# Does nature impose limits on what we can know? But why?

September 12, 2013 | Posted by News under Physics, News |

From an article in *Nature*, on a variety of efforts to come to terms with the quantum world:

… entanglement and all the other strange phenomena of quantum theory are not a completely new form of physics. They could just as easily arise from a theory of knowledge and its limits.

To get a better sense of how, Fuchs has rewritten standard quantum theory into a form that closely resembles a branch of classical probability theory known as Bayesian inference, which has its roots in the eighteenth century. In the Bayesian view, probabilities aren’t intrinsic quantities ‘attached’ to objects. Rather, they quantify an observer’s personal degree of belief of what might happen to the object. Fuchs’ quantum Bayesian view, or QBism (pronounced ‘cubism’), is a framework that allows known quantum phenomena to be recovered from new axioms that do not require mathematical constructs such as wavefunctions. QBism is already motivating experimental proposals, he says. Such experiments might reveal, for example, new, deep structures within quantum mechanics that would allow quantum probability laws to be re-expressed as minor variations of standard probability theory.

…

Knowledge — which is typically measured in terms of how many bits of information an observer has about a system — is the focus of many other approaches to reconstruction, too. As physicists Caslav Brukner and Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna put it, “quantum physics is an elementary theory of information”. Meanwhile, physicist Marcin Pawlowski at the University of Gdansk in Poland and his colleagues are exploring a principle they call ‘information causality’. This postulate says that if one experimenter (call her Alice) sends m bits of information about her data to another observer (Bob), then Bob can gain no more than m classical bits of information about that data — no matter how much he may know about Alice’s experiment.

Well, if a theory of information underlies the universe, then intelligence must also, not?

### 3 Responses to *Does nature impose limits on what we can know? But why?*

### Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Anyone not familiar with the writings of Stanley L. Jaki could not harm themselves by reading everything he’s written that they can get their grubby little hands on.

Ah yes, the

aboutnessof information.OT: “Functioning ‘mechanical gears’ seen in nature for the first time”

This could be up there with the bacterial flagellum as an icon of ID.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-f.....ature.html

As to this comment from the article:

Two problems with their proposal. One problem is that the infinite dimensional wave-function is not an ‘abstract’ entity but is real:

The following establishes the quantum wave function as ‘real’ from another angle of logic;

Moreover wave functions are not abstract for they have been directly measured:

As well, the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its infinite dimensional quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?

It is also of interest to note that slide 15 and 17 in the preceding presentation has an uncanny resemblance to Euler’s Equation (and to the DNA helix) as is plotted in the following graph:

The second problem with trying to declare the wave function abstract and trying to interpret quantum theory probabilistically is that it leads to the insanity of many worlds where there will be an quasi-infinite number of versions of you, and everyone else, in a quasi-infinite number of parallel universes,,

I think Dr. Suarez has a very good grasp on how to properly look at the issue of probability and quantum mechanics in this following paper: