciplinary Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, 1988 ‘VII George I. Bell & Computers and DNA, 1989 ‘Thomas G. Mare VII Wojciech H. Zurek Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, 1990 Molecular Evolution on Rugged Landscapes: Proteins, RNA and the Immune System, 1996 IX Alan §. Perelson & Stuast A. Kauffman LECTURES VOLUMES Volume Editor ‘Tide 1 Daniel L. Stein Lectures in the Sciences of Complexity, 1988 1 Erica Jen 1989-Lectures in Complex Systems Santa Fe Institute Editorial Board ‘August 19% 1. M. Simmons, Jr, Chair ‘Bxecutive Vice President, Santa Fe Institute Dr. Robert McCormick Adems Secretary, Smithsonian Institute Professor Philip W. Anderson Department of Physics, Princeton University Professor Kenneth J. Arrow Department of Economics, Stanford University Professor W. Brian Arthur ‘Dean &¢ Virginia Morrison Professor of Population Studies and Beonomics, Food Research Institute, Stanford University De, George I. Bell Leader, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory Dr. David K. Campbell Ditector, Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory Dr. George A. Cowan, President, Santa Fe Institute and Senior Fellow Emeritus, Los Alamos National Laboratory Professor Marcus W. Feldman Dizector, Institute for Population & Resource Studies, Stanford University Professor Murray Gell-Mann Division of Physics & Astronomy, California Institute of Technology Professor John H. Holland Division of Computer Science & Bagincering, University of Michigan Dr. Bela Julese Head, Visual Perception Research, AT&: '? Bell Laboratories Professor Stuart Kauffman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Dr, Alan Perelson ‘Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory Professor David Pines Department of Physics, University of Mino!Contributors to This Volume David Z. Albert, Columbia University J.W. Barrett, The University, Neweastle upon Tyne, UK ‘Charles H. Bennett, [BM Thomas J. Watson Research Center Carlton M. Caves, University of Southern California James P. Crutchfield, University of California, Berkeley P.C. W. Davies, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Murray Gell-Mann, California Institute of Technology Jonathan J. Halliwell, University of California, Sente Berbara James B. Hartle, University of California, Santa Barbara Tad Hogg, Xeroz Palo Alto Research Center E. T. Jaynes, Washington University Stuart A. Kauffman, University of Pennsylvania and Santa Fe Institute L.A. Khalfin, Stetlow Mathematical Institute of the Academy of Sciences, USSR Dilip K. Kondepudi, Wake Forest University Seth Lloyd, California Institute of Technology G. Mahler, Institut far Theoretische Physik, Universitat Stuttgart, PRG Norman Margolus, MIT Laboratory for Compater Science V. F, Mukhanov, Institute for Nuclear Research, USSR Roland Ommes, Laboratoire de Physique Théorigque et Houtes Bneryies, Université de Paris-Sud, France M, Hossein Partovi, California Stote University, Sacramento Asher Peres, Technion, Jsruel Institute of Technology J. Rissanen, IBM Almaden Research Center 0. E. Ressler, Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tibingen, PRE Benjamin Schumacher, Kenyon College Shin Takagi, Tohoku University, Japan W.G. Teich, Institut far Theoretische Physik, Universitat Stuttgart, FRG ‘Tommaso Toffoli, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science Xiao-Jing Wang, Center for Studies in Statistical Mechanics, University of Tezes, ‘Austin John Archibald Wheeler, Princeton University and University of Tezas, Austin ©. H. Woo, Center for Theoretical Physics, University of Maryland William K. Wootters, Santa Fe Institute; Center for Nonlinear Studies and ‘Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Leboratory, and Williams College Karl Young, University of California, Santa Cruz A. Zee, University of California, Sante Barbara H. D. Zeh, Institute fir Theoretische Physik, Universitit Heidelberg, FRG W. H. Zurek, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Senta Fe Institute ee Foreword Forew ol $$ — $ $$ $$ COMPLEXITY, ENTROPY, AND THE PHYSICS OF INFORMATION—A MANIFESTO Tanto rat he ae re ef a er yl a A eg cays ra er aa Toh pay, sae cited ee of Se pnd ran enc po Complexity, Enttopy, and the Physics of Information, SFI Studios in the Sciences of Complexity, vl Vil, Ed. W. H.Zurek, Adsison-Wesley, 1990 VHTviii Wojciech H. Zurok It is, however, difficult to deny that the process of information gain can be directly tied to the ability to extract useful work. Thus, questions concerning thes. ‘modynamics, the second law, and the arrow of time have become intertwined with half-century-old puzzle, that of the problem of measurements in quantum physics, © Quontum measurements are usually analyzed in abstract terms of wave func- tons and hamiltonians. Only very few discussions of the measurement. problem in quantum theory make an explicit effort to consider the erucial issue—the transfer of information. Yet obtaining knowledge is the very reason for make ing a measurement. Formulating quantum measurements and, more generally, quantum phenomena in terms of information should throw a new light on the problem of measurement, which has become difficult to ignore in light of new experiments on quantum behavior in macroscopic systems. ‘The distinction between what i and what is known to be, so cleat in classi- cal physics, is blurred, and perhaps does not exist at all on a quantum level. For instance, energetically insignificant interactions of an object with its quantum environment suffice to destroy its quantum nature, It is as ifthe “watchful eye" of the environment “monitoring” the state of the quantum systein forced it to behave in an effectively classical manner. Yet, even phenomena involving grav ity, which happen on the most macroscopic of all the scales, bear the imprint cof quantum mechanics In fact it was recently suggested that the whole Universe—inchuding configure tions of its gravitational field—may and should be described by means of quantum ‘theory. Interpreting results of the ealculations performed on such a “Wavefunction of the Universe” is difficult, as the rules of thumb usually involved in discussions of experiments oa atoms, photons, and electrons assume that the “measuring ap- paratus” as well as “the observer” are much larger than the quantum system. ‘This is clearly not the ease when the quantum system is the whole Universe. Moreover, the transition from quantum to classical in the early epochs of the existence of the Universe is likely to have influenced its present appearance. = Black hole thermodynamics has established a deep and still largely mysteri- ous connection between general relativity, quantum, and statistical mechanics. Related questions about the information capacity of physical systems, funda- mental limits on the capacity of communication channels, the origin of entropy in the Universe, etc., are a subject of much recent research. ‘The three subjects above lie largely in the domain of physics. The following is- sues forge connections between the natural sciences and the science of computation, or tather, the eubjest of information procesing regarded in the broadest sense of the word. = Physics of computation explores limitations imposed by the laws of physics ‘on the processing of information. It is now established that both classical and quantum systems can be used to perform computations reversibly. That is, computation can be “undone” by running the computer backwards. It appears ix Foreword sus conse tn prima veal "A anereid ot eh lance sr cna wich Wing pice by te axe 62 scr has ete ool rman cnet ao eer see Aen tran of Shanon’ probable defsiton of nterntion. One waco ahr lore ae schemas tenn foes Ca a eal lew aehje base on the hear fem aton ther than op probate Se ee ce ey Sen Nunn ‘object. For instance, a string of 10° 0's and I's: oxoro1o1910101 can be concisely described as “5 - 10* 01 pairs.” By contrast, no concise de- Se nds pin qa ng ng oO gener on a gr ee oe updo on Teme te cy mentee ok eee rhe tarts ro So a ant fee leis iRPidcn feces aS aceon i (on ie win enn wae a em ae on rinse mah os man or nd cote masmy ont oes Be cys gt ne wre amen ten cermin cetera Eta so 2 ee me an an on, wt anx Wojciech H. Zurok PROCEEDINGS ‘This book has emerged from a meeting held during the week of May 29 to June 2, 1989, at St. John’s College in Santa Fe under the auspices of the Santa Fe Institute ‘The (approximately 40) official participants as well as equally numerous “groupies" were enticed to Santa Fe by the above “manifesto.” The book—like the “Complexity, Entropy and Physies of Information” meeting—explores not only the connections between quantum and classical physics, information and its transfer, computation, and their significance for the formulation of physical theories, it also considers the crigins and evolution of the information-processing entities, their complexity, and the manner in which they analyze their perceptions to form models of the Universe. ‘As a result, the contributions can be divided into distinct seetions only with some difficulty. Indeed, I regard this degree of overlapping as a measure of the success of the ‘meeting. It signifies consensus about the important questions and on the antici= pated answers: they all presumably lie somewhere in the “border territory,” where information, physies, complexity, quantum, and computation all meet. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 would like to thank the staff of the Santa Fe Institute for excellent (and friendly) organizational support. In particular, Ginger Richardson was principally responsible {or letting “the order emerge out of chaos” during the meeting. And somehow Ronda Butler-Villa managed the same feat with this volume, T would like to gratefully acknowledge the Santa Fe Institute, the Air Force Office for Scientific Research, and the Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, for the financial (and moral) support which made this meeting possible. Wojciech H. Zurek Los Alamos National Laboratsy. and the Santa Fe Institute Contents ee = Foreword Wojciech H. Zurck vt | Physics of Information 1 Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links John Archibald Wheeler 3 Information from Quantum Measurements ‘Benjamin Sehumacker 2 Local Accessibility of Quantuin States William #. Wootters 29 The Entropy of Black Holes V. iabkanoe aT Some Simple Consequences of the Loss of Information in a Spacetime with a Horizon ‘Shin Takagi 53 Why is the Physical World so Comprehensible? P.O. W. Davies st Il Laws of Physics and Laws of Computation 1 Algorithmic Information Content, Church-Turing Thesis, Physical Entropy, and Maxwell's Demon . W. H. Zarek Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, SFI Stusies in | ‘the Sciences of Complexity, vol. Vill, Ed. W. H. Zurek, Addison-Wesley, 1990 xixi Contents Entropy and Information: How Much Information is Needed to Assign a Probability? Carlton Sf. Caves Complexity of Models J Rissanen Laws and Boundary Conditions C. Woo How to Define Complexity in Physies, and Why Charles H. Bennett Ill Complexity and Evolution Requirements for Evolvability in Complex Systems: Orderly Dynamics and Frozen Components Stuart A. Kauffnen ‘Valuable Information Seth Lloyd Non-Equilibrium Polymers, Entropy, and Algorithmic Information Dilip K. Kondepudi ‘The Dynamics of Complex Computational Systems Tad Hoag Computation at the Onset of Chaos James P. Crutchfield and Karl Young IV Physics of Computation Parallel Quantum Computation Norman Maryolus Information Processing at the Molecular Level: Possible Realizations and Physical Constraints W. G. Teich and G. Matler ‘How Cheap Can Mechanics? First Principles Be? Tommaso Toffoli Intermittent Fluctuations and Complexity Xiao-ding Wong yey o 17 327 137 149 151 193 199 207 228 278 289 301 319 Contents Information Processing in Visual Perception A. Zee V Probability, Entropy, and Quantum ‘Thermodynamic Constraints on Quantum Axioms “Asher Peres ‘Entropy and Quantum Mechanics ‘M. Hossein Partovt Einstein Completion of Quantum Mechanics Made Falsifiable 0. B. Réssler Quantum Mechanics and Algorithmic Complexity J. W. Barrett Probability in Quantum Theory B.D, Jagnes Quantum Measurements and Entropy HD. Zeh VI Quantum Theory and Measurement Quantum Mechanics in the Light of Quantum Cosmology ‘Murrey GellsMann and James B. Hartle Information Dissipation in Quantum Cosmology and the Emergence of Classical Spacetime Jonathan J. Halliwell ‘The Quantum Mechanies of Self-Measurement David Z. Albert ‘The Quantum-Classical Correspondence in Light of Classi- cal Bell's and Quantum ‘Tsielson’s Inequalities 1. A Khali Some Progress in Measurement Theory: The Logical Inter- pretation of Quantum Mechanics Roland Omnes Indices 357 367 375 381 405 423 425 459 an 4am 495 513| Physics of InformationJohn Archibald Wheeler Jo parents, Princeton Univers, Preston, NJ OB544 and University of Texas SrAssie, TA 78712 Information, Physics, Quantum The Search for Linkse ‘This report reviews what quantum physics and information theory have to tell us about the age-old question, “How come existence?” No escape is . cvident from four conclusions: (1) The world cannot be a giant machine, ruled by any pre-established continuum physical law. (2) There is no such, thing at the microscopic level as epace or time or spacetime continium. (3) ‘The familiar probability function or functional, and wave equation or functional wave equation, of standard quantum theory provide mere continuum idealizations and by reason of this circumstance conceal the information-theoretie source from which they derive. (4) No element in the description of physies shows itself as closer to primordial than the elemen- tary quantum phenomenon, that is, the clementary device-intermediated act of posing a yee-no physical question and eliciting an answer or, in brief, the elementary act of observer-participancy. Otherwise stated, every phys- ical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-orno indications, 2 conclusion which we epitomize in the phrase, i from bit, "eopyright © 1000 by Joke Archibald Whedler. Complexty, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, SFI Stugies in tho Sciences of Complexity, vol. Vl, Ed, W. H. Zurek, Addison-Wesley, 1990 34 John Archibald Wheeler 1. QUANTUM PHYSICS REQUIRES A NEW VIEW OF REALITY Beyond the revolution in outlook that Kepler,* Newton,*® and Einstein®” brought 15,2! and beyond the story of life™#"2 that evolution forced upon an unwilling world, the ultimate shock to preconceived ideas lies ahead, be it a decade hence, a century, or @ millenium. The overarching principle of 20th-century physics, the ‘quantura®*—and the principle of complementarity") that is the central idea of the uantum—leaves us no escape, Niels Bohr tells us,"? fom “a radical revision of our attitude as regards physical reality” and a “fundamental modification of all ideas regarding the absolute character of physical phenomena.” Transcending Einstein's summons™ of 1908, “This quantum business is so incredibly important and difficult that everyone should busy himself with it,” Boke’s modest words direct us to the supreme goal: DEDUCE the quantum from an understanding of ezistence. How do we make headway toward a goal so great against difficulties so large? ‘he sench for understanding presents tous thre questions, four nos, and fve = Three questions How come existence? How come the quantum? How come the “one world” out of many observer-participants? = Four no's No tower of turtles, No laws, No continuum, No space, no time. = Five clues ‘The boundary of « boundary is zero, No question? No answer! lithe sppendt of Kepler's Bosk § contains one side, the publications of the English physician spd hiner Robert Fladd (1874-1027) the other side, of a groat debt Paull. Totally in contrast to Flada’s concept of intervention fers om hi Ing principe, UBi moteie, ibd geometrigwhere there ix matter, there ix geometry. Te as Hot irety frm Kepler's writings, however, that Newton Iaraed of Keplr’s three rent geometty- sven findings about the motions of dhe planes in space and in ime, but fom the dition of ‘Kepler fared by Thomas Stacte “JOST! offers brief and accessible eummary of Eineala's 1015 and stil standard geometio: dynamics which capitalizes on Elie Cartan's appradation of the ovntral idea ofthe Leer: the boundary of boundary is er. Else Bohr}? The mathematics of complementarity [have not been able co discover stated aay where more shar, mere generally and eater than in H. Weyle™ in te statement that the totality of eperatrs forall the physical quarter of the stem in question fom an lredscible Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links 5 ‘The super-Copernican principle “Consciousness.” More is different, 2, “IT FROM BIT” AS A GUIDE IN THE SEARCH FOR LINK CONNECTING PHYSICS, QUANTUM, AND INFORMATION In default of a tentative idea or working hypothesis, these questions, no's, and dluer—yet to be diseussed—do not move us ahead. Nor will any abundance of tlues assist a detective who i unwilling to theorize how the crime was commit- fed! A wrong theory? The policy of the engine inventor, John Kris, reassures us, “Start her up and see why she don’t go! In this spvit%*"™7#4324-15 1 ike other searchers,2248° attempt formulation after formulation of the central issues, and here present a wider overview, taking for a working hypothesis the most effective one that hes survived this winnowing: It from bit, Otherwise put, every it—every pat- ticle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself—derives its function, ite mening, its very existence entitely—even if in some contexts indizectly—from the apparatus-clicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices," bis It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom-—at a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and ex- planation; that which we eal reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory "Three examples may illustrate the theme of it from bit. Fist, the photon With a polarizer over the distant source and an analyzer of polarization over the ‘photodetector under watch, we ask the yes-or-no question, “Did the counter register click during the specified second?” if yes, we often sey *A photon did it.” We ‘know perfectly well that the photon existed neither before the emission nor after the detection, However, we also have to recognize that any talk of the photon “existing” during the intermediate period is only «blown-up version of the raw fact, @ count ‘The yes or no that is recorded constitutes an unsplitable bt of information. A Photon, Wootters and Zurek demonstrate, cannot be cloned ‘As a second example of it from bit, we recall the Aharonov-Bohm scheme? to measure a magnetic fax. Electron counters stationed off to the right of a doubly slit seen give yes-or-o indications of the arival of an electron from the source located off tothe left of the screen, both before the fux is turned on and afterward ‘That sux of magnetic lines of force finds itself embraced between—but untouched bythe two electron beams that fan out from the two slits, The beams interfere6 John Archibald Whasiar ‘The shift in interference fringes between field off and field on reveals the magnitude of the flux, (phase change around perimeter of the included ares) = 2n x (shift of interference pattern, measured in number of fringes) (1) = (electron charge) x (magnetic flux embraced) he. ere f= 1.0546%10-*"gem?/a is the quantum in conventional units, of in gsometrie units,7™95"—where both time and mass are measured in the units of length—h = hac = 2.612 x 10~em? = the square ofthe Planck length, 1.616 x 10-3em = what wwe hereafter term the Planck area Not only in electrodynamics but also in geometrodynamics and in every other gauge-feld theory, as Anandan, Aharonov, and others point out,** the difference around a circuit in the phase of aa appropriately chosen quantum-mechanical prob- ability amplitude provides a measure ofthe field. Here agnin the concept of it from bit applies. ** Field strength or spacetime curvature reveals ite through a eit of interference fringes, fringes that stand for nothing but a statistical pattern of yes-or-no registrations. ‘When a magnetometer reads that if which we call a magnetic feld, no reference at all to abit scoms to show itself. Therefore we look closer. The idea behind the operation ofthe instrument is simple. A wite of length Z caries a current i through a magnetic field B that runs perpendicular to it. Asa consequence the piece of eopper receives in the time t a transfer of momentum p in a direction = perpendicular to the ditections of the wire and of the field, p= Bit = (x per unit 2) x (charge, , of the elementary carrier of current) (2) x (number, 1, of carers that pase in the time #) ‘This impulse is the source of the force that displaces the indicator needle of the magnetometer and gives us an instrument reading, We deal with bits wholesale rather than bits retail when we run the fiducial current through the magnetometer coil, but the definition of fields founds itself no less decisively on bits. ‘As a third and final example of it from bit, we recall the wonderful quantum. finding of Bekenstein,*”1!—a totally unexpected denouement of the earlier clas- sical work of Penrose,** Chistodoulou,2® and Ruffini?”—refined by Hawking," that the surface area of the horizon of a blackhole, rotating or not, measures the entropy of the blackhole. Thus this surface area, partitioned in the imagination (Figure 1) into domains, each of the size 4flog, 2, that is, 2.7... times the Planck ares, yields the Bekenstein namber, Nand the Bekenstein nuruber, so Thorne and Zurek explain,” tells us the number of binary digits, the number of bits, thet would be required to specify in all detail the configuration of the constituents out of which the blackhole was put together. Entropy is a measure of lost information. ‘To no community of newborn ouside observers can the blackhole be made to reveal Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links nit of which particular one of the 2" configurations it was put together. Its size, SALESTRCA the nue ot bis nematon hen win ‘The quantum, fy in whatever current physics formula it appeass, thus serves a3 atlamp. It lets us see the horizon area as information lost, understand wave number alight as photon momentum, and think of field flux as bit-registered fringe shift Giving us its 8 bits, the quantum presents us with physics as information. How come a value for the quantum so small as f= 2.612 x 10~Mem?? As well ask why the speed of light is so great as c = 8 x 10"°cm/s! No such constant 4 the speed of light ever makes an appearance in a truly fundamental account FIGURE 1 Symbol reprosentatio of the “elephone number” of the paticular one of tho 2 conceivable, but by now incistinguishabie, configurations out of which tis Darteular blackhole, of Bekenstein number 2V and horizon area 4Nilog, 2, was put together. Symbo}, also, in a broader sense, of the theme that every physical ea, every i, derives from bis. Repraduced from JGST, p. 220; reprinted by permission of Freaman Pub, Co.8 John