Problem of Information

0:00 What does a missionary result mean? It is, obviously, a detection event. What is a detection event? It is acquisition of information with multi-driven systems. In other words, it can be understood as information transmission. That is, a mission event can be understood as an information device, a transmission device. In effect, is the transmission of actual information. As earlier pointed out, the general condition of an information processing and exchanging, that these quantum states, as sources and obviously correlations, alone do not suffice to determine a specific modality of information acquisitions. In this sense, they represent potential information. And, obviously, only in the excessive, but not sufficient, conditions of some outcomes. I will ask, I wish to add this. For some years, when I applied in quantum computation, to apply only reversible quantum computation. A paper of Zaniger and co-workers in an issue, I think in March or so, has followed another line of research. In this line, they developed an irreversible quantum computation. And they did that by combining exactly the two modes of information modification that I have proposed here. That is, measurement, loss and time. The combination of these two elements give rise to possibly a better solution of the problem of battle computation. So I find that this represents to a certain extent a confirmation of this result. So, for this reason it turns out that the environment, for instance also the measurement apparatus, if you will, is what defines information and its properties. For instance, there is a paper of Adam and Sert where it shows that

2:30 algorithm complexity can be defined relative to an environment. So I think it is quite While more, that we should define informational property relative to a background, as I will explain at the end of my talk, the problem is that normally one makes a big conclusion between relativity to a given context or to a given argument and subjectivity. These are two completely different issues, completely different issues. And I think that the future of the interpretation of quantum mechanics depends on the distinction between these two issues. As it is well known, Heisenberg was the first one to conceive the quantum state as potential and to think that the role played by the environment could represent the solution of the measurement problem. The problem is this. Any system, in my opinion, is somehow connected with algorithms. In other words, any system is an open system, in my opinion. Now, it turns out that the environment is a complex, a huge complex of integrated systems. Then the only way to control the environment would be to know what are these and them. That is, I should perform a large number, a huge number of information elements in order to know all the possible connections of my systems with other systems. When I will do this, obviously I will completely change the connections with the other one, if we are in a circle. This explains why the interaction and the connection between my system and the randomness is an uncontrolled one. And this explains why the measurement outcome is completely random. Randomness comes out simply from an uncontrolled reaction or interaction between the randomness, etc. So, I think this is Mr. Sternstein quite normal. Perhaps I suggest that when we, in time, I suggest that all systems, all quantum systems of our world are somehow in time, one way to the other.

5:00 Who? Why I suggest this? There are several reasons. First, entanglement is not an absolute concept, but it is a moon concept. There are degrees of entanglement. This was shown by Clay or Dr. Adams. So it is normal to think that several systems are connected more or less. So, when we entangle the system, probably we only reinforce an entanglement, but we do not build a disentanglement as it seems from a superficial point of view. So, it is possible that we only reinforce an entanglement. Secondly, obviously all quantum systems can come from a common source, from a big bank, so far as we know. So it is possible that they are out, oh, some out, some out. So, globally, when we come back now to the problem of measurement globally, So, when we consider the interaction between several systems, all proceeds according to what are mechanical rules. That is, unitary. And from this point of view, nothing has changed from this point of view. But at this level, we only have polarities and polarities at this level. But, but, at the local level, a lot has changed. At the local level, we have, we have a very important, a very important transformation. Yeah, this is, excuse me, I have not shown this. So, as I have said, we should carefully distinguish between information and information-transmission of communication. While the latter information transmission is concerned with events that

7:30 can be somehow carefully offered and consist in an actual transmission of information, the problem does not imply any casualness and has nothing to do with any transmission. We have information transmission only when we send a different signal and not another. This is well known, but this shows, in my opinion, an interesting thing. This is also well known, but perhaps not completely seen, I don't know, but I hope that we completely agree on this point. My point is the following. The difference between a qubit and a bit is relative to a measurement procedure. And we give an error. It is not an absolute one from a second molecule. Why I saw this? Because any bit can be understood as an actualized qubit. qubit. For example, let us take again the state psi expanded in the basis 0, 1, okay? Let us consider that the value of 3 is 0, okay? But 0 can be written according to equation 5 as a superposition of psi and psi autonomy. So it is itself a superposition. I think we all agree on this very easy point. shows that it is not the form that distinguishes zero from psi, but only the fact that we have obtained as actual information zero and not psi. But from a fourth point of view, or if you wish, from a general point of view, bits and qubits are the same code in a classical context, in a quantum context. So, this is the reason why I call both information, but distinguish, in this context, aqua information, in our example zero, and the potential information here inside. That is, if you wish, a cubic is a bit from a counterfactual point of view. That is, if I have chosen to measure an observable whose eigenstate is psi and not zero, I would is as a bit. So, the difference from a general point of view, from according to the quantum

