from physics to metaphysics, one way or...

Fromphysicstometaphysics,onewayoranother.

StephenAmes

HistoryandPhilosophyofScienceTheUniversityofMelbournesames@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

• Thepaperstartsbysummarising'oneway'ofproceedingfromphysicstometaphysicsrepresentedbyProfessorPaulDavies’proposalstomakeinformationontologicallybasicandphysicallyfoundational.WhileagreeingwithDaviesontheimportanceoflifeandconsciousnessasintegraltotheuniverseanumberofproblemsareidentifiedwithhisproposedontology.

• Ontheotherhand,‘another’wayproceedsfromphysics,toconsideringwhatwouldmotivateandjustifyamovetometaphysicsandthenconsidersthemetaphysics.ThephysicsstartingpointisprovidedbyphysicistProfessorRoyFrieden who,startsfromFisherinformationarisingnaturallyinthecontextofathoughtexperimentaboutthemeasurementofparameterssubjecttofluctuation.BysimilarthoughtexperimentsFrieden isabletoderivethemathematicalformofthegreatlawsofphysics.

• ThemovetometaphysicsisjustifiedbyshowingthatFrieden’s resultlogicallycannotbeexplainedwithintheresourcesofthenaturalsciencesandthatitisunreasonabletotreathisresultasabrutefact.Itisthenshownthattheminimumneededtoexplaintheresultisthattheuniversehasbeenstructuredaccordingtothelawsofphysicsbyapowerfulrationalagentinorderthattheuniversebeknowablethroughempiricalinquirybyembodiedrationalagents.ThisargumenthasnothingtodowithIntelligentDesign,Anthropicprinciples,FineTuning,northeoldargumentfromdesignanditisnota‘gaps’argument,nordoesitentaildeism,nordoesitappealtotheprincipleofsufficientreason.

• Thetitleistakenfromthesub-titleofDavies,P.andGregersen,N.H.,(2010),eds.,InformationandtheNatureofReality,FromPhysicstoMetaphysics,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).

Fromphysicstometaphysicsoneway:

Prof. PaulDavies,followingJohnWheeler,takesinformationtobeontologicallybasicandphysicallyfundamental,i.e.“ItfromBit”,andargues:

Information→[formsofthe]LawsofPhysics→Matter”

Thisishisaim.The“→”arepromissorynotes.Iraisetwoquestionsabouthisproposal

oranother:ProfRoyFriedenstartswithFisherinformationandargues

Information→(formsofthe)LawsofPhysics

The“→”areactualderivationsIusethistoopenadifferentapproachtometaphysics.

PaulDavies

• Background• Davies’Ontologicalproposal• TwoquestionsforDavies

BACKGROUND

Daviesassertsthatscienceisempiricalandourfinesttheoriesmustbegrounded,somehowin‘reality’.Butthenasks,“whereisreality?”(2010,65)

VariousanswersarenotacceptabletoDavies:

. Nogrounding- onlyaninfiniteregressofexplanations.(2010,66)

The‘towerofturtles’or‘turtlesallthewaydown’.

• Stoppingtheregresswitha‘self-levitating’turtle

>theuniverseasanultimatebrutefact(BertrandRussell,SeanCarroll)(2010,67)orGod(R.Swinburn)(2006,231);

>Godasnecessaryexistent(K.Ward),whichforDaviesisanotherformof‘self-levitation’,amongotherproblems.(2006,231;2010,66)

. OntheLawsofPhysicsDaviesisnothappywithwhathetakesasthecommon,hiddenassumptionsaboutthelawsofphysicsasimmutable,infinitelyprecisemathematicalrelationshipsthattranscendthephysicaluniverse,andsoareunaffectedbywhatgoesonintheuniverse.(2010,71) AccordingtoDavies:

.Theassumptionsreflectsthe300yearoldremnantsoftheirPlatonic/Theologicalprovenance(2010,72,3.)

.Mostphysicistsrejectthisolderworld-view,whilemanymathematiciansarePlatonists.(2010,71,72)

.BothPlatonismandtheismtoberejected.

Forsimilarviewsatleastaboutthelawsofnature,seeStoeger,W.,(1996)andUnger,R.,andSmolin,L.,(2015)AlternativeviewsaboutthelawsofphysicsarerepresentedCartwright,N.(1983);Mittelstaedt,P.,andWeingarter,P.,LawsofNature,(Springer,2005)

. OntheLawsofPhysicscont.

Daviessaystheseassumptionsmaybeattackedattheirmostvulnerablepoint:“namelytheassumptionofinfiniteprecision.”(2010,73.)

Thisassumptionisalrightasatechnicalconvenience,alongwiththeuseofdifferentialequations,realnumbers,ofinfiniteandinfinitesimalquantitiesandcontinuity.(73)

. OntheLawsofPhysicscont.

Thechallengearisesfromthefactthatobservationcanonlybeconductedtofiniteaccuracyandtheassumptionof“infinitelypreciselawsisaleapoffaith”

Davieswilllaterpointtocircumstanceswherethisassumption“mayleadusastrayinatestablemanner.”(2010,73)

Davies’OwnPosition. Davieshashadalongterminterestinlifeandconsciousnessassomehow

centraltoratherthanbeinganaccidentalby-productofthematerialprocessesoftheuniverse.

Davieshaslongfocusedonthefactthattheuniverseisknowable,comprehensible,intelligible(1990a,1990b,1992,2006)andonthefactthattheuniverseisfine-tunedforcarbonbasedlife.

Hecontendsthatthesetwofactsarecloselyconnected.

This“cognisability”isdueinparttotheuniverseexhibitingagreatdealoflinearityandlocality,attributedto‘finetuning’– followingJ.Hartle (1991)– seeDavies(1992).

WhyisallthisimportanttoDavies?

“Expressedmoresuccinctly,ifoneinsistsonattributingthepathwayfrommundanechemistrytolifeastheoutcomeoffixeddynamicallaws,then(asouranalysissuggests)thoselawsmustbeselectedwithextraordinarycareandprecision,whichistantamounttointelligentdesign:itstatesthat‘life’iswrittenintothelawsofphysicsabinitio.Thereisnoevidenceatallthattheactualknownlawsofphysicspossessthisalmostmiraculousproperty.”

(WalkerandDavies2016)

WhyisallthisimportanttoDavies?

Daviesrejectsthethoughtthat“themightyedificeofscientificrationalityisultimatelyrootedinabsurdity.”(2006,248)

HowdoesDaviesaddressthismatter?

“Insteadofacceptingthelawsofphysicsasalevitatingsuper-turtleatthebottomofthestack– anunexplainedbrutefact– mightwepushbeyondatleastonestep,andtrytoaccountforwhythelawsareastheyare,toshowthattherearereasons forwhytheyhavetheform thattheydo?”(2010,73;italicsadded.)

DAVIES’ONTOLOGICALPROPOSAL

Daviesproposesaworld-view:

“inwhichinformation istheprimaryentityfromwhichphysicalrealityisbuilt.”(75)Information“occupiestheontologicalbasement”(82).

InavariantofJ.Wheeler’sviewDavies(2010,75)wishesto“placeinformationatthebaseoftheexplanatoryscheme,thus:

Information→LawsofPhysics→Matter”

Daviesisclearthatthe“→”arepromissorynotes.

DaviesisdrawingonRolfLandauer,e.g.‘Wanted:APhysicallypossibletheoryofphysics’,IEEESpectrum,1967,4,105-109,andonJohnWheeler,e.g.‘ItFromBit’in,Wheeler,J.,AtHomeintheUniverse,(AIPPress,1994).

FivequestionsbywhichDaviesexpoundshisproposal

FivequestionsbywhichDaviesexpoundshisproposal

• WhatisInformation?

• Whatisthe“informationcontentoftheuniverseandisitfiniteorinfinite”?

• AccordingtoDavies,inwhatsensecouldinformationbe“fundamental”or“basic”?

• HowdoesDaviesaimtoavoidconcludingthat“themightyedificeofscientificrationalityisultimatelyrootedinabsurdity”?

• HowdoesDavieshopetoshowthefollowing?Information→LawsofPhysics→Matter

WhatisInformation?

InthiscontextInformationisquantifiedinbitsorinbinarydigits(0,1),exemplifiedbyacointossorbyYes/Noanswerstoquestionsincludingquestionsdirectedatthenaturalworldbyconductingexperiments. (2010,65,66)

Whatisthe“informationcontentoftheuniverseandisitfiniteorinfinite”?

. theinformationcontentofanyvolumeofspace(anyvolumenotjustblackholes)iscapturedbytheinformationthatresidesonanenvelopingsurface(Planckunits)thatboundsthatvolume(2010,79);

(DaviesreferstoJacobBekenstein,Gerhard‘tHooftandLeonardSusskind)

. quantummechanicalcalculationgivingN=10122bitsofinformationwithinthehorizonoftheobservableuniverse(SethLloyd2006)(2010,77).

Bekenstein,J.D.,‘Blackholesandentropy,PhysicalRevieew D,8:2333-2346.Bekenstein,J.D.,‘Universalupperboundontheentropy-to-energyratioforboundedsystems,PhysicalReviewD,23:287-298.‘tHooft,G.,DimensionalReductioninquantumgravity.arXiv:gr-pc/930026vl,accessed(http://arxiv.org/as/gr-qc/9310026vl).Lloyd,S,TheComputationalUniverse,(NewYork,RandomHouse,2006)Susskind,L.,‘Theworldasahologram’,JournalofMathematicalPhysics,36,6377.Susskind,L.,,TheCosmicLandscape:StringTheoryandtheIllusionofIntelligentDesign,(NY,Little,Brown,2005).

• AccordingtoDavies,inwhatsensecouldinformationbe“fundamental”or“basic”?

Forann-particleentangledstatethereare2nstatesorcomponentsofthewavefunctiondescribingthesystem.Thequantumrealmisfundamentallyexponential.(2010,84,5)

“Tobespecific,aquantumstatewithmorecomponentsthanaboutn=400particlesisdescribedbyawavefunctionwithmorecomponentsthanLloyd’s10122bitsofinformationcontainedintheentireuniverse.Agenericwavefunctionofthisstateof400-particlescouldnotbeexpressedintermsofbitsofinformation,eveninprinciple.”(2010,85)

AccordingtoDavies,inwhatsensecouldinformationbe“fundamental”or“basic”?

“Howeveritcouldbepredictedwithatrulygod-liketranscendentPlatonicdemon[orMotherNature]withinfiniteresourcesandpatienceatitsdisposal.”(2010,85)

“Butifinformationisphysical,ifitisontologicallyrealandphysicallyfundamental,thentherearenoPlatonicdemons,nogod-liketranscendentMotherNature,computingwithrealnumbers.Indeedtherearenorealnumbers.Thereisonlythehardwareoftheuniversedoingitsowncalculationitself...”(2010,83)

AccordingtoDavies,inwhatsensecouldinformationbe“fundamental”or“basic”?

“Theconclusionisstark.Ifthecosmicinformationboundissetat10122bitsandifinformationisontologicallyreal,thenthelawsofphysicshaveintrinsicallyfiniteaccuracy.”(2010,86)

“Forthemostpartthatlimitationofthelawswillhavenegligibleconsequences,[electricchargemeasuredtoonepartin1012]butincasesofexponentiation,likequantumentanglement,theymakeabigdifference,adifferencethatcouldpotentiallybeobserved.”(2010,86)

“Creatingastateof400entangledparticlesisroutinelytoutedbyphysicistsworkingonbuildingquantumcomputers….Ipredictabreakdownoftheunitaryevolutionofthewavefunctionatthatpoint,andpossiblytheemergenceofnewphenomena.”(2010,86;emphasisadded)


Daviesappealstotheideaofaself-consistentloopillustratedbythefollowingkindofstory:

“Aprofessorvisitsthefutureandreadsaboutanewtheoreminacurrentmathematicaljournal.Hethenreturnstohisoriginaltime,tellsastudentthetheorem,andthestudentpublishesthetheoreminajournal– theveryjournalinwhichtheprofessorfoundthetheorem.”(2006,284)


HereisJohnWheeler’sownstatementofthe‘loop’,

“Toendlessness[towerofturtles]noalternativeisevidentbutaloop,suchaloopisthis:Physicsgivesrisetoobserver-participancy;observerparticipancygivesrisetoinformation;andinformationgivesrisetophysics.”1

BasedonWheeler’s‘delayed-choice’thoughtexperiment.2

1.Wheeler,J.A.,AtHomeintheUniverse,(Woodbury,AIPPress,1994),300.2.A.G.Manning,etal.Wheeler’sdelayed-choicegedankenexperimentwithasingleatom. NaturePhysics,DOI:10.1038/nphys3343(2015)

Jacques,V.etal.ExperimentalrealizationofWheeler’sdelayed-choicegedankenexperiment.Science315,966–968(2007).

HowdoesDaviesaimtoavoidconcludingthat“themightyedificeofscientificrationalityisultimatelyrootedinabsurdity”?

UsingWheeler’s‘loop’,Daviesearlierproposal,

Information→LawsofPhysics→Matter,

becomes,

Information→LawsofPhysics↑↓

Observers←Matter

HowdoesDaviesaimtoavoidconcludingthat“themightyedificeofscientificrationalityisultimatelyrootedinabsurdity”?

“Theuniverseclearlycannotbeselfexplanatorywithoutcontainingtheabilitytoexplainitself!Ifthereistobeacompleteexplanationfortheuniverseasaloop,theuniversehastoknowandunderstandthelawsitisresponsibleforinordertobringthoselawsintobeing.Howcoulditbeotherwise?”(2006,289)

NOTE:ThislineofargumentisverysimilartoK.Ward,arguingforGodasselfexplanatory,in,RationalTheologyandTheCreativityofGod,(Oxford,Blackwell,1982),8-10.