Archibald Wheeler of special relativity or Einstein geometrodynamics, and for a simple reason: ‘Time 1nd space are both tools to measure interval. We only then properly conceive them ‘when we measure them in the same units.""2"" The numerical value of the ratio between the second and the centimeter totaly lacks teaching power. Its a historial accident. Its oecurrence in equations obscured for decades one of nature's great simplicties. Likewise with h! Every equation that contains ax h floats a banner, “It from bit.” The formula displays a piece of physics that we have learned to translate into information-theoretie terms. Tomorrow we will have learned to understand and express all of physics in the language of information. At that point we will revalue fi = 2.612 x 10-em®—as we downgrade ¢ = 3 x 10%em/s today—from content of nature to apie of history, and fom foundation of truth to enemy of understanding 3. FOUR NO'S ‘To the question “How come the quantum?” we thus answer, “Because what we call existence is an information-theoretic entity.” But how come existence? Its as bits, yes; and physics as information, yes; but whose information? How does the vision ‘of one world arise out of the information-gathering activities of many observer- participants? In the consideration of these istues we adopt for guidelines four no's FIRST NO. “No tower of turtles," advised Wiliam James, Existence isnot a globe supported by an elephant, supported by a tur, supported by yet anlber tary and 0 on. In otner words, no infinite regress. No structone, no plan of organization, no framework of ideas’ underlaid by another structure of level of ideas, underlaid by yet another level, and yet another, ad infinitum, down to bottomless blackness. TO endlessness no alternative is evident but a loop, such as: Physics gives vise to sbserversparticipancy, observerparticipancy gives rise to information; and infor- maton sve ie to phe s existence thos built on “insubstantial nothingness"? Rutherford and Bolt mas Mann may exaggerate when he suggests” that *...we are actualy bring about what seems tbe lappening tou” but Lebnis® reaanurs us that “although the awhole ofthis ite were sid to be nothing but a dream and the physieal world nothing but a phantasm, I should cal this cream or phantesm real enough if, using reason well, we were never deceived by i” , (sce MW) page 1217, and Wheeler 356 Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links 9 ‘SECOND NO Io laws. “So far as we can see today, the laws of physics cannot have existed from MNerlesting to everlasting. They must have come into being at the big bang. There ‘Nere no gears and pinfons, no Swiss watchmakers to put things together, not even {preexisting plan... Only a principle of organization which is no organization se would seem to offer itself In all of mathematics, nothing of this kind more Shviously offers itself than the principle that ‘the boundary of boundary is zero.” Moreover, all three great field theories of physics use this principle twice over... ‘This circumstance would seem to give us some reassurance thal. we are talking sense sien we think of... physics being’? as foundation-free as a logic loop, the closed Treut of ideas in a self-referential deductive axiomatic system.2#894715% "The universe as a machine? Is this universe one among a great ensemble of machine universes, each differing from the others in the values of the dimensionless Constants of physies? Is our own selected from this ensemble by an anthropic princi ble of one or another form?” We reject here the concept of universe not least because Jt shas to postulate explicitly or implicitly, a supermachine, a scheme, a device, a Iniracle, which will hen out universes in infinite variety and infinite mumber.”*5* Directly opposite to the concept of universe as machine built on law is the vision of a world self-aynthesized. In this view, the notes struck out on a piano by the observer-participants of all places and all times, bits though they are, in and by themselves constitute the great wide world of space and time and things. THIRD NO No continuum, No continuum in mathematics and therefore no continuum in physics, A halfeentury of development in the sphere of mathematical logic) has nade it clear that there is no evidence supporting the belie in the existential char- acter of the umber continuum. “Belief in this transcendental word,” Hermann Weyl tells us, “taxes the strength of our faith hardly Tess than the doctrines of the eanly Fathers of the Church or of the scholastic philosophers of the Middle ‘Ages? This lesson out of mathematies applies with equal strength to physics, ‘Sustas the introduction of the irational nombers...is a convenient myth [which] simplifies the laws of arithmetic...20 physical objec,” Willard Van Orman Quine tells us? “are postulated entities which round out and simplify our account of the flux of existence .."The conceptual scheme of physical objects is a convenient myth, impler than the literal truth and yet containing that literal truth as e scattered part? ‘Nothing so much distinguishes physics as conceived today from mathematics a the difference between the continuum character of the one and the diserete cher- acter of the other, Nothing does so maueh to extinguish this gap as the clementary ‘quantum phenomenon “brought to a close.” as Bohr puts it? by “an irreversible |Ssee for example the sursny by S. Feferman, "Tusing in the Land of Of ‘elated papers on mathematical loge in R. Herken. ges 119-147, and10 John Archibald Wheeler ‘act of amplification,” such as the click of a photodetector or the blackening of a grain of photographic emulsion. Irreversible? More than one idealized experiment? illustrates how hard itis, even today, to give an all-inclusive definition ofthe term ix reversible. Those difficulties supply pressure, however, not to retreat to old ground, Dut to advance to new insight. In brief, continuum-based physics, no; information. based physics, yes FOURTH AND LAST NO pethaps positing hopefully as he did that “Time is nature’s way to keep everything Eon bpenie ens tne ae ea ecu ort omila tena abetted soa but orders of things..."; or as Einstein put i,® “Time and space ate modes by tn MS 2 Se a wt tn rte gn nh Sit cy ae peti Ihe gery gente ery os tet ona neces reife ta Uitte xe Sue tates oe ene seas ia ee nes eee eit a ay a, We mt aie il ao aa a SSS 4. FIVE CLUES FIRST CLUE ‘The boundary ofa boundary fs zero, This central principle of algebra topology! ‘entity, tcviity, tautology though iy, is also the tifyng theme of Mecoell electrodynamics, Finstein geometrodynamics, and almost every version of modern field theory. That one can get 0 much from 80 lite, mest everything from almost nothing, inspires hope tat we will someday complete the mathemaretion of physics and derive everything from nothing, al law fom no lew to cv nog eg ne e's om fh Peas Se Cal, Ain, es TlSee Wheeler!?*.1?5 and MTW,"" section 43.4, — - Ise Wed" page te IEW, cages 1 bah Caran ad head Wher Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links " SECOND CLUE No question, no answer. Better put, no bit-level question, no bit-level answer. So itisin the game of twenty questions in its surprise version 91 And so iti for the electron eirelating within the atom or a field within space. To neither fla tor particle can we attribute a coordinate or momentum until a device operates to Ineasure the one or the other. Moreover, any apparatus that accurately” measures theone quantity inescapably rules out then and there the operation of equipment to Ineasure the other729522) In brief, the choice of question asked, and the choice tiwhen it’s asked, play a part—not the whole part, ut a part—in deciding what we have the rigt to say.5152 Bitregistration of a chosen property of the electron, a bit-registration of the arival of a photon, Aharonov-Bohm bit-based determination of the magnitude ata field flux, bulk-based count of bits bound in a blackhole: all are examples of physics expressed in the Tanguage of information. However, into a bit count that one might have thought to be a private matter, the rest of the neatby world invesistibly thrusts itself. ‘Thus the atom-to-atom distance in a ruler—bass for a bit count of distance—ovidently has no invariant status, depending as it docs on the temperature and pressure of the environment. Likewise the shift of the Aharonov-Bohm experiment depends not only upon the magnetic fux itself, but also on the charge of the electron. But this electron charge—when we take the quantum itself to be nature's fundamental measuring unit—is governed by the square root of the quattity «#/he = 1/137.096.... a “constant” which—for extreme Contitions—is as dependent on the local environment™” as isa dielectric “constant” or the atom-to-atom spacing in the ruler. ‘The contribution of the envionment becomes overwhelmingly evident when we turn from length of bar or lux of fel to the motion of alpha particle through cloud chamber, dust particle through 3°K-background radiation of Moon through space ‘Tis we know from the analyses of Bohr and Moti,” Zeb,!°"* Joos and Zeb," urek,627147 and Unruh and Zurek. It from bit, yes; but the rest of the world ‘ko makes a contribution, & contribution that suitable experimental design can minimize but not eliminate, Unimportant nuisance? No. Evidence the whole show is wied up together? Yes. Objection to the concept of every it from bits? No. Build physics, with its false face of continuity, on bits on information! What this enterprise is we perhape see more clearly when we examine for a moment & thoughtful, careful, wide-reaching exposition® of the dzecty opposite thesis, that Dhysies at bottom is continuous; that the bit of information is not the basic en- tity, Rate as false the claim thet the bit of information is the basic entity. Instead atiempt to build everything on the foundation of some “grand unified feld the- ry” such as string theory™"—or, in default of that, on Einstein's 1018 end still, Standard geometrodynamics, Hope to derive that theory by way of one of another Plausible line of reasoning. But don't try to derive quantum theory. Tkeat it as ‘supplied free of charge from on high. Treat quantum theory as = magic ssussde MlSce Wheeler pager 41-42, and Whedlr!™ pages 997-298,12 John Archibald Wheeler grinder which takes in as raw meat this theory, that theory, or the other theory, and turns out a “wave equation,” one solution of which is “the” wave function for the universe #°#466105.2 From start to finish accept continuity as right and nat- in the manifold, continuity in the wave equation, continuity in its in the features that it predicts. Among conceivable solutions of this wave equation select as reasonable one which “maximally deeoheres,” one ‘which exhibits “maximal classicity”—maximal classicty by reason, not of “some- thing external to the framework of wave function and Schrédinger equation,” but something in “the inital conditions ofthe universe specified within quantum theory itselt” How do we compare the opposite outlooks of decoherence and itfrom-bit? Remove the casing that surtounds the workings ofa giant computer. Examine the ‘buncles of wires that run here and there. What isthe status of an individual wire? ‘The mathematical limit of the bundle? Or the building block of the bundle? The cone outlook regards the wave equation and wave function to be primordial and precise and built on continuity, and the bit to be an idealization. The other outlook regards the bit to be the primordial entity, and wave equation and wave function to be secondary and approximate—and derived from bits via information theory. Derived, yess but how? No one has done more than William Wootters toward opening up 2 pathway!*©? from information to quantum theory. He puts into connection two findings, long known, but little known. Already before the od- vent of wave mechanies, he notes, the analyst of population statistics R. A. Fisher proved*®*" that the proper tool to distinguish one population from another is uot the probability of this gene, that gene, and the third gene (for example), but the square roots of these probabilities; that is to say, the two probability’ amplitudes, cach probability amplitude being a vector with three components. More precisely, Wooters proves, the distingushebilty between te two populations is measured by the angle in Hilbert space betmeen the two state vectors, both real. Fisher, how ‘ever, was dealing with information that site “out there." In microphysics, however, the information does not sit out there, Instead, nature in the small confronts us with a revolutionary pistol, “No question, no answer.” Complementarity rule. And complementarity as E. C. G. Stueckelherg proved!®"® as long ago as 1952, and as Saxon made more readily understandable* in 1964, demands that the probability amplitudes of quantum physics must be complex. ‘Thus Wootters derives fami iar Hilbert space with its familiar complex probability amplitudes from the twin demnands of complementarity and measure of distinguishabilty Should we try to go on from Wootter's finding to deduce the full blown machin- xy of quantum field theory? Exactly nt to try todo so—except as an idealization— is the demand laid on us by the concept of it from bit. How come? Probabilities exist “out there” no more than do space or time or the position of the atomic electron. Probability like time, i » concept invented by humans, and Ihumans have to bear the responsiblity for the obscurtis thet attend it. Obseuties there are whether we consider probability defined as frequency*™ or defined & lo Bayes HOUTA Probability in the sense of frequency has no meaning as applied Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links 13 to the spontaneous fission of the particular plutonium nucleus that triggered the November 1, 1952 H-bomb blast. ‘What about probabilities of a Bayesian cast, probabilities “interpreted not as frequencies observable through experiments, but as degrees of plausibility one fsigns to each hypothesis based on the data and on one’s assessment of the plausi- bility of the hypotheses prior to seeing the data”? Belief-dependent probabilities, diiferent probabilities signed to the same proposition by different people? Proba- bilities associated?" with the view that “objective reality is simply an interpretation of data agreed to by large numbers of people?” Heisenberg directs us to the experionces* of the early nuclear-reaction-rate the- corist Frits Houtermans, imprisoned in Kharkov during the time of the Stalin ter- rot: “,,,the whole cell would get together to produce an adequate confession [and] helped [the prisoners] to compose their ‘legends’ and phrase them properly, implicating as few others as possible.” Existence as confession? A myopic but in some ways illuminating formulation ‘of the demand for intercommunication implicit in the theme of it from bit ‘So much for "Ne question, no answer.” ‘THIRD CLUE ‘The super-Copemnican principle.1%© This principle rejects now-centeredness in any account of existence as firmly as Copernicus repudiated here-centeredness. Tt re~ Dudiates most of all any tacit adoption of now-centeredness in assessing observer~ patticipants and their number, ‘What is an observer-participant? One who operates an observing device and participates in the making of meaning, moaning in the sense of Fallesdal,"? “Mean- ing is the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who commu- aicate.” Evidence that is available? The investigator slices a rock and photographs the evidence for the heavy nucleus that arrived in the cosmic radiation of a billion years ago." Before he can communicate his findings, however, an asteroid atom ines his laboratory, his records, his rocks, and him. No contribution to meaning! Or at least, no contribution then. A forensic investigation of sufficient detail and wit to reconstruct the evidence of the arrival of that nucleus is difficult to imagine What about the famous tree that fell in the forest with no one around?" Tt leaves ‘fallout of physical evidence so near at hand and so rich that a team of up-to- date investigators can establish what happened beyond all doubt. Their findings contribute to the establishment of meaning. “Measurements and observations,” it has been said,** “cannot be fundamental notions in a theory which seeks to discuss the early universe when neither existed.” On this view the past has a status beyond all questions of observer-participancy. 1 from bit offers us a different vision: “realty is theory"0; “the past has no ‘evidence except as it is recorded in the present."1 The photon that we are going (sen T. Seperstedt ar quoted ip Whedler#? page 41. DAlsce Wheele® page A4 John Archibald Wheeler c to register tonight from thet four billio-year-old quasar cannot be said to have hhad an existence “out there” three Dillion years ago, or two (when it pasced ax Inlervening gravitational lens) or one, or even a day ago. Not uni we have fixed arrangements at our telescope do we register tonight's quantum as having passed to the left (or right) of the lens or by both routes (as in a doublesit experiment). ‘This registration, like every delayed-choice experiment,"*!®" reminds us that no clementary quantum phenomenon is a phenomenon until, in Bohr's words,** “It has been brought to a clase” by “an irreversible act of amplification.” What we call the past is built on bits. Enough bits to structure a universe so rich in features as we know this world ta ‘be? Preposterous! Mice and men and all on Earth who may ever come to rank at intercommunicating meaning-establishing observer-participants will never mount + bit count sufficient to bear so great a burden. ‘The count of bits needed, huge though it may be, nevertheless, so far as we can judge, does not reach infinity. In default of a better estimate, we follow familiar reasoning! and translate into the language of bits the entropy of the primordial cosmic fireball as deduced from the entropy of the present 2.735 deg K (uncertainty < 0.05 deg KK) microwave relict radiation”? totaled over a Ssphere of radius 13.2 10" light years (uncertainty > 359!) or 1.25% 10% em and of volume 2? radius (oumber of bits) =(logs ¢) x (oumber of nats) (logs ¢) x (entropy /Boltzmann’s constant, b) 1.44... x [(8r4/45)(radius -ET/e))] @. =3 x 108 {It would be totally out of place to compaze this overpowering number with the num ber of bits of information elicited up to date by observer-participancy. So warns the super-Copernican principle. We today, to be sure, through our registering devices, sive a tangible meaning to the history of the photon that started on its way from a distant quasar long before there was any observer-participancy anywhere, Hox- ever, the far more numerous establishere of meaning of time to come have a lke inescapable part—by device-clicited question and registration of answer—in genet ating the “reality” of today. For this purpose, moreover, there ate billions of years ‘yet to come, billions on billions of sites of observer-patticipancy yet to be occ- Pied. How far foot and ferry have carried meaning-making communication in fity ‘thousand years gives faint feel for how for interstellar propagation is destined®?* to carry itin fifty billion years. Do bits needed balance bits achievable? They must, declares the: concept of “world as system self-synthesized by quantum networking."1°* By no prediction does this concept more clearly expose itself to destruction, in the sense of Popper. lSee MEW page 785, Box 77; oF IGST.*" Chapt 13, page 242. Information, Physics, Quantum: The Saarch for Links 15 FOURTH CLUE “Consciousness.” We have traveled what may seem a dizzying path. First, ele- mentary quantum phenomenon brought to a close by an irreversible act of ar- plication, Second, the resulting information expressed in the form of bits. Third, fhis information used by observer-pasticipants—via communication—to establish meaning, Fourth, from the past through the billeniums to come, so many observer participants, so many bite, so much exchange of information, as to build what we call existence. Doesn’t this itfrom-bit view of existence seek to elucidate the physical world, about which we know something, in terms of an entity about which we know al~ ‘most nothing, consciousness??234 And doesn’t Marie Sklodowska Curie tell us, "Physics deals with things, not people”? Using such and such.equipment, making such and such a measurement, I get such and such a number. Who I am hes nothing todo with this finding, Or docs it? Am I sleepwalking? Or am I one of those poor souls without the critical power to eave himself from pathological science?®71905° Under such circumstances any claim to have “measured” something falls fiat until it can be checked out with one’s fellows. Checked liow? Morton White reminds us! how the community applies its tests of credibility, and in this connection quotes analyses by Chauncey Wright, Josiah Royce, and Charles Saunders Peirce 0"! Par Imenides of Elea®® (~ 515 B.C_450+ B.C.) may tell us that “Wliat is... is identical with the thought that recognizes it.” We, however, steer clear of the issues con- nected with “consciousness.” The line between the unconscious and the conscious Ihegins to fade" in our day as computers evolve and develop—as mathematics has— level upon level upon level of logical structure. We may someday have to enlarge the scope of what we mean by @ “who.” This granted, we continue to sccept—as tn exeential part of the concept of it from bit—Pollesdal's guideline,*? “Meaning is the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate.” What shall we say of a view of existenceD®! that appears, if not anthropomorphic in its ure of the word “who,” still overly centered on life and consciousness? It would seem more reasonable to dismiss for the present the semantic overtones of “who” and explore and exploit the insights to he won from the phrases, “communication” and “communication employed to establish meaning.” Follesdal’s statement supplies not an answer, but the doorway to new questions. For example, man has not yel learned how to communicate with an ant. When he {ee Pie especially paseags Src pages 595-897, 353, and 388, Peirce’ pein on the fore of nae, ‘May they not have naturally grewn up” foreshador though does the concept the world asa elfsyntinsized system, difers from tin one decisive point, in that i actly {shes time at primordial category supplied free of charg fom oad {ee von Sceling expecially volame 8, pages 428-420, as Kindly summasned fo: 7 bY '. Konitstheder das dv Univereum yon vorrei cin sk immanetes Zi ene else Shs Stra bestt und in allen seinen Produten auf evolstindre Stains eases! ety de ‘heath de Hervrbringung von Selbat-bewusstanin cnecilesren, welds dann aber winlcram den Bnttangeprsene ection wd dee FaBerion st de notwendge Bedingsng Fr die Kom Station der Gegenstnde des Bewomstornn.”16 John Archibald Wheeler does, will the questions put to the world around by the ant and the answers that he elicits contribute their share, too, to the establishment of meaning? As another issue associated with communication, we have yet to learn how to draw the line between a communication network that is closed, or parochial, and one that is ‘open. And how to use that difference to distinguish between reality and poker—or ‘another game!"