10:00 mechanical laws, is not an absolute difference. It is only a variable difference. Obviously, the difference, the distinction, is absolute from a practical point of view. That is, from the point of view, the diet obtained this, zero, and not psi, as a result. But this is of principle, or of theory, according to it. This is the reason you can see again this that I have initial qubit measurement procedure, I obtain the bit 0, but the bit 0 is again a qubit that is at the position of I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. According to me, for resuming, we can say that the most general principles that rule information transmission in quantum mechanics are, and I put here a paper of Babel and Clifton and others. That is, we cannot use entanglement for superluminal communication. This shows that entanglement is only a necessary condition of communication, but not communication itself. It is only information shared in the area. Second, we cannot broadcast perfectly any information contained in common states, which, in the case of Q-State, reduces to the we move to the theory again because the complete amount of quantum information contained in a given state is inaccessible to any measure. We can only extract a small sub-ensemble of this initial amount that is a bit of, in the case of two other systems, a bit of classical information, is actual information. In other words, it is impossible to transmit both the content of an entanglement and the content of a constant state as such. It is impossible. This is the reason why both can be understood as potential information. As already pointed out by Bob, the immediate consequence is that any information transmission

12:30 is always accompanied by some random selection, and finally, n-comit increases, as I have explained it. So, it seems to me, to a certain extent, clear. So, I wrote that this short examination shows that information cannot be reduced to a subject efficient, that one can dismiss together with other unscientific concepts or abstract ones. Not to be mistaken, one still supposes in many books, also in the letter of the last time, that information has to do with subjectivity, with mind, one says. The problem is that one does not distinguish in general between two different concepts, non-intrinsicity and subjectivity. A property is intrinsic to a given system if it can be assigned without any reference to other systems. Of this type are in general the property of classical objects, or of the objects of classical mechanics, if you wish. Obviously, this is not the case for quantum systems. On the contrary, a property is subjective if it can only exist when somebody has it in the mind. This does not mean that it exists only in the mind, but that without the concourse of the mind thinking about it, this property would not exist at all. In my opinion, the properties of quantum systems are in general not intrinsic, but maybe such. They are all interactions. That is, what property a quantum system has depends on the interactions and interactions that this system has with many ones. So, to this extent, I am, I can be considered a Neanderthal man. That is, I am an Neanderthalian realist. To the extent to which I think that theorists, mind and so on are part of nature and not the other way around. I do not think that when we have to move with physical processes we should consider the mind as relevant to these scientific processes.

15:00 In my opinion, when we measure, we do, in our way, exactly what an issue does spontaneously. Because every time that two open systems interact, they can produce exactly the same determination that we produce when we measure. So there is no reason at all of a mind, obviously I am not saying that mind does not exist, I am only saying that mind is not pertinent to a physical object. And it is a, onto subjectivity is not pertinent, it is only a mishmash of different things. So, resume. Quantum systems are the source of very information of our world. Second, they instantiate potential information. Third, the only way to modify information is to select or to share it for quantum systems through measurement and language, respectively. 4. Selective information determining actual transmission of information. Qubits and bits have the same form, but are of an actual relationally, that is, locally and actually distinct. 6. Qubits, qubit and debits are only necessary conditions of information transmissions. Sir, quantum properties are not intrinsic, but matter subject. They are better interaction. So, I thank you. Oh, yeah. If you don't mind, you can put it on the left side. Absolutely. Okay. So, questions, remarks. He quoted Vire, saying that venture is the smallest piece in the world, which has to be bits of information to that person.

17:30 This is very interesting, and in this connection, what I wanted to ask you, do you have any idea, anybody, anyone else, what is the smallest amount of matter needed to cause one of these situations? To a certain extent, we have already guessed, because the surface of a black hole, it has been divided in areas proportional to the water length that represent exactly one meter of the pollution, each one. That is, you can see the surface of a black hole as divided in small areas, each one is a one or a zero. I try to imagine the fate of a neuromytheologist in a disaster. So I'm taking time to guess how much, how much matter or energy is. I understand that it's interesting. What is it, an electron, or could an electron go to the distance? Could one go? Aha, you are saying that we cannot go down to smaller and smaller. In my opinion, each quantum system represents potentially an infinite amount of information, each quantum system. The problem is that we can never get this information in its popularity, because otherwise we could measure perfectly the state of quantum system, and this is impossible. That is, if you wish, the information contained in quantum systems is unaccessible. Why? Why? Because, for instance, for several reasons. First, because there is the uncertainty principle. Second, because there is the superposition principle. That is, classically, given that all physical quantities are compatible, you can have a complete understanding of the quantum state, of the classical state of the system. In the quantum case, it is impossible. That is, suppose that you let a quantum system pass a test, for example.