• HowdoesDavieshopetoshowthefollowing?

Information→LawsofPhysics→Matter

Againhelookstoaself-consistentlooptodowithcomputing,wheretheuniverseisconsideredtobeaquantumcomputer:

“Inotherwords,thelawsdeterminewhatcanbecomputedandcomputabilitydeterminesthelaws.Theopenquestioniswhetherthisrequirementofselfconsistencyisenoughtopindowntheactualform ofthelaws?”(2006,290,italicsadded)

Thisstillleavesthe“→”aspromissorynotes.

AssessingDavies’OntologicalProposalThreeQuestionsforDavies

#1IsDavies’empiricaltestofontologyonlyanempiricaltestof

his‘discretephysics’proposal?

#2Doontologicalproposalshavetomeetanyphilosophicalrequirements?

#3WhatinformsthechoiceofwhichmeasureofinformationistobeusedtosupportDavies’aim:

Information→LawsofPhysics→Matter?

Assessment#1

Daviesproposedempiricaltestofhisontologydependsonthefollowingclaims:

(a) Ifinformationisreal,finite,ontologicallybasicandphysicallyfundamentalandthereareonlydiscretenotcontinuousmagnitudesinspace,time,energy/matter

then

(b) thereisnoPlatonicortheologicalrealminwhichatranscendentMotherNatureorDemonhasinfiniteresourcesforcalculations

AccordingtoDaviesifthisiscorrectthenweshouldexpectthatnewphenomenawillbeevidentunderconditionsoflargescalequantumentanglement;i.e.informationisrealifithaseffects.

1.Noticethe‘then’(2010,83).Daviesobtainstheontologicalclaimin(b)fromhisontologicalproposalin(a). Hedoesnotmakeanindependentargumentfor(b).

Assessment#1

Consideranalternativeproposal:

(a)informationisreal,finite,physicallyfundamentalandthereareonlydiscretenotcontinuousmagnitudesinspace,time,energy/matter

AND

(b)aricherontologythaninformationrepresentswhatthereis;justsupposeitisPlatonismortheism

AccordingtoDavieshispredictionwouldfailifthis(b)iscorrect.

*Ihavesimplydeleted‘ontologicallybasic’from(a).

Assessment#1

Onthecontrary,

• Ithinkhisproposalaboutphysicsstillholds– informationisreal;physicsisdiscrete;impactof10122 finiteinformationbound.

• Traditionalmathematicsisstilljustaconvenientapproximationformostscientificwork.

• TheseholdeveniftherewasatranscendentMotherNatureorgod

Afterall,whatwouldstopatranscendentMotherNatureorgodcreatingauniversewithadiscretephysics?

Davies’proposedempiricaltestofhisontologyisinfactanempiricaltestofdiscretephysicsandthefiniteinformationboundoftheuniverse,notatestofhisontology.

Assessment#2

Doontologicalproposalshavetomeetanyphilosophicalrequirements?

Itakethefollowingasageneralrequirementonanyontology.

Anyontology,whencombinedwithappropriatescientifictheories,mustyieldanexplanationofhowinquirershavecomeintoexistenceonthisplanet.Ifitcouldbeshownthatlogicallyanontologypreventedthisrequirementbeingmet,itwouldfailasanontologybecauseitcouldnotaccountforhowinquirershavecomeintoexistenceontheplanet.Itwouldtherebyundermineitsownclaimtobeknown.

Assessment#2

Manywilljudgetheaboverequirementcanbemetviathemanyexamplesofemergenceinthe13.7billionyearoldstoryofevolutionarycosmology.1 Humaninquiryrepresentsastunningexampleofsuchemergence.Caseclosed.

1.Morowitz(2002);RolstonIII,(2011).

Assessment#2


Butthisjudgmentismadewithoutanyaccountofthehumaninquiry.Asamatterofprincipleanexplanandumneedstobewellarticulatedifaproposedexplanans istobetestedanddosomeusefulexplanatorywork.

1.Morowitz(2002),RolstonIII,(2011).

Assessment#2


Butthisjudgmentismadewithoutanyaccountofthehumaninquiry.Asamatterofprincipleanexplanandumneedstobewellarticulatedifaproposedexplananstested.

Iarguethathumaninquiryhas,amongotherthings,anormativedimensionboth.evaluative(goodarguments/goodexperiments)and.regulative(e.g.inquirersoughttotakeonboardthegoodarguments/experimentsrelevanttotheirinquiries).

Davies’informationontologycansupportascientificviewofwhatisorlikelytohappenbutlogicallycannotaccountforwhatoughttohappen,includinginhumaninquiry.2

Aricherontologyisneeded.

1. Morowitz(2002),RolstonIII,(2011).ThisnormativedimensionisacknowledgedbynaturalistssuchasQuine,Ellis,Lycan,Papineau,Smith.Formydiscussionoftheiraccountsofnormativitysee f.n.2.

2. Ames,S.,(2013),‘TheRise,CritiquesandConsequencesofScientificNaturalism’,in,Kirchoffer,D.G.,Horner,R.,andMcArdle,eds.,inBeingHuman,GroundworkforaTheologicalAnthropologyforthe21ST Century,(Preston,MosaicPress).

Assessment#3

WhatinformsthechoiceofwhichmeasureofinformationistobeusedtosupportDavies’claim:Information→LawsofPhysics→Matter?

Assessment#3

Whatinforms thechoiceofinformationmeasure ?

Earlier,Davies(1990b,22)citesJohnBarrow:

“Theworldseemstobesuchthat,atleastinpart,weareabletoextractthesignaloftheunderlyingsimplemathematicallawfromthenoiseofreal-lifeexperiments.Thatthisissoalreadypointstoimportantandunexpectedpropertiesofthelaws.Barrowhasconjecturedthatthisextractabilityofthesignalfromthenoisemightreflectsomethinganalogousto‘optimalcoding’inShannon’stheoryofinformation.”

Assessment#3Whatinformsthechoiceofinformationmeasure ?


“Theworldseemstobesuchthat,atleastinpart,weareabletoextractthesignaloftheunderlyingsimplemathematicallawformthenoiseofreal-lifeexperiments.Thatthisissoalreadypointstoimportantandunexpectedpropertiesofthelaws.Barrowhasconjecturedthatthisextractabilityofthesignalfromthenoisemightreflectsomethinganalogousto‘optimalcoding’inShannon’stheoryofinformation.”

• Howdoweextractthe“signaloftheunderlyingsimplemathematicallaws”?

• Presumably,byexperiments,observations,measurements.

• Whatmightqualifyasthe‘something’thatis“analogoustooptimalcodinginShannoninformation”?

Assessment#3

Whatinformsthechoiceofinformationmeasure ?