*1!8so intense as to appear more real than reality. No term in Follesdal’s statement poses greater challenge to reflection than “communication,” descriptor of a domain of investigation®****° that enlarges in sophistication with each passing year semen FIFTH AND FINAL CLUE More is different.¥ Not by plan but by inner necessity, a sufficiently large number of 120 molecules collected in a box will manifest solid, liquid, and gas phases, Phase changes, superfluidity, and superconductivity all bear witness to Anderson’s pithy point, more is diferent ‘We do not have to turn to objects so material as electrons, atoms, and molecules to see big numbers generating new features. The evolution from small to large hss already in a few decades forced on the computer a structure™* reminiscent of bir ology by reason ofits segregation of different activities into distinct organs. Distinct organs, too, the giant telecommunications system of today finds itself inescapabl; volving®™? Will we someday understand time and space and all the other fea tures that distinguish physics—and existence itseli—as the similarly self-generated ‘organs of a self-synthesized information system?2®*** 5. CONCLUSION ‘The spacetime continuum? Even continuum existence iteelf? Except as an idealiea- ‘tion neither the one entity nor the other can make any claim to be a primordial category in the description of nature. It is wrong, moreover, to regard this or that physics] quantity as sitting “out there” with this or that numerical value in default of the question asked and the answer cbtained by way of an appropriate observing device. The information thus solicited makes physics and comes in bits. The coun! of bits drowned in the dark night of a blackholo displays itself as horizon ares, expressed in the language of the Bekenstein number. The bit count of the cosmos, however itis figured, is ten raised to a very large power. So also is the number of clementary acts of cbserver-participaney over any time of the order of fifty billion years. And, except via those time-leaping quantum phenomena that we rate as ¢! fementary acts of observer-participancy, no way has ever offered itself to construct what we call “reality” That's why we take seriously the theme of it from bit. Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links 7 6 AGENDA Intimidating though the problem of existence continues to be, the theme of it from. bit breaks it down into six issues that invite exploration: 1. Go beyond Wootters and determine what, if anything, has to be added to dis- iguishability and complementarity to obtain all of standatd quantum theory. 2. Translate the quantum versions of string theory and of Einstein's geometrody- namics from the language of continunm to the language of bite. 3. Sharpen the concept of bit. Determine whether “an elementary quantumn phe- nomenon brought to a close by an irreversible act of amplication” has at bottom {G) the O-or 1 sharpness of definition of bit number nineteen in astring of binary digits, or (2) the accordion property of a mathematical theorem, the length of ‘which, that is, the number of supplementary lemmas contained in which, the ‘analyst can stretch or shrink according to his convenience 4. Survey one by one with an imaginative eye the powerful tools that mathematics including mathematical logie—has won and now offers to deal with theorems fon a wholesale rather than a retail level, and for each such technique work out the transcription into the world of bits. Give special attention to one and tmother deductive axiomstic aystem which is able to refer to itself one and another self-referential deductive system. 5. From the wheels-npon-whecls-upon-wheals evolution of computer programming dig out, systematize, and display every festure that illuminates the level-upon- levelupon-level structure of physics 6. Capitalize on the findings and outlooks of information theory ##™!15€6 algo rithmie entropy evolution of organisms,%5°S! and pattern recogni- tion 184870201069409 Search out every link that each has with physics the quantum level. Consider, for instance, the string of bits LILII1... and its representation as the sur ofthe two strings 1001110... and 0110001... Ex- plore and exploit the connection betwoen this information-theoretie statement land the findings of theory and experiment on the correlation between the polar- itations of the two photons emitted in the annihilation of singlet positronium" ‘and in like Finstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments."* Seek out, moreaver, every ‘alization in the real of physic af the information-theorete triangle inequal- ity recently discovered by Zurek.!7* Deplore? No, celebrate the absence of a clean clear definition of the term “bit” as the elementary unit in the establishment of meaning, We reject “that view of science which used to say, ‘Define your terms before you proceed.’ The truly creative nature of any forward step in human knowledge,” we know, “s such thet theory, concept, law, and method of measurement—-forever inseparable—are born into the world in union.°19° If and when we learn how to combine bits in fentastically large umobers to obtain what we call existence, we will know better what we mean both, by bit and by existence.18 John Archibald Whe A single question animates this report: Can we ever expect to understand ex. istence? Clues we have, and work to do, to make headway on that issue. Surely someday, we can believe, we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will say to each other, “Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind so long!” ACKNOWLEDGMENTS —SOS=~“i—~—S*~*~*~*~*~S~SOS For discussion, advice, or judgment on one or another issue taken up in this review, Iam indebted to Nandar Balazs, John D. Barrow, Charles H. Bennett, David Deutsch, Robert H. Dicke, Freeman Dyson, and the Iste Richard P. Feynman as well as David Gross, James B. Hartle, John J. Hopfield, Paul C. Jeffries, Beroull Kanitscheider, Arkady Kheyfets, and Rolf W. Landauer; and to Warner A. Miller, John R. Pierce, Willard Van Orman Quine, Benjamin Schumacher, and Frank J, ‘Tipler as well as William G. Unruh, Morton White, Eugene P. Wigner, Wiliam K. Wootters, Hans Dieter Zeb, and Wojciech II. Zurek. For assistance in preparation of this report I thank E. L. Bennett and NSF grant PHY245-6243 to Princeton University. I give special thanks to the Santa Fe Institute and the organizers of the May-June 1989 Conference on Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information at which the then-current version of the present. analysis was reported, This report evolved from presentations at the Santa Fe Institute conferences, Moy 29-June 2 and June 4-8, 1989, and at the 3rd International Symposium o Foundations of Quantum Mechanies in the Light of New Technology, Tokyo, Au ‘gust 28-31, 1969, under the title “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links"; and headed “Can We Ever Expect to Understand Existence?” as the Penrose Lecture at the April 20-22, 1989, annual meeting of Benjamin Franklin's “American Philosophical Society, Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Know! edge,” and at the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Conference on La Verita nella Scienza, Rome, October 13, 1989; submitted to the proceedings of all four in ful- fillment of obligation and in deep appreciation for hospitality. Information, Physics, Quantum: The Soarch for Links 19 REFERENCES ‘ines reference abbreviations: 1GST=187, MTW=T1, and W7=148 ree eField Theory of Pattern Recognition?” Phys. Rev. A ST (1088) 4-448, 2, Absonn Y.,and D. Bohm. ‘Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in ie Quantum Theory.” Phys, Rea 115 (1959)485-401 4, Anandan, Ty "Comment on Geometsic Phase for Classical Feld Theories” Pigs, Ree. et. 60 (1988) 2555. 4, Anaden,4.,and'Y. Aharonov. “Goometric Quantum Phase and Angles” Phys Stoo, D-28 (2088),1869-1870. Includes references to te literature of the sub- 5, Anerson, PW. "More is Different” Science 177 (1972):308-806, & Atyah, M. Collected Papers, Vou. 5: Gauge Theories, Oxford: Clarendon, 1088. 4. Batrow, 1D; and F. J. Tpler. The Antiropic Cosmological Principle. New Yorks Oxford Univ. Pres, 1986. Aso the Ierature therein cited. f&, Bock, F. ipeudonyn ofthe early muclear-reation-ate theorist Frits Houter- trang), and W. Godin, Translated from the German original by B. Mesbacher snd, Porter, Rassian Purge and the Eutraction of Confessions. London: Hurst and Blackett, 1951 6 Bekenstein, 1D. "Black Holes and the Second Law.” Nuovo Cimento Lett. 4 (0073) 7372740. Bekenstein, J.D. “Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics in Black-Hole Phyies” Pigs, Rew. D 8 (1973):3292-9300 Bekenseia, 1. D. "Black Hole Thermodynamics” Physics Today 33 (1080) a8. Dall 7 8. Collected Papers in Quantum Meckonics. Cambridge, UK: Car bridge Univ. Pres, 1987 Bensett, BM. B. D. Hoffman, and C. Prakash. Observer Mechanics: A Formal Theory of Perception. San Diego: Academic Press, 1989. Berger, 1.0. and D. A. Bessy. “Statistical Analysis and the Mlusion of Ob- Sectivity” Am. Scienit 76 (1988):159-165. ; Berkeley, @ Treatise Conceoming the Principles of Understanding. Dublin, 710; 2nd edition, 1794, Regarding his easoning that “No object exists apart ftom mind ef article ca Berieley hy R- Adamson, Bneyelopedie Britanice, Chicago 8 (1958), 498 Bohm, D, "The Paradox of Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky" Originally pub- lished in Quantem Theory, section 15-19, Chapter 22. Englewood Clif, NJ Prentice Hall, 1960, Reprinted in WZ," pp. 356-368. Bor, 8. “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory?” Nature 121 (1028):580-800 10. nL. x, 18. 4. 15. 16. n.20 18, 19, 26 21. 28, 20 30, 31 32, 33, 34, 35. 36, 37, 38, 39, John Archibald Wheeler Bohr, N., and D. Rosenfeld. “Zur Frage der Messbarkeit der elektromagnetis chen Feldgrissen.” Mat.-fys Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 12(8) (1933). Engl translation by Aage Petersen, 1979; reprinted in WZ, pp. 479-534. Bohr, N. “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Con sidered Complete?” Phys. Rev. 48 (1935):696-702. Reprinted in WZ,!*® pp 145-151, Brink, L., and M, Henneaux. Principles of String Theory: Studies of the Cen tro de’ Bstadios Cientificos de Santiago. New York: Plenum, 1988. Burke, J. The Day the Universe Changed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985. Calvin, W. H. The Cerebral Symphony. New York: Bantam, 1990. Cartan, B. Le Geometric des Espaces de Riemann, Memorial des Science ‘Mathematiques. Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1925 Cartan, E. Lecons sur la Geometrie des Bspoces de Riemann, Paris: Gautier Villars, 1925. Chaitin, G. J. Algorithmic Information Theory, revised 1987 edition. Cam bridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988. Christodoulou, D. “Reversible and Itreversible Transformations in Black- He Physics.” Phys. Reu. Lett. 25 (1970):1598-1597. Christodoulou, D., and R. Ruflini. “Reversible Transformations of » Charged Black Hole” Phys. Rev. D 4 (1971):3552-3555. Collins, W. W. The Moonstone. London, 1868. Darwin, C. W. (1809-1882). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natur Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Lov don, 1859. Delahaye, J.-P. “Chaitin’s Equation: An Extension of Gdel's Theorem.” No tices Amer. Math. Soc. 86 (1989):084-087. Denning, P. J. “Bayesian Learning.” Am. Scientist 77 (1989):216-218. @Bspagnat, B. Reality and the Physicist: Knowledge, Duration and the Quox tum World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989. Edelman, G. M. Neural Darwinism. New York: Basic Books, 1987. Ehresmann, C. Catégories et Structures. Paris: Dunod, 1965. Eigen, M., and R. Winkler. Des Spiel: Naturgesetze stevern den Zufall. Miinchen: Piper, 1975. Einstein, A., to J. J. Laub, 1908, undated, Einstein Archives; scheduled publication in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, a group of volumes the Siviss years 1902-1914, Volume 5: Correspondence, 1902-1914, Princetat University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Einstein, A. “Zur allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie.” Preuss. Akad. Wise Berlin, Sitsber (1915), T99-801, 832-899, 844-847; (1916), 688-696; and (2917), 142-152. Binstein, A. As quoted by A. Forsee in Allert Binstein, Theoretical Physicist New York: Macmillan, 1963, 81. Elsasser, W. M. Reflections on a Theory of Organisms. Frelighsburg, Québet Orbis, 1987. Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links 0 4 2 4 4 4. 4. a. 48. 9. 90. 3. 8. 58 54, 56. 5. 58, 59. at Fisher, R. A. “On the Dominance Ratio.” Proc. Roy. Soe. Blin. 42 (1922): 321-841, Fisher, R.A. Statistical Methods and Statistical Inference. New York: Hafner, 1956, 8-17. Follesdal, D. “Meaning and Experience.” In Mind and Language, edited by S. Guttenplan, Oxford: Clarendon, 1975, 25-44. Ruler, R. W., and P, Putnam, “On the Origin of Order in Behavior.” General Systems (Ann Arbor, MI) 12 (1966):111-121. Fuller, RoW. “Causal and Moral Law: Their Relationship as Examined in ‘Terms of a Model of the Brain.” Monday Evening Papers. Middletown, CT: ‘Wesleyan Univ. Press, 1967. Green, M.B., J. H. Schwarz, and E. UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987. Greenberger, D. M., ed. New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement ‘Theory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1986, vol. 480. Gross, D. J. “On the Caleulation of the Fine-Structure Constant.” Phys. To- dey 42(412) (3089). Haken, I, ed. Pattern Formation by Dynamic Systems and Pattern Recogni- ton, Berlin: Springer, 1979. Haken, H. Information and Self:Organization: A Macroscopic Approcch to Complez Systems, Berlin: Springer, 1988. Kardes1 Band SW. Hawking, “Wave Function ofthe Universe” Pho. Rex, D 28 (1983):2960-2975. Harlle, 3. B. “Progress in Quantum Cosmology.” Preprint from the Physics Department, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1989. Hawking, S. W. ‘Particle Crestion by Black Holes.” Commun. Math, Phys. 43 (1975):190-220. Hawking, S. W. “Black Holes and Thermodynamics.” Phys. Rev. 13 (1976): 191-197, Hawking, 8. W, “The Boundary Conditions of the Universe." In Astrophysical Cosmolagy, edited by H. A. Brlick, G. V. Coyne,and M. S. Longair. Vatican City: Pontificia Academia Séientiarum, 1982, 569-574. Heisenberg, W. “Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik” Zeits. f. Physik 43 (1927)172-198. English trans- lation in WZ, pp, 62-84. Herken, R. The Universal Turiag Machine: A Half-Century Survey. Hamburg Kammerer & Unverzagt and New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1988. Hetherington, N.S. Science and Objectivity: Episodes in the History of As- ‘tronomy, Ames, IA: Towa State Univ. Press, 1988. Hobson, J. Allan. Sleep, Scientific American Library. New York: Freeman, 1989, 86, 89, 175, 185, 186. Tastrow, R, Journey to the Stare: Space Exploration—Tomorrow and Beyond. New York: Bantam, 1989, en, Superstring Theory. Cambridge,22 60, 61. 62, 63. 64, 65, 66, or. 7, m4. 7 76. 7. John Archibald Wheeler Jaynes, E. T. “Bayesian Methods: General Background.” In Masimwn Fe. tropy and Bayesian Methods in Applied Statistics, edited by J. H. Justie, ‘Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986, 1-25, Joos, B., and H. D, Zeh. “The Emergence of Classical Properties through Interaction with the Environment.” Zeits. f Physik BBO (1985):223-243, Kepler, J. (1571-1630). Harmonices Mundi. 5 books, 1619. Kepler, J. Uériusque Cosmo Maioris scilicet et Minoris Metaphysica, Physica aique technica Historia, 1st edition. Oppenheim, 1621 Kheyfets, A., and J. A. Wheeler. “Boundary of a Boundary Principle ant Geometee Structure of Fe Theories” ei J. Ther. Phas. 25 (1986): Kohonen, T. Self Organization and Associative Memory, Std edition. New York: Springer, 1989, ‘Langmuir, . “Pathological Science.” 1959 colloquium, transcribed and edited Phys. Today 42(12) (1989):36-48, Larson, H. 3. Introduction to Probability Theory and Statistical Inference, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley, 1974 Leibniz, G. W. Animadversiones ad Joh. George Wachteri ibrum de recondils Hebracorum philosophia, c. 1708, unpublished. English translation in P. P, Wiener, Leibnis Selections, Seribuers, New York (1951), 488, Leibniz, G. W. As cited in J. R. Newman, The World of Mathematics. New ‘York: Simon and Schuster, 1956. Lohmer, D. Phinomenologie der Mathematik: Elemente einer Phinoment- logischen Auftlirung der Mathematischen Erkenntnis nach Husserl. Norwel, (MA: Kluwer, 1989. Mann, . Freud, Goethe, Wagner. New York, 1937, 20, Translated by IL. T. Lowe-Porter from Freud und die Zukunft, Vienna (1936). Mather, J., et al. “A Preliminary Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) Sate lite." Submitted for publication to Astrophys. J. Lett, 1990, Mead, C., and L. Conway. Introduction to VEST [very large-scale integrated: circuit design] Systems, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1980, Mendel, J. G. *Versuche iiber Pilanzenhybriden.” Verkandlungen des Natur forschenden Vereins in Brinn 4. 1866, Miller, W. A., and J. A. Wheeler. “Delayed-Choice Experiments and Boht's Elementary Quantum Phenomenon.” In Proceedings of International Symp sium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, Tohyo, 1983, edited by S. Kamefuchi et al. Tokyo: Physical Society of Japax, 1084, 140-181. Minsky, M., and §. Papert. Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computations! Geometry, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988, Misner, C. W., I $. Thome, and J. A. Wheeler. Gravitation. San Francisco (now New York): Freeman, 1973. Cited hereafter as MTWs see the paragraph fon participatory concept of the universe, p. 1217. iniormation, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links 18 7, on 1 2. 83 4 8. #8. 87 88 89, 20, o. %, 93. 55, 86, 23 ftalsnet,P, and B. W. Stachow, eds, Recent Deslepments in Quantum ie. Zirich: Bibliographisches Institut, 19 see Ape vahe Wave Mechanics of erRay Trac” Proc Roy, Se. London ‘A126 (1929):74-84. Reprinted in WZ," pp. 129-134 Newton, I. Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, Ist edition. London, 1687, Nicole, G., and I. Prigogine. Exploring Complexity: An Introduction. New York: Freeman, 198%. O'Neill, G. K. The High Frontier, 4th edition. Princeton, NJ: Space Studies, 1980. Parmenides of Blea (¢. 515 B.C.-450 B.C], Poem “Nature,” Part “Truth.” ‘As summarized by A. C. Lloyd in the article on Parmenides, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Chieago 17 (1959), 327. dae reee a Whee. ts Phyie Legited by Cnmogeny?” In Quantum Gravity, edited by C. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. Sciama. Oxford: Glarendon, 1975, 588-605. Reprinted in part in R, Duncan and M. Weston Smith, eds-, Encyclopaedia of Imnorance, Pergamon, Oxford (1977), 19-85. Paul, W. “Der Einfluss archetypischer Vorstellungen auf die Bildung na- truwissenschaftlicher Theorien bei Kepler.” In Naturerklirung und Psyche. ‘iirich: Rascher, 1952, 109-194. Reprinted in R. Kronig and V. F. Weis- ‘skopf, eds., Wolfgang Pauli: Collected Scientific Papers, Interscience-Wiley, New York, 1964, vol. 1, 1023 Penrose, It “Gravitational Collapse: The Role of General Relativity” Ziv Nuovo Cimento T (1969):252-276. Peisce, C. S. The Philosophy of Peirce: Selected Writings, edited by 3, Buch- ler. London: Routledge and Kegen Paul, 1940. Selected passages reprinted in Patton and Wheeler™, pp. 593-595. Pierce, J.R. Symbols, Signels and Noise: The Nature and Process of Comme- ‘ication, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961. Planck, M. “Zur des Gesetzes der Bnergicverteilung im Normalspektrum.” Verkand. Deutschen Phys. Gesel. 2 (1900):237-245 Popper, K. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basie Books, 1962. Pugh, G.. On the Origin of ifuman Values, New York, 1978. See the chapter “Human Values, Free Will, and the Conscious Mind,” reprinted in Zygon 11 (2076)2-24 Quine, W. V. O. In the essay “On What ‘There Is.” In From a Logical Point of View, Ind edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1980, 18. Roden, M. §. Digital Communication Systems Design. Englewood Clifs, NI: Prentice Hall, 1988. Rosenkrantz, R. D, ed. £. 7, Jaynes: Papers on Probability, Statistics and Stetistical Physics. Hingham, MA: Reidel-Kluwer, 1988. Saxon, D.8. Elementary Quantum Mechanics. San Francisco: Holden, 1964 Schineck, P. B. Supercomputer Architecture. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1987.24 98, 99, 100. 101. 102. 103. 104 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. uo. nL ne. 113. 14. 116. 6. ur. us, us. John Archibald Ws Schrédinger, E. “The Foundation of the Theory of Probability.” Proc. Ro. Irish Aced. 51 A (1947)'51-66 and 141-146. Schwartz, M. Telecommunication Networks: Protocols, Modeling and Analy, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987, Shakespeare, W. The Tempest, Act IV, Scene 1, lines 145 ft. Sheehan, W. Planets and Perception: ‘Telescopic Views and Interpretation ‘Tucson, ‘AZ: Univ. of Arizona Press, 1988. Sinall H., and E. Garfield. “The Geography of Sconce: Diseiplinaty and Ne sional Mappings.” J Info. Sei. 11 (1985):147-150. ‘Smoryuski, C. Sef-Reference and Model Logi. Berlin: Springer, 1986. Spanier, E. H. Algebraic Topology. New York: McGraw-Hill 196. Steen, L. A. “The Science of Patterns.” Science 240 (1988):611-616. Steenrod, N.B, Cohomology Operations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Pres 1962. Streete, Thomas (1622-1689). Astronomia Corvlina: A New Theorie of te Celestial Motions. London, 1661 Swueckelberg, B.C. G. “Theoreme H et unitarite de $:" Hele. Phys. Acta 25 (1952):577-880. Stueckelberg, E. C. G. “Quantum Theory in Real Hilbert Space.” Hel. Phys. Acta 83 (1960)-721-752, Taylor, E. F., and J. A. Wheelor. Spacetime Physics Sen Francisco: Feemaa 3963, 102, ‘Tou, J., and R. C. Gonzales. Pattern Recognition Principles. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley, 1974, ‘Traub, J. F., G. W. Wasilkowski, and 1. Wosnaikowski, Information-Base Complesity. San Diego: Academic Press, 1988. ‘Tukey, J. W. “Sequential Conversion of Continuous Data to Digital Data” Bell Laboratories memorandum of Sept. 1, 1947. Marks the introduction the term “bit.” Reprinted in H. 8. Tropp, “Origin of the Term Bit,” Anna Hist. Computing 6 (1984):182-155 Unruh, W. G., and W. Tl. Zurek, “Reduction of a Wave Packet in Quantux Brownian Motion.” Phys. Rev. D 40 (1985):1071-1004. Viert, Red. Probability and Bayesian Statistics. Singapore: Wold Scientifis 1987 Vilenkin, A. “Creation of Universes ftom Nothing.” Piys, Lett F 117 (1982) 25-28, von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. Thcory of Games end Economic Be havior, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1944 von Schelling, F.’W. J. [1775-1854]. In Sekellings Werke, nach der Origé nalausgate in never Anorinung herousgesben, edited by M. Schrdter Miinchen: Beck, 1958-1958. Wang, J. Theory of Games. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968. Watanabe, S, ed. Methodologies of Pattern Recopnition. New York: Acaderit Press, 1967, Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links 120. 12h 12. 123, 124 125. 126, 12. 128. 129. 120. 181. 132, 193, 25 ‘Watson, J. D., and F. H.C. Crick, “Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxstibose Nucleic Acid.” Mature 171 (1953):731-738 Weyl, I. Grappentheorie wad Quantenmechanih. Leipeig: Hirzel, 1028. Weyl, H. *Mathematies and Logie.” A brief survey serving as a preface to areview of The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Amer. Math. Monthly 53 (2946):2-18. Wheeler, J. A. “Polyelecirons.” Ann. NY Acad. Sei 46 (1046):219-238 Wheeler, J.A. “Assessment of Everett’ ‘Relative State’ Formulation of Quan- tum Theory” Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 (1957):408-66. Wheeler, J.-A. “On the Nature of Quantum Geometrodynamics.” Ann. of Phys. 2 (1957): 604-814 ° Whedler, J. A. “Superspace and the Nature of Quantum Geometrodynamics.” In Battelle Rencontres: 1967 Lectures in Mathematics and Physices, edited by CM. DeWitt and J. A. Wheeler. New York: Benjamin, 1968, 242-207. Reprinted ay “Le Supereepace et la Nature de la Géométrodynamique Quan- tigue," in Fleides ef Champ Grovitationnel en Relativité Générale, No. 170, Colloques Internationave, Editions du Centre National de la Recherche 5 centifique, Paris (1969). Wheeler, J. A. “Transcending the Law of Conservation of Leptons.” In Atti del Convegno internazionale sul Tema: The Astrophysical Aspects of the Weak {Interactions (Cortona Il Palazzone,” 10-12 Guigno 1970). Quadermo N.: Ac- ‘ademia Nationale dei Lincei, 1974, vol. 157, 189-164, Wheeler, J. A. “The Univerte as Home for Man.” In The Nature of Scien life Discovery, edited by O. Gingetich. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Pus tt, 361205, Prepented in part Ameen Sienst 02 Q078) (83-691. Reprinted in part in T. P, Snow, The Dynamic Universe, West, St Paul Minnesota (1988), 108-109 Wheeler, 1 A. “include the Observer in the Wave Function?” Fundamenta Scientiae: Seminaire sur les Fondements des Sciences (Strasbourg) 25 (1978): 9-85. Reprinted in J. Leite Lopes and M. Paty; eds, Quantum Mechanics, A Half Century Later, Reidel, Dorérecht (1977), 1-18 Wheeler, 1A. “Genesis and Observership.” Ia Foundational Protlems in the Special Sciences, edited by R. Butts and J. Hintikka. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1977, 133, Whedler, J. A. “The ‘Past’ and the ‘Delayed-Choice’ Double-Slit Bxperiment.” In Methematical Foundotions of Quentum Theory, edited by A. R- Marlow. New York: Academic Press, 1973, 9-48. Reprinted in part in WZ, pp. 182- 200. Whose, J. A, “Fontes of Time Protems inthe Poundations of lacy Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” (Course 1), edited by N. Toraldo di Francia. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1979, 95- 407. Reprinted in part ia WZ, pp. 200-208 Wheeler, J. A. “The Quantum and the Universe In Relativity, Quante, Cosmology in the Development of the Scientific Thought of Albert Einstein, and26 134. 4136. 136. sr. 138. 139. 440. ML va, us. aa, “John Archibald Wheeler edited by M. Pantaleo and F. doFinis. New York: Jobnson Reprint Comp 1979, vol. Il, 807-825, Wheeler, 1.'A, “Beyond the Black Hole.” In Some Strangeness of the Fn portion: A Centennial Symposiem to Celebrate the Achievements of lle: Einstein, odited by H. Woolf. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1980, 311-275 Reprinted in part in WZ, pp. 208-210. Wheeler, J. A. “Progeometry: Motivations and Prospects” In Quantum The ory and Gravitation, proceedings of a symposium held at Loyola Universit New Orleans, May 23-26, 1979, edited by A. R. Marlow. New York: Academi Press, 1980, 1-11 Wheeler, J. A. “Law without Law.” In Structure in Science and Art, edit by P. Medasrar and J. Shelley. New York: Elsevier North-Holland and Ans terdam: Excerpta Medica, 1980. Wheeler, J. A. “Delayed-Choice Experiments and the Bobt-Einstein Dialog! Im American Philosophical Society and the Royal Society: Papers Read ei Mecting, June 3, 1980. Philadelphia: Am. Philosophical Society, 1980, 8. Reprinted in slightly abbreviated form and translated into German as “Di Experimente der veraégerten Entscheidung und der Dialog zwischen Bobr ani Einstein,” in B. Kanitschedier, ed, Moderne Naturphilosophie, Konigshauee, and Neumann, Wirzbarg (1984), 203-222. Repriated in A. N. Mitra, L.§ Kothari, V. Singh, and S. K. Trehan, eds, Niels Bohr: A Profile, Indian Ne tional Science Academy, New Delhi (1986), 199-168. Wheeler, J. A. "Not Conscioumess but the Distinction between the Prole and the Probed as Central to the Blemental Quantum Act of Observation” 1m The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World, edited by R. G. Jahn Boulder: Westview, 1981, 87=111 Wheeler, J. A. “The Elementary Quantum Act as Higgledy-Piggledy Buik: ing Mechanism.” In Quantum Theory and the Structures of Time and Spact Papers presented ai a Conference held in Tulsing, Jaly, 1980, edited by Castell and C. F. von Weissicker. Munich: Carl Hanser, 1081, 27-80 Whedler, J. A. “The Computer and the Universe.” Int. J. Theor, Phys. 21 (1982)557-571 ‘Wheeler, J. A. “Bobr, Einstein, and the Strange Lesson of the Quantum” In Mind in Nature, Nobel Conference XVII, Gustavus Adolphus College, St Peter, Minnesota, edited by Richard Q. Elves. New York: Harper and Tot 1982, 1-30, 88, 112-113, 190-131, and 148-149. Wheeler, J. A. “Particles and Geometry.” In Unifed Theories of Elementar Particles, edited by P. Breitenlobner and H. P. Dirt, Berlin: Springer, 1932 189-217. Wheeler, J. A. “Blackholes and New Physics.” In Discovery: Research eal Scholarship at the University of Tezas at Austin 7(2) (Winter 1992):4-7 Wheeler, J. A. Physics and Austerity (ia Chinese). Ankiai, China: Anhui Se ence and Technology Publications, 1982. Reprinted in part in Krisi, edited by 1. Marculescu, vol 1, no. 2, Lecture Il, Klineksieck, Pais (1983), 671-615 ntormaton, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links 27 ss. ee, 1A. “On Regnng Law wat Lan? Am, J Phy SE (1883) seo 146, Wheeler, J. A. Friedrich von cee eee aa Soong 198 8, a san Anny Gus Phinney Bing Ut ptr Exetel Gratton and Mearrenent Ter Pe A te Now on el Londo: Pam 28, 1-108 vos eye as. far Quanto Thay on esuemen Pa to: ese ah Ps 5. . ves Whee Bi nt Mnsng” i Polen in Thoctd Pa way a csc Mint su Me Maor. Sars Unc Se Serra Alsi Mewetca Pats Meigs At eee Mma 7 gyn 18, Ent Sein eae, Nop Gea ae eA Cima Fane M, Maia (clit nnn of Esedo Raat, Wo Scene, Si eer of Me ment.” In Quan- vn, Ree SR quantum Gavi: The Quin of Menno” Meta of Groot bed by 8M Cotsen. Brita gs, 294 When 4 ” Thaotic a. sks Phenoenc an Law witout Ln” tn "Yuko Quntom Spt od G. Cua New Yo: Pena 1, sos in tn tir of Yor se Wd 1A Ply Meaning’ Te Pelee” “ ride Sana Piguet by 6° Mone ad MO. Sul. New Ss Pin 160,25 38 15. Wieser "roo he Rl he Ober in Quatam Meshas- ee Gao rhe Atom lied by PGW. Dai and JR Bows niin Caries Prom, 5-68 ~ se Se Ste Comet Quanta In Nw Tenis ed es Geese eceen Thereby BM Coenberge- Aan New Yo Sca'Sh sto cen aoe : 155, Wheeler, J. A. eae ‘Weyl and the Unity of Knowledge.” In Exact Sci- tn tdi Polya oonstn ted OW, Depp tol rank eaten 8 $0850 Aprnted in vert fx im See T4180) S03 “ 1, Wien J Acer a ptr Seley Quan Neboing IBM J. Res. & Dev. 32 (1988):4-25. Reprinted in E. Agazzi, ed., Probability ini Seer Ker Atta (68), 10-2, vs, Wr SA Journey ne Ganly ad Soin. Seti erin Urry ow cnn 00 158. White, MM. Science and Sentiment in America: Philosophice! ee Int Edo ein Dewy. Rew Soa Ox Ua Poo 1 tenis ser Ziti. Ya Die Zeit, Scbiften dor Co , ‘edited by A. Peisl and A. Mohler. Miinchen:28 158. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 168. 168. er. 168, 0. 170 am. 372. 173. 17. John Archibald Wheeler Weil, A. “De la Metaphysique aux mathematiques.” Sciences, 52-50, Re- printed in A. Weil, Ouceres Scientifiques: Collected Works, Vol. 2, 1951-¢, Springer, New York (1979), 408-412 Wootters, W. K., and W. Il. Zurek. “Complementarity in the Double Slit By periment: Quantum Nonseparability and a Quantitative Statement of Bohr Principle” Phys, Rev. D 19 (1979)-473-484. Wootters, W. K. “The Acquistion of Information from Quantum Measurs ments.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1980, Wootters, W. K. “Statistical Distribution and Hilbert Space.” Phys. Re. 2 (1981) 357-362 ‘Wootters, W. K., and W. H. Zurek. “A Single Quantum Cannot Be Cloned? Nature 279 (1982)802-805. Wootters, W. K., and W. Il. Zurek. “On Replicating Photons” Nature 30¢ (1988):188-180, Yates, F-E.,ed. Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence of Order. New York Plenum, 1987 ‘Young, P. The Nature of Informetion. Westport, CT: Praeger-Greenvood 1987, Zech, HL. D. “On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum ‘Theory? Found. Phy. ¥ (1970):69-76. Zh, H. D. The Physical Bosis of the Direction of Time, Berlin: Springs, 1989, ZeW"dovich, Ya. B., and 1. D, Novikov. Relativistic Astrophysics, Vol I: Stn and Relativity. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971. Zurek, W. H. “Pointer Bass of Quantum Apparatus: Into What Mixture Dost the Wavepacket Collapse?” Phys. Rev, D 24 (1081):1516-1525, ‘Zurek, W. H. *Envitonment-Induced Superseletion Roles.” Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982):1862-1880. Zusek, W. H. “Information ‘Transfer in Quantum Measurements: Ierevereibi- ity and Amplification.” In Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravitation ox! Measurement Theory, edited by P. Meystze and M. O. Scully. NATO AS! Series. New York: Plenum, 1983, 87-116. Zarek, W. TL, and KS, Thorne. “Statistical Mechanical Origin ofthe Entrops of a Rotating, Charged Black Hole” Phys. Heo. Lett 20 (1985):2171-2175. Zurek, W. H. “Algorithmic Randomness and Physical Entropy.” Pays. Ree ‘4 40 (1989):4731-4751, Zarek, W. H. “Thermodynamic Cost of Computation: Algorithmic Complex ity and the Information Metric.” Nature 34 (1989):119-194 Information from Quantum Measurements A theorem due to AS. Khoev connec the ety of quanta system AE NTEuac tse nmaton inthe stem n is paper T “rea ts ote ani a owe te conseoenes QUANTUM COMMUNICATION AND ENTROPY = eee a ee theory of communication Although the theory has since found wider application, Te ete the channel in a state, or signal, which corresponds to his asta resnge accord: “cegon tape crm esos arcs Sch da i a Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, SFI Studies in the Scionces of Complexity, vo. Vl, Ed. W.H. Zurek, Addison-Wesley. 498030 Benjamin Schumacher upon its surface ina signal. According to the code known as “writien English” te signal corresponds to a message (which includes, for instance a description oft cotmanicaton process). This general picture of communication includes both tie notion of information transfer and the notion of information storage and retrieval Information theory as formulated by Shannon takes an escontially statstod approach to this process. A particular message 2, is chosen with probability pla) from an abstract set of possible messager. The information content of he mesg is given by the information function H(X) = ~ 7 ple) logp(2i) a (All logarithms have base 2, so that H(X) is in “bits.") (2) can be viewed as | measure of the receiver's uncertainty about XX before the signal is transmitted ‘After the transmission, the receiver has examined the channel with result yy (from a set ¥ of possible results) and ascribes a conditional probability p(zs|ya) to each possible message. If the channel is “noisy,” the receiver may still have @ non-zero degree of uncertainty about the message X—on average, an ammount H(X1Y) = Spe) HO |) = H(XY)— HO), a) where (X,Y) and H(1’) ace defined by the joint distribution for X and Y and the ‘marginal distribution for Y, respectively. Thus, the receiver has gained an amount of information H(X + ¥) = H(X)- A(X |¥) = HX) + #0) - HY) a jn the communication process. H(X :¥) is usually called the mutual information and measures the real effectiveness of « communication scheme Suppose now that the channel is a quantum system Q described by a Hilbert space Mq. The signal corresponding to the message 2; is a state of @ representa! by a density operator p(e;). The signal state might be a pure state, with (21) = | 21){a% | for some state vector | 2;) in Hg, but this need not be the case. Between the sender and the receiver, @ may undecgo a dynamical evolution aecording to some Hamiltonian #, which may include both internal dynamics and interaction between @ and the environment. The signal propogates, undergoes distortion, and perhaps acquires “static.” For simplicity, I will ignore the dynamics of the signal; ‘more precialy, I imagine that the effet of dynamics is already included in the signal states p(s) The receiver tries to infer the message from the outcome of a measurement of a “decoding observable” A on Q. For a given message z;, the outcome a of the A-rmeasurement has a probability Trxyp(e:), s0 that the joint distribution is 31 Infomation from Quantum Measurements (ena) = ples), Tep(2) From this distribution the mutual information ‘tan be caleulated using Ea. 3. ‘ 4) The ensemble of possible messages gives rise to an ensemble of posible signal. ‘This ensemble is described by the density operator p= Dvled) oa) wo example, correctly prdits the ensemble average of any quantum observable, For example, Ae Pgnal cacy (E) tipi The entropy of te signal sere, datined by Sv © ssa quantity with obvious analogies to the information fenction H(X), which in fat frequently called the “entropy.” However, the two are quite diferent. a formation is a semantic quantity, » fonction of the abstract ensemble of poss messages, Entropy is « physical quantity with a thermodynamic meaning. The r= Intion between the two is a key issue in the physics of information. ' "A particularly deep insight into this question is provided by a theorem o! AS. Kholevo® which sets a bound on H(X : A), the amount of information con- ‘wyed by the quantum channel Q. Kholevo showed that A(X: A) < Sip]- Do rle)Sbla), Trploge, ©) with equality only ihe signal states p(s eommute with one anole, Sine the ines on ie rte honaegte aly flows Tat : andlor an amet off EOL a) Sf. Tat i, a actin sonel @ fen as grater than te cepy othe ese gai ‘should rematk that the model of measurement used by Kholevo in the pre cra estes very genre en. He aoe thatthe decoding obervee fa puatietperorsateal (POV) meant tha ach measurement outcome se unocatel wis postin operator yn Ha fr hie Le The probabilities forthe various measurement outcomes are given by the usual quantum trae rule. For an ordinery measurement the x's ate projections that is ordinary measurements are projection-valued (PV) measures. The POV me: slearly include the PV measures as a subset? o32 Benjamin Schumacher eerie area CHANNEL CAPACITY One consequence of Kholevo's theorem is that simple quantum channels cannit hhold an unlimited amount of information. Suppose that dimHg = N. It is a. ways possible to increase A(X) by increasing the number of possible messages and signals. Further, since we might allow POV measures in our class of observabl quantities, there is no limit to the number of measurement outcomes and hetie ne limit to H7(A). In other words, the sender can attempt to put as much informatice ‘as he wishes into the channel, and the receiver can attempt to acquire as much information as ke wishes from the channel. However, the entropy of the signal en semble is bounded by S[p) < logN. Therefore, by Kholevo's theorem no possibl: coding-deeoding scheme can use the channel Q to convey a quantity information H(X : A) greater than log N- A spin-1/2 system, for example, has an informatica capacity of just one bit. ‘This is intuitively satisfying, since we sometimes think of a spin-1/2 system as «8 Stwo-state” system, But in fact there are an infinite number of states of a spit. 41/2 system, one for each point on the Stokes sphere (pure states) or in its interie (mixed states). An unlimited amount of information can be coded in the spin state, Nevertheless, the quantum state of the spin is not an observable, and the accessible information can be no larger than a single bi On the other hand, since the receiver ean choose the decoding observable, he has a choice about which part of the coded information to access, This can be illustrated by Wiesner's quantum multiplesing® Imagine that Q is a spin-1/2 system, and le! [ +) and | -) be the eigenstates of o:. The idea is to code two distinet one-bit ‘messages X and Y into the channel Q. Four possible joint messages (XY = 00, Ol 11, oF 10) are coded in the following four signal states: 100) = coud | +) + sind | -) coed | +) ~ sin6 |) sind | +) +0080 | -) sind | +) —cos0 |) @ where 9 = x/8. If each message has probability 1/4, then the message information H(XY) ia two bits No observable can read both bits, but itis possible to read something of either bit by a sultable choice of measurement. Ifthe receiver measures gz, for example hie can read the first bit X with an error probability of about 10%, though he lears* nothing about the second bit. That is, H(X :¢,) A and H(Y : 4) = 0. Similatly measurement of eg yields 4 bts of information about ¥ but no information about X. In each case less than one bitis received, but this deficiency can be overcome i a long sequence of messages by the use of redundancy and error-corseeting code. ‘Two distinct messages can thus be coded into complementary observables ¢, ané ‘5; the receiver can read either one, but not both infomation rom Quantum Measurements 33 . in this example is Tess cotice that even the sum of the mutual informations in th ple is than one bit This is not accidental and isan expression of the complementarity of fhe decoding observables. Maassen and Uffink” have showed that, for any complete Grdinary (PV measure) observables A and 5 and any state p, H(Alp) + (Bio) > © ® (ep lene)» ec an) re gpsates of A and Breet: Ba 9 amounts to an Preaek ln fo A ood, andthe stones uch ae pe fate tate quantum see, ding = M, hen oe Stoemge coded int, (Xs A) 4.210%: B) = H(A) + (8) [F(A LX) + 0B 120) < Mog -G a0) For e; and o, on a spinel/2 system Q, C = log? and so the sum H(XY : 61) + HCP son) <1 dit a we noted. CORRELATION AND EVERETT’S CONJECTURE Information theory was used by Hugh Bverett TE inthe analysis of his “relative areas panera terprtaton of quantum recanien Tate eure of hi oak Brett made at interning conjecture whic, armed with Khcevo's theorem, wear now ins pontion to prow Consider a quantum system Q composed of two subsystems Q; and Qs. If the state of @ is tepresented by the deny operator p (possibly « projeton), then domity Gperators pre Taye for Qs and fy = Thip for Qy ate obtained by portal trace operations ‘The expectation sales of evry observable on Qs alone are ety pediced by fo ey bu she sobeytem Senay pears dO 6% eres toy oth cotatings bconen the subeyateme that may be present inthe sale Brea tg were in a pure state, the exparate sate of Q, and Qa ght not be pore Site Ie distuation, the entropy Sta =0 but Stal = Sl] > We can now late Eveeit cnjctre ITA and B are dtverwbley on Qi and Q,, respectively, then the mutual information H(A : B) obtained from the distribution of outeomes of a joint measurement of A on Q; and B on Q2m satisfy H(A: B)< Sip) fori = 1,2, The mutual information H(A : B),ealled the “core by Bverett, i an information-theoretie measure of the degree of an rrelation information” forrelation between34 Bonjamin Schumacher observables A and 3. Everett conjectured that the correlation between observable on different subsystems was limited by the subsystem entropy. + This situation is of interest in the theory of measurement, which was its origise context. The two subsystems of Q might be an object system and a measuriy apparatus. After some interaction, the object and apparatus are in a correlate! state. Bq. 11 limits the possible degree of correlation between an object systen observable and a “pointer” observable of the apparatus, (It also seems likely that; careful account of the thermodynamic cost of quantum measurement would mab use of this relationship between correlation and entropy.) ‘The proof is an easy one that makes use of the notion of relative states. Fu each outcome a of the A-measurement on Qy, which oceurs with probability p(a) = ‘Tere, it is possible to assign a relative state pa(a) to Qa. It is not hard to shoe that 2 = S)>(@) on(a) ‘That is, the measurement of A on subsystem Q: does not affect the statistics of aap ‘measurement on Qo. (This is exactly the statement of locality for quantum measure ment theory; if it were not true, it would be possible to use quantum correlation ‘to send signals faster than the speed of light or into the past!) Although there is no question of communication in this situation, there is = formal similarity between quantum communication and quantum correlation. The Armeasurement outcomes correspond to the possible messages; for each “message! @ there is a “message probability” p(a) and a ‘signal state” pz(a) of the “channe? Qo. A measurement of B on the channel provides an amount of information abot! A limited by Kholevo's theorem: cc H(A:B) < Sioa. oo A symmetric argument using the B-measurement outcome as the “message” aa! Q1 as the “channel” proves the other half of the conjecture Since the machinery of Kholevo'stheotem isso general itis actually possible to prove a stronger theotem than the one orgininaly conjectured by Everett. Tht ‘moral remains unchanged: correlation, measured by mutual information, is limited by subsystem entropy. INFORMATION AND ENERGY One of the most important questions of principle in the physics of information i ‘the question of energy. How much energy is required for the storage, transfer, processing of information? This question may be asked in two different ways. The fist form of the question is thermodynamic, asking how muuch energy is lost throug! Information from Quantum Measuremonts 35 li i ‘emers answer, due to Landauer,* Ben- Pe ee 7 seers 2 remy sia eth a sen ioe Ce ee en ne SR eee eer ion a ai ne etend a ine epee ab ty ecm : significant loss of informa- eas eee sence cer en oat ater ete cl eh tec oe aes wae rt ee, ee Eee ee sees ht at ge he sear eget ny ay Phe es Pe sun, a a vere J is some increasing fonction, so that more information requires mote energy sees cee ceanenat the fonction f is ofthe form f(B1) = cf7™ for positive fonstants sand it eng to ee thatthe exponent m < 2. long signal can be Sonntag ont ofa sequence of sorter signal each obving tis quantum limi If m > 2, then it is possible to violate the limit eventually. Interestingly limits o {his form sith m = Land ith m = 2 have both been proposed and cscutted in tome delal* ‘The m= cases patitlaly Interesting, since it can be rewritten (15) Poet, where P is the signal power and Ris the information transmission rate. In other Words, the power requirement increases asthe square of the information rate. hole’ theorem sheds fight om these questions by providing lit forthe amount of accessible information that may be represented by the state of @ Pa lar quastum channel. Thus,