20:00 Suppose that a test is a polarization and you have a system that is in a superposition of vertical and horizontal, excuse me, and vertical polarization, some unknown superposition. Ok, then this is a, let us say, this is a, a, a vertical polarization. Ok, so you are sure that if the system passes here, it will be in vertical polarization, surely. and otherwise it will take this back so. Obviously, this does not give information about the statement. This is, we have only answered to the question, is the system in the vertical polarization phase? If the system passes, the answer is yes. If the system does not pass, the answer is no. But we have no password in the other question. is far more difficult in what state the quantum system is. Why? Why? Because the system can pass in two cases, either if it is already in a state of vertical polarization, or if it is in a superposition between, and you cannot distinguish between these two non-tobular possibilities. This is the content of the no-clonic theory, if you would. So, you can, that is, I can ask, I can ask, this is, this is, this is something to do with the problem of properties of this month. I can ask, for example, to someone, do you love me? And the answer will be, in general, yes or no. There are probably more complicated cases, but let the answer will be easy. Let us consider the easy case. So, the answer will be yes or no, okay? But this is only the answer to, in the answer where are you in this state? But suppose that I pose another question. In what state of feeling

22:30 are you? Exactly. What will be the answer? I think this will be very complicated. Because your, because his or her state of thinking is obviously an individual one. It will be different from us and so on. So in general I think in nature we should sharply distinguish between questions about if the given system is in a certain state or has a given property because here it is exactly a question about the problem, because this is an idea state of a project, of a polarization survival, let us say. So, one thing is to ask, are you in the state? Another thing is to ask, in what state are you? It is impossible to answer any part of the case to this question. Does it mean that no state preparation is possible at all? No, you can't be the option. No, you have a lot on the counter, on the counter. This is already a preparation. Because you have prepared all, I mean, each system, system. It does not matter in what state that passes this filter will be in the classical polarization. So we are prepared to the system. But the problem is that we have two possibilities. One possibility is to prepare a system. If you prepare a preparation are some, let me say injunctions, that is to impose on the system to become in a certain way. Measurements are not injunctions, they are rather questions, measurements. It is completely different. They are complementary, in my opinion, there is a paper in Bush, I don't know if with you, of many years ago, about the fact that the measurement and pre-measurability are complementary. I completely agree with this one. Completely. In my opinion, this is the most important content of the Complementarity Principle. To the left hand, the Complementarity Principle is a complementarity between mission and mission. But that's considered regard to some...

25:00 Suppose, suppose, suppose now that the system has passed this filter, and you will pose another question again. That is, you will wish to complete your knowledge of the state. You wish to complete it. So, you have two possibilities. Either you repeat the same mission, but this gives no information at all, because if I set the same filter in vertical, a vertical of the polarization filters, all the systems will pass again. This is a cooler, is a more, is a negative, if you will, so you have obtained nothing. But suppose that you pose another question. For example, is the system in a, I don't know, is the system in a 40 degrees polarization state? Okay, you are again in the same situation, you are again in the same situation. Because in this case a part will pass and part not. And you have answered the memory of the previous mission. And you begin from the start. The piece, the classical case, you accumulate information. In the bottom case, it is impossible. You are asked. Each time you are asked the whole information that you had before. You begin from the start. Each time. Before we go on with the next question, let me just remark, just to confuse the situation, that how can you know that what will pass the polarizer without defecting this? How can we polish it? Yeah, okay, okay, yes you will, okay. But anyway, anyway, no, no, no, no, no, no, okay, okay, okay. But I can handle, for example, a polarization b-split device where it combines polarization And this is the reason why I call this pre-measurement, not measurement. This is a pre-measurement, not measurement. But I have used this only to explain why you cannot accumulate information.

27:30 This was the original decision. But obviously there are completely different questions. Yeah, you mentioned very briefly that there exist different measures of the degree of entanglement. I was just wondering which one you would regard as the most expressive from the perspective of the information content and brought it in. Do you have any preference between these different matters? Ah, yes, excuse me. There are a lot of papers about this issue. One of the first ones was in the paper of Zurich, where he made use of the mutual information, as a way to understand and understand it. But I prefer personally a paper of Benio Vedrale and Planio Vedrale and others, and this is this paper. We are not over the question, or just, I don't know, this is the video, this is not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, right, okay, okay, should I check it? Are you sure? And now, this is really that we are here, ah, okay. I think this is the best paper on this problem. In my opinion their examination is very interesting. Because they consider also the case of classical corrections. Because, obviously, there is not only the problem of mind and mind, but also the classical interpretation. Well, I'd like to ask again what you said about the information content that is stored There are works of Beckerstein about this problem. I am not a specialist in relativity, so I have read these things more from the perspective of quantum information.

30:00 So, I know not a lot about this, but sure I have read exactly this. It can be divided on both surfaces of the ground, right? Yes, exactly. And this is 100% speed of information. And this is also the reason why Beckerstein says that thermodynamic and information and considerations are basic for any quantum system, any degree, is what you're doing. Do you know, previously, one thought that thermodynamics considerations were in physics security, especially relative to statistical mechanics. On the contrary, this determination of the Blackwater results shows that thermodynamically information and considerations are the more basic. Thank you. Okay, I think it's high time to stop here. The audience has been already exhausted. After all, thank you today. It's high time to have a rest. So, see you tomorrow. And don't forget the problem at the gate, that is better if you have this main topic. Thank you.