“Theworldseemstobesuchthat,atleastinpart,weareabletoextractthesignaloftheunderlyingsimplemathematicallawformthenoiseofreal-lifeexperiments.Thatthisissoalreadypointstoimportantandunexpectedpropertiesofthelaws.Barrowhasconjecturedthatthisextractabilityofthesignalfromthenoisemightreflectsomethinganalogousto‘optimalcoding’inShannon’stheoryofinformation.”

• Howdoweextractthe“signaloftheunderlyingsimplemathematicallaws”?Presumably,byexperiments,observations,measurements.

• Whatmightqualifyasthe‘something’thatis“analogoustooptimalcodinginShannoninformation”?

Astrongcontenderforthisroleis‘Fisherinformation’thanks,independently,toProf.B.R.Frieden,whoformanyyearswasProfessorofOpticalSciencesat

TheUniversityofArizona.

FISHERINFORMATION

Background ThemathematicalformofFisherinformation‘I’wasfirstproposedbyR.A.FisheratCambridgeinthe1920s;lateridentifiedbyCramer1 andRao2 intheirtheorizinghowtomeasureaquantityundergoingfluctuations.

1.Cramer,H.L.,(1946),MathematicalMethodsofStatistics,(PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton).2.Rao,C.R.,(1945),‘InformationandAccuracyAttainableintheEstimationofStatisticalParameters’,Bull.CalcuttaMath.Soc.37,81-91.

Astrongcontenderforthisroleis‘Fisherinformation’

Background ThemathematicalformofFisherinformation‘I’wasfirstproposedbyR.A.FisheratCambridgeinthe1920s;lateridentifiedbyCramer1 andRao2 intheirtheorizinghowtomeasureaquantityundergoingfluctuations.TheirimportantresultistheCramerRaoinequality:

Ie2 ≥1,e2 ismeansquareerrorinmeasurement;

Iº ò 4(q/(x))2dx,is‘FisherInformation’(onedimension)

q(x)istheprobabilityamplitudefunctiondescribingfluctuationsxoftheparameteraroundq itsmeanvalue.

FisherinformationIintheaboveequationmaythenbegeneralized3 forparametersqn,n=1,N,infourspace-timedimensions(x,y,z,ict),giving,

NI=å 4ò Ñqn(x) .Ñqn(x) dxdx≡dxdydzdct

n=1

1.Cramer,H.L.,(1946),MathematicalMethodsofStatistics,(PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton).2.Rao,C.R.,(1945),‘InformationandAccuracyAttainableintheEstimationofStatisticalParameters’,Bull.CalcuttaMath.Soc.37,81-91.3.Frieden(2004),58-64.


Frieden’sinternationalreputationarosefromhisuseofFisherinformationto‘cleanup’fuzzyimagesofgalaxiesandstolencarnumberplates.

DuringthisworkheonedaynoticedthathiscalculationshadyieldedanequationanalogoustoSchrodinger’sequation.Hethoughtnothingofit.

LaterhefoundanarticlebyA.J.Stam,aDutchmathematician,showinghowtoproceedfromtheCramerRaoInequalitytoHeisenberg’sUncertaintyPrinciple.Stam,A.J.,InformationandControl,2,1959,101.ThismovedhimtoexploretheconnectionsbetweenphysicsandFisherinformation.

1.Cramer,H.L.,(1946),MathematicalMethodsofStatistics,(PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton).2.Rao,C.R.,(1945),‘InformationandAccuracyAttainableintheEstimationofStatisticalParameters’,Bull.CalcuttaMath.Soc.37,81-91.3.B.R.Frieden,wasformanyyearsProfessorofOpticalSciencesatTheUniversityofArizona.


• Fisherinformationcomesnaturallytolightinthecontextofclassicalmeasurementtheoryconcernedwithmeasuringaparametersubjecttofluctuation(Cramer,Rao,VanTrees1).

• Fisherinformationnaturallyhasmanypropertiesrelevanttophysics,forexample2

.Itisalreadyintheformofanactionintegral,relevanttoextremumprinciples

.UsesprobabilityamplitudefunctionsindependentlyofSchrodinger

.TheI– TheoremdI/dt ≤0,theconverseofentropyincreasingwithtime.

• Fisherinformationisakindof‘mother’informationforarangeofinformationmeasures.3

1.VanTrees,H.L.,(1968),Detection,Estimation,ModulationTheory,PartI,(NewYork,J.Wiley).2.Frieden,B.R.,(2004),SciencefromFisherInformation,AUnification,(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress),.3. Kulllback,Wootters,Renyi,Shannon,Ibid,35-39.


• IndependentlyofBarrow,Frieden comparedthechannelcapacityforShannoninformation,asthemaximumamountofinformationthatmaybepassedbyacommunicationchannel,andthechannelcapacityforFisherinformationasthemaximumamountofinformationthatcanbeextractedviameasurement.1

1.Ibid,61-62.


• Friedenhasderivedthemathematicalform ofmanyofthelawsofphysicsincludingthefamousBekensteinformulafortheentropyofablackhole.

• Friedenalsohasanexplanationfortheoperationofthelaws.

• Hethusoffersanaccountof:Information→LawsofPhysics→Matter.

The‘→’areactualderivations

• TheformofthelawsoffundamentalphysicswhichFriedenandcolleagueshaveobtainedinclude:

.Lorentztransformation,

.fieldequationsforGeneralRelativity,

.Maxwell’sequations,

.Klein-GordonandDiracequations,

.waveequationforQuantumChromodynamics,

.Heisenberguncertaintyprinciple,theEPR-spinentanglement,

.Wheeler-Dewittequationfortheradiantuniverse,

.Higgsmasseffect

.deBrogliewavehypothesis.

Frieden,B.R.,(1998),PhysicsfromFisherInformation,AUnification,(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress).Frieden,B.R.,andSoffer,(2002)B.,Phys.Lett. A,304A,1-7.Frieden,B.R.,Gatenby,A.G.,eds.,(2007),ExploratoryDataAnalysisUsingFisherInformation,(London,Springer-Verlag).Frieden,B.R.andSoffer,B.H.,(2009),‘deBroglie’swavehypothesisfromFisherinformation’,inPhysica A– StatisticalMechanicsAndItsApplications,Volume338,Issue7.

• TheformofthelawsoffundamentalphysicswhichFriedenandcolleagueshaveobtainedinclude:

.Lorentztransformation,

.fieldequationsforGeneralRelativity,

.Maxwell’sequations,

.Klein-GordonandDiracequations,

.waveequationforQuantumChromodynamics,

.Heisenberguncertaintyprinciple,theEPR-spinentanglement,

.Wheeler-Dewittequationfortheradiantuniverse,

.Higgsmasseffect

.deBrogliewavehypothesis.

• Also,sixteennewtestablepredictionshavebeenbasedonthisFisherinformationapproachtophysics.Ofparticularinterestisthepredictionthat“aBlackHoletransmitsShannoninformationatamaximumbitrate.”

• ThisreferencealsoincludesthederivationofthefamousBekenstein-HawkingarealawfortheentropyofaBlackHole.Allthisworkispublishedininternational,physicsjournals.

