🚀 go-pugleaf

I've been perusing the collection "Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of
Information", ed. by Wojciech H. Zurek, volume 8 in the Sante Fe Institute
Studies in the Sciences of Complexity (pub. Addison-Wesley).  This is the
proceedings of a workshop held in 1989.  Much more perusing and I'd have to
start actually reading the articles (insert one usenet smileyon), so I
thought I would post a few impressions instead.

The collection touches on many themes near and dear to this newsgroup, such
as interpretations of QM, links between algorithmic information theory
and physical entropy, black hole thermodynamics, discrete vs. continuous
foundations for physics, and even our old friend the accelerating charge!
(I think we should give a *name* to this charge.  Entries in the "Name that
Charge!" contest will be accepted until the twins meet and compare ages.)

The contributions have technical meat in them, but the authors usually
season their offerings with a soupcon of philosophy.  The collection leads
off with John Archibald Wheeler's "Information, Physics, Quantum: The
Search for Links", where (in contrast to most of the other contributions)
the philosophical gravy practically smothers the meat.  I found it a very
tasty dish, nonetheless--- to hell with nutrition!  I quote from the
introduction, to give the delphic flavor:

    The search for understanding presents to us three questions, four no's,
    and five clues:

    (*) 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 a boundary is zero.
    	No question?  No answer!

(The questions put me in mind of William Safire's squib on the difference
between "how come?" and "why?"  I don't remember the exact quote, but
roughly: "why?" is a professor eruditely putting his audience to sleep,
"how come?" is a street-smart urchin challenging you to a fight.)

That's probably enough for one post.  I hasten to add that the other
contributions in the collection are rather more inhibited.  Anyway, if
you're reading usenet, you're not completely allergic to blue-sky
speculation; why not get it from a master?