Frieden,B.R.,(1998),PhysicsfromFisherInformation,AUnification,(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress).Frieden,B.R.,andSoffer,(2002)B.,Phys.Lett. A,304A,1-7.Frieden,B.R.,Gatenby,A.G.,eds.,(2007),ExploratoryDataAnalysisUsingFisherInformation,(London,Springer-Verlag).Frieden,B.R.andSoffer,B.H.,(2009),‘deBroglie’swavehypothesisfromFisherinformation’,inPhysica A– StatisticalMechanicsAndItsApplications,Volume338,Issue7.

Fisherinformationapproachtophysics

FriedenseeshimselfcarryingforwardJohnWheeler’sprogrammeofrecastingallofphysicsintermsofinformation.

1.Frieden(2004,25).



FriedennotedthepotencyandconvenienceofthestandardLagrangianapproachtomanydomainsofphysics.“HoweveranenigmaofphysicsisthequestionofwhereitsLagrangianscomefrom.Itwouldbenicetojustifyandderivethemfromapriorprinciple.”1 FriedensoughtaconceptsufficientforformingtheLagrangiansforallfieldsofscience.Buthow?



FriedennotedthepotencyandconvenienceofthestandardLagrangianapproachtomanydomainsofphysics.“HoweveranenigmaofphysicsisthequestionofwhereitsLagrangianscomefrom.Itwouldbenicetojustifyandderivethemfromapriorprinciple.”1 FriedensoughtaconceptsufficientforformingtheLagrangiansforallfieldsofscience.Buthow?

“Thereisnosciencewithoutobservation.Thereforeacommondenominatorofallscienceismeasurement.”2FriedentookthisasapossiblecluetoseekingaconceptthatisthebasisforformingLagrangiansacrossallscience.

ItturnsoutthatFisherInformationasalreadyanactionintegralnaturallyoffersawayforthiscluetobepursued.

1.Frieden(2004,25).WhenaskingthisquestionatameetinginthePhysicsSchoolatMelbourne,theanswerquicklygivenwas‘fromsymmetry’.2.Ibid,27.

Fisherinformationapproachtophysics.

Frieden’s derivationsoftheform ofthelawsofphysicsLaresetwithinathoughtexperiment aboutprecisionparametermeasurement.

Frieden assumes:• probeparticlesarefiredatcopiesofasystemthatpresentattheinputofan

experimentconductedbyobserversunderidealepistemicconditionsE;• theparameterstobemeasuredaresubjecttointrinsicfluctuationsW;• themeasurementinteractiontakesplaceandtheprobeparticleregistersinthe

outputscreenoftheexperiment;• measurementsaremade.


Frieden’s derivationsoftheform ofthelawsofphysicsLaresetwithinathoughtexperiment aboutprecisionparametermeasurement.

Frieden assumes:• probeparticlesarefiredatcopiesofasystemthatpresentattheinputofan

experimentconductedbyobserversunderidealepistemicconditionsE;• theparameterstobemeasuredaresubjecttointrinsicfluctuationsW;• themeasurementinteractiontakesplaceandtheprobeparticleregistersinthe

outputscreenoftheexperiment;• measurementsaremade.

Eachmeasurementscenarioassumesphysicalknowledgerelevanttothederivation.Forexample:thederivationofMaxwell’sEquationsassumestheexistenceofmagneticandelectricfieldsbutnorelationbetweenthem.


Frieden’s derivationsoftheform ofthelawsofphysicsLaresetwithinathought experimentaboutprecisionparametermeasurement.1

Frieden assumes:• probeparticlesarefiredatcopiesofasystemthatpresentattheinputofanexperiment

conductedbyobserversunderidealepistemicconditionsE;• theparameterstobemeasuredaresubjecttointrinsicfluctuationsW;• themeasurementinteractiontakesplaceandtheprobeparticleregistersintheoutput

screenoftheexperiment;• measurementsaremade.

Eachmeasurementscenarioassumesphysicalknowledgerelevanttothederivation.Forexample:thederivationofMaxwell’sEquationsassumestheexistenceofmagneticandelectricfieldsbutnorelationbetweenthem.

1. Braunstein,S.L.,andCaves,C.M.,(1994),‘StatisticalDistanceandtheGeometryofQuantumStates’,Phys.Rev.Let.,72,No.22.,3439-3443,showed howstatedistinguishabilitycanbemappedontoprecisionparametermeasurement,usingFisherinformation.ThisbuiltontheworkofWootters,W.K.(1981),‘StatisticalDistanceandHilbertSpace’,PhysicalReviewD,23,No.5,357.QuiteindependentlyofFrieden’swork,bothWootters,andBraunstein andCaves,provideevidencefortherebeinganinterestingrelationshipbetweenphysicsandFisherinformation.


Frieden’sderivationsoftheform ofthelawsofphysicsLaresetwithinathoughtexperiment aboutprecisionparametermeasurement.

Frieden thinksofFisherinformationI asimplicatedinthedata,(viathelowerboundoftheCRI). FisherinformationIhasthesameformforallmeasurementscenarios.

Frieden assumesthatsomeotherinformationterm,“J”,isneededtocharacteriseeachscenario.Frieden thinksthatinformationJisthelevelofFisherinformation“bound”tothesource.“Anyobservationistheoutputofaninformation-flowprocess.”

J→Imessenger

probeparticle.


Frieden postulatesthat“suchinformationflowsarepassivesothatIcanneverexceedJ.”1

Thus,I≤Jentails0=I– κJ,0<κ≤1.“zeroprinciple”.(postulateP1)

TheprobeparticledisturbsJbyδJ andFrieden takestheinformationflowasimplyingthatIisperturbedbyδI.2

1Ibid,21.2Ibid,24.


Frieden postulatesthat“suchinformationflowsarepassivesothatIcanneverexceedJ.”


TheprobeparticledisturbsJbyδJ andFrieden takestheinformationflowasimplyingthatIisperturbedbyδI.

FurthermoreFrieden postulates,δI =δJ andsoδ(I– J)= 0,evenwhenI<J.

Frieden callsthisthe“extremumprinciple”. (postulateP2)


Frieden postulatesthat“suchinformationflowsarepassivesothatIcanneverexceedJ.”


TheprobeparticledisturbsJbyδJ andFrieden takestheinformationflowasimplyingthatIisperturbedbyδI.

FurthermoreFrieden postulates,δI =δJ andsoδ(I– J)= 0,evenwhenI<J.Frieden offersanaposteriorijustificationforthismove

Frieden callsthisthe“extremumprinciple”.1 (postulateP2)

1Ibid,28.Frieden usesthisprincipleinallhisderivationsofthelawsoffundamentalphysics.Frieden takestheseresultsasaposteriorijustificationforthetwopostulates,P1,P2,oftheEPI; Frieden (2004,89).InmythinkingP1andP2representtwodistinctaspectsofthemeasurementinteraction,thoughIwon’tpursuethathere.Relatedly,itwouldbeinterestingtoseeifthepostulatesP1andP2oftheEPI canbederivedfromthe basicassumptionofthewholeapproach,viz.thethought experimentaboutaparametermeasurementscenario,involvingameasurementinteraction.Thisisaworkinprogress.


PostulateP2hasδI =δJ andsoδ(I– J)= 0.

Frieden definesK≡I– J,leadingtoδK =0.

ThisleadstoFrieden’s principleof‘ExtremePhysicalInformation’(EPI):

K= I - JEPI{ δK =0‘extremumprinciple’}

0=I – κJ,0<κ≤1,‘zeroprinciple’

OnthisapproachthemeasurementinteractionbringsaboutaninfinitesimalsymmetrytransformationofK.Theprobabilityamplitudefunctionsareconstrainedanditturnsout,throughthesolutiontotheEPI ,thattheconstraintsarethelawsofphysics,whicharebroughtintooperationbythemeasurementinteraction.

Notethathumaninquirersareinelimenalfromthemeasurementinteraction.Furthertheconsciousnessoftheinquirershasnopartinaffectingthemeasurementinteraction.TheinteractioncouldhappenoutsideofameasurementscenarioconstructedtocomplywithE.


Frieden’sderivationsoftheexactform ofthelawsofphysicsLaresetwithinthoughtexperiments aboutprecisionparametermeasurementasjustdescribed.

ThederivationsaretheresultR.Gatheringthepremisesoftheargument,theresultRmayberepresentedas:

R:E,W,IAOAÞ L

EIdealepistemicconditionsforempiricalinquirybyhumaninquirersWIntrinsicfluctuationsofspaceandtimeIFisherinformationAOAAllotherassumptions

Ina‘nutshell’thisismysummaryofthebasicsofFrieden’s PhysicsfromFisherInformationIhavenospacetohighlightFrieden (2004,2007)usingFisherinformationintheexplorationofthedatafrommanyotherfields,especiallyincancerresearch.

Themovefromphysicstometaphysics

TheresultRisthederivationsoftheformofthelawsofphysicsLmaybesummarised thus:

R:E,W,I,AOAÞ L

EIdealepistemicconditionsforempiricalinquirybyactualinquirersWIntrinsicfluctuationsofspaceandtimeIFisherinformationAOAAllotherassumptions

InanutshellthisisFrieden’s PhysicsfromFisherInformation_________________________________________________________________________

WhatmotivatesamovefromPhysicstoMetaphysicsandcoulditbejustified?Somethingisneededtomotivateachangeinthekindofexplanationsought.

Thethemeofthispaperis‘FromPhysicstoMetaphysics’andsoamotivationissoughtfromwithinphysics.

ThederivationsoftheformofthelawsofphysicsLmaybesummarisedthus:

R:E,W,I,AOAÞ L

___________________________________________________________________________

WhatmotivatesamovefromPhysicstoMetaphysicsandcoulditbejustified?

Thereisanapparent‘oddity’inR.TheformoftheL,operatingsinceverysoonaftertheBigBang,isexplainedintermsofEwhichreferstoinquirersthatshowupbillionsofyearslater.

Doesthis‘oddity’callforachangeinthekindofexplanationsought?


R:E,W,I,AOAÞ L

___________________________________________________________________________

WhatmotivatesamovefromPhysicstoMetaphysicsandcoulditbejustified?

Thereisanapparent‘oddity’inR.TheformoftheL,operatingsinceverysoonaftertheBigBang,isexplainedintermsofEwhichreferstoinquirersthatshowupbillionsofyearslater.Doesthis‘oddity’callforachangeinthekindofexplanationsought?

Notifthis‘oddity’ofRisonlyanapparentoddity,explicableintermsoftheresourcesofthenaturalsciences.TherewouldthenbeNOJUSTIFICATIONforfurtherseekingameta-physicalexplanationofR.BLOCKER1

Also,ifitwerereasonabletointerpretR asabrutefactandthereforewithoutfurtherexplanationtherewouldbeNOJUSTIFICATIONforfurtherseekingameta-physicalexplanationofR. BLOCKER2


R:E,W,I,AOAÞ L___________________________________________________________________________

WhatmotivatesamovefromPhysicstheMetaphysicsandcoulditbejustified?

Thereisanapparent‘oddity’.TheformoftheL,operatingsinceverysoonaftertheBigBang,isexplainedintermsofEwhichreferstoinquirerswhichshowupbillionsofyearslater.Doesthiscallforachangeinthekindofexplanationsought?

Notifthisapparent‘oddity’ofRisexplicableintermsoftheresourcesofthenaturalsciencestherewouldbeNOJUSTIFICATIONforfurtherseekingameta-physicalexplanationofR.ItcanbeshownthattheresourcesofthenaturalsciencesarelogicallyunabletoexplainRBLOCKER1 defeated.

Also,ifitwerereasonabletointerpretR asabrutefactandthereforewithoutfurtherexplanationtherewouldbeNOJUSTIFICATIONforfurtherseekingameta-physicalexplanationofR.

ItcanbeshownthatlogicallyitisunreasonabletotreatRasa‘brutefact’.BLOCKER2defeated.

Amovefromphysicstometaphysicsisinprinciplejustified.

HowBlockers#1and#2areidentifiedanddefeatedR:E,W,I,AOAÞ L

• IstheresomephysicaltheoryTphys thatexplainsR ?

• Inbrief,aphysicaltheoryis:.a‘blind’causalexplanationofphysicaleventsandprocesses;

‘blind’meansnofinalcauses,goals,purposesbuiltin;

.thecausalexplanationisdescribedmathematicallyandaimstoderiveamathematicaldescriptionofwhatistobeexplained;

.opentoempiricaltesting.

• Blocker#1:WewouldlikesomeTphysÞ R

• Problems:(a)R isthewrongkindofexplanandumforanyTphys(b)TphyshastoprovideEforthederivationofRtosucceed

HowBlockers#1and#2areidentifiedanddefeated

R:E,W,I,AOAÞ L

• Blocker#1:WewouldlikesomeTphysÞ R.

• Problems:

(a)R isthewrongkindofexplanandumforanyTphys .

R isarationalinference.Itstandsinthelogicalspaceofreasonsnotintheverydifferentlogicalspaceofsubsumptionundernaturallaws

(Sellars ,1956,253-329;McDowell,2004,91-105).

(b)TphyshastoprovideEforthederivationofRtosucceed.. IfTphysincludesE,thenTphys not‘blind’.

.CanTphys leadtoE?No.Physicsalonecannotdothis;ittookthe13.7billionyearprocesstoleadtoinquirersguidedbyE.

Myconclusionisthatanyphysicaltheory(soconstrued)logicallycannotexplainR.ThusBlocker#1fails.

Blocker#2saysitisreasonabletotreatRasabrutefactabouttheuniverse.

Considerthefollowingargument.

(a)R(b)Ifnoscientificornon-scientificexplanationofR1 ispossible,R isa‘brutefact’.(c)NoscientifictheorycanexplainR.(d)Nonon-scientificexplanationofR ispossible.(e)ThereforeRisabrutefact.

Theargumentisvalid.Ifwereject(e),whichpremiseswillwereject?

(a)OK.Restablishedabove.(b)Sayswhatismeantbya‘brutefact’.(c)OK.ThisisthefailureofBlocker#1.(d)Saysthatthereisnothingoutsideorbeyondwhatthenaturalsciences

cantellus,thatcanexplainR.

Theargumentisvalid.Ifwereject(e),whichpremiseswillwereject?

(a)OK.Restablishedabove.(b)Sayswhatismeantbya‘brutefact’.(c)OK.ThisisthefailureofBlocker#1.(d)Saysthatthereisnothingoutsideorbeyondwhatthenaturalsciences

cantellus,thatcanexplainR.

Howshallweassess(d)?Aninitialquestionishowdoweknowthatnonon-scientifictheoryiscapableofexplainingR?

Onlyifweassumescientificnaturalism1 withit’smethodological,epistemicandmetaphysicaltheses.Thelattersaysthatallthereis,iswhatphysicssaysthereisorcomplexconfigurationsofthesame.

1.See,Papineau,D.,‘TheRiseofPhysicalism’,in,Stone,M.W.F.,andWolf,J.,eds.,TheProperAmbitionofScience (London,Routledge,2000).

ThreeResponses

(1)Ihavearguedthatscientificnaturalismismistakeninitsmetaphysicalclaim1.

(2)WithRweareconcernedwithsomethingthatscientifictheories(asconstrued)logicallycannotexplain,somethingbeyondthescopeofscientifictheories.

(3)E isobtainedinitiallyquiteindependentlyofknowingthe13.7billionyearscientificevolutionarycosmology.

Itisobtainedbyrationalinquirers,withcertainaimsandsomegeneralbeliefsaboutrationalityandabouthowtheworldoperatesdecidingwhatepistemicstandardsrationallyoughttobemetbyactionsdirectedtoachievevaluedepistemicends.

Analogousconsiderationshavetheirplaceinpracticalactionslikeshootinganarrowfromabowatatarget.

1. Ames,S.,‘TheRiseandConsequencesofScientificNaturalism’,inAnthroposintheAntipodes,(ed)RobynHorner,PatrickMcArdle,andDavidKirchhoffer (Melbourne:MosaicBooks,2013).

(3)cont.

Weknowaboutrationalitybecausehumanbeingsinstantiaterationality,wherebytheythinkandactforreasons,butthisisknownindependentlyofhowtheoriginsofthatinstantiationmightbeexplainedandindependentlyofscientifictheories.

ThisisanargumentforthinkingofEassomethingbeyondthetheoriesofnaturalscience,yetEisnon-triviallyinvolvedinderivingthemathematicalformofthelawsoffundamentalphysicsL,asshowninR.ThisprovidesrationalgroundsforwonderingifsomethingbeyondthenaturalsciencesmightexplainR.

But(d)wouldleadustoexpectanysuchexplanationtobeimpossible.Hence(d)shouldbesetasideasunreasonable.Therefore(e)doesnotfollowandwereasonablysetasidetheclaimthatR isabrutefact.

Note,thisresultisnotbasedontheprincipleofsufficientreason.

Thus(d)isunreasonableandshouldbesetaside.

Blocker#1andBlocker#2bothfail.Itisthereforereasonabletoseekfurtherbeyondtheresourcesofthenaturalsciencesandphysicsinparticular,foranexplanationofR.

AMetaphysicalExplanationofR

WhatmustminimallybeassumedtoholdinordertoexplainR?AnyexplanationofRmustincludethethoughtexperimentE.

WhateverprovidesE issomethingthathaslanguage,ithasaccesstothelogicalspaceofreasons,anditknowsaboutintentionality– E concernsembodiedrationalagentsinsomeuniverseyettobephysicallyproduced(whethertheonlyuniverseisoursoroneofthemultiverses)pursuingvaluedepistemicendsandpracticalends.

Theseareverygoodgroundsforsayingthatonly somethingcapableofrationalthoughtcanprovideE.

This‘something’shouldbethoughtofassomekindof‘rationalagent’,RA,envisagingembodiedrationalagentspursuingempiricalinquiryforvaluedepistemicendsinsomeuniverse.Thisis,orispartof,thepurposeofRAinbringingaboutthatuniverse.

ArationalagentmustbeassumedbecausethoughtaloneisnotenoughtoexplaintheexistenceofouruniverseinwhichRholds.


AKantianpointisthat,onthisargumentalone,theRAthatorderstheuniversetothispurposeisatmostanArchitectnottheGodoftraditionaltheologywhocreatestheuniverseexnihilo.

FollowingthisKantian line,wemustalsoassume,minimally,somekindofbasic‘stuff’,whichthisrationalagentordersinthelightofenvisagingE.ThiscorrectlytreatsthisrationalagentasenvisagingEasapurposetobeenacted.


HereIfollowtheKantianpoint.

Forouruniverse,theresultRmaybeexplainedasfollows.AssumesomepowerfulrationalagentRAwithapurposethatatleastincludesformingauniversethatisknowablebyembodiedrationalinquirersconductingempiricalinquiryunderidealepistemicconditions Einthatuniverse.

Assumethereisalsosomebasic‘stuff’andthatinthelightofthispurpose,thisrationalagentordersthisbasic‘stuff’sothatiteventuallybringsaboutauniverse(possiblyoneamongmanyothers),ofwhichourbestphysicsgivesanaccount,whichamongotherthingsischaracterizedbyW,I andAOA.Giventhispurposeandthesecharacteristics,theuniverseoperatesaccordingtolaws,whoseoperationsisexplainedandmathematicalformentailedbyE,W,I andAOA,andtheselawsareL.


Anon-Kantiannote,onewhichdoesnotrequireanyadditionalbasic‘stuff’maybedrawnfromtheworkofLawrenceKrauss.

Kraussaddressesthequestionof‘WhyisthereSomethingNotNothing?’Hegivesanaccountofcreationfrom“nothing”wherethe“nothing”is“nospace,notime- noanything.”1 Hisaccountof“nothing”stillincludesthelawsofquantummechanicsandheexplainsthatthelawsofquantummechanicspermitustoenvisagehowacloseduniversewithzerototalenergycould“appearspontaneously”fromthis“nothing”.2

OnmyargumenttheRAmustbeunderstoodasthinkingtheselawsofquantummechanicswithinacompleteaccountofquantumgravity(amongmanyothermatters)andsoenactthemtobringsomethingoutofnothing.Couldawholemultiverselandscapethuscomeintoexistence?Whynot?Krausssaysthatitisgenerallyassumed“thatcertainpropertieslikequantummechanics,permeatesallpossibilities.”3

Thisnon-Kantianapproachissimplerandsotobepreferred.1.Krauss,(2012,170).2.Ibid,167,170.3.Ibid,177.

• Thisargumentmakesnouseof,

.intelligentdesign(commonlyknownasID),

.anthropicprinciples,

.fine-tuning,

.theoldargumentbyanalogyfromdesign,

.a‘gaps’argument,

.Leibniz’principleofsufficientreason,

.nordoesitentaildeism,

.andisunaffectedbythepossibilityofthemultiverse.


R:E,W,I,AOAÞ L

ItmaybeshownthattheminimummetaphysicalproposalneededtoexplainRisthattheuniverseisstructuredaccordingtothelawsofphysicsbyapowerfulrationalagentinorderthattheuniversemaybeknowablethroughidealisedempiricalinquirybyembodiedrationalagents(humanor‘alien’).

Thisargumentlinkinghumaninquiry,Fisherinformationandthelawsofphysicsbringstolightthispurposeasimmanentintheoperationoftheuniverseaccordingtoblindnaturallaws.(Thepurposeisnotagratuitousimpositionontheargument.)

ThisargumenthasnothingtodowithIntelligentDesign,Anthropicprinciples,FineTuning,northeoldargumentfromdesignanditisnota‘gaps’argument,nordoesitentaildeism.ItalsoopensfordiscussiontheconnectionbetweenRAandthemanyhumanagentsconductinginquiry.Itisunaffectedbywhateverturnsouttobetheconclusionbyphysicistsaboutthemulti-verseproposal.


R:E,W,I,AOAÞ L

Thisisanargumentfromphysicstometaphysics.Itismetaphysicsbecauseitgoesbeyondphysicstowhatphysicsdoesnotinquireinto.Itisnotaphysicalexplanationbutanexplanationofthephysicalintermsofthepurposeforwhichthelawsofphysicsarethewaytheyare.

Itishoweverametaphysicsofinquiry.Assuchitlogicallycannotbeinconflictwithempiricalinquiry.Thisargumentiscertainlynotasciencestopper!Itlogicallycannotinhibiteitherempiricalortheoreticalinquiryinphysicsoranyotherscience.Onthecontrary,itstronglyencouragesthecontinuingexplorationofbothphysicsandmetaphysicsasdeeplyinaccordwithwhytheuniverseisthewayitis.

Bibliography• Ames,S.,‘TheRiseandConsequencesofScientificNaturalism’,inAnthroposintheAntipodes,(ed)RobynHorner,PatrickMcArdle,andDavid

Kirchhoffer (Melbourne:MosaicBooks,2013).• Braunstein,S.L.,andCaves,C.M.,(1994),‘StatisticalDistanceandtheGeometryofQuantumStates’,Phys.Rev.Let.,72,No.22.,3439-3443.• Cartwright,N.,(1983),HowtheLawsofPhysicsLie,(Oxford,ClarendonPress).• Davies,P.C.,(1990),‘WhyisthePhysicalWorldsoComprehensible?’,in,Zurek,W.H.,ed.,Complexity,EntropyandthePhysicsofInformation,

(RedwoodCity,Calif.:Addison-WesleyPub.Co.).• Davies,P.C.,(1990b),‘WhyistheUniverseKnowable?’,in,Mickens,R.,ed.,MathematicsandScience,(World,Scientific,Singapore).• Davies,P.C,(1992),TheMindofGod,TheScientificBasisforaRationalWorld,(NewYork:Simon&SchusterPaperbacks).• Davies,P.C.,(2006),TheGoldilocksEnigma,WhyIsTheUniverseJustRightForLife?, (London,AllanLane).• Davies,P.C.,(2010),‘Universefrombit’,inDavies,andGregersen).• Davies,P.andGregersen,N.H.,(2010),eds.,InformationandtheNatureofReality,FromPhysicstoMetaphysics,(Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress).• Frieden,B.R.,(1998),PhysicsfromFisherInformation,AUnification,(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress).• Frieden,B.R.,(2004),SciencefromFisherInformation,AUnification,(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress).• Frieden,B.R.,Gatenby,A.G.,eds.,(2007),ExploratoryDataAnalysisUsingFisherInformation,(London,Springer-Verlag).• Frieden,B.R.andSoffer,B.H.,(2009),‘deBroglie’swavehypothesisfromFisherinformation’,inPhysica A– StatisticalMechanicsAndIts

Applications,Volume338,Issue7.• Hartle,J.(1991),‘ExcessBaggage’,inSchwarz,J.H.,ed.,ElementaryParticlesandtheUniverse:Essaysinhonor ofMurrayGell-Mann,(Cambridge,

CambridgeUniversityPress);alsoavailableatarXiv:gr-qc\0508001v130Jul2005.• Krauss,L.M.,(2012),AUniversefromNothing,WhyThereisSomethingRatherThanNothing,(NewYork:FreePress).• Lonergan,B.,(2004),TheGeneralCharacteroftheNaturalTheologyofInsight’,inPhilosophicalandTheologicalPapers1965-1980:Collected

WorksofBernardLonergan,Volume17,(Croken,R.C.,and,Doran,R.M.,eds.,PublishedforLonergan ResearchInstituteofRegisCollege,TorontobyUniversityofTorontoPress).

• McDowell,J.,(2004),‘NaturalisminthePhilosophyofMind’,in,DeCaro,andMacarthur(2004).• Mittelstaedt,P.,andWeingarter,P.,LawsofNature,(Springer,2005)• Morowitz,H.,(2002),TheEmergenceofEverything:Howtheworldbecamecomplex,(NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress).• RolstonIII,H.,(2011),ThreeBigBangs,Matter-Energy,Life,Mind,(NewYork,ColumbiaUniversityPress).• Rao,C.R.,(1945),‘InformationandAccuracyAttainableintheEstimationofStatisticalParameters’,Bull.CalcuttaMath.Soc.37,81-91.• Sellars,W.(1956),‘EmpiricismandthePhilosophyofMind’,inFeigl,H.,and,Scriven,M.,eds.,(1956).• Stoeger W.,(2010),‘God,PhysicsandtheBigBang’in,P.Harrison,ed.,TheCambridgeCompaniontoScienceandReligion,(Cambridge,

CambridgeUniversityPress),173-189.• Unger,R.,andLeeSmolin,L.,(2015)TheSingularUniverseandTheRealityofTime,(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress.)• WalkerS.I.,andDaviesP.C.W.,‘TheHardProblemofLife’,arXiv:1606.07184v1[q-bio.OT]23June2016.• Ward,K.,(1982),RationalTheologyandtheCreativityofGod,(Oxford,Blackwell).• Ward,K.,(1996),‘GodasaPrincipleofCosmologicalExplanation’,in,Russel,R.J.,Murphy,N.,andIsham,C.J.).• Ward,K.(2010),‘GodastheUltimateInformationalPrinciple’,DaviesandGregerson (2010),282-300.

from physics to metaphysics, one way or...

Documents