Sand Reckoning: Whose Information is It, Anyway?

In Chapter 9 we discussed the idea of a universal Turing machine. This machine is capable of simulating any other machine given sufficient time and energy. For example, we discussed how your fridge microprocessor could be programmed to run Microsoft Windows, then we described Moore’s logic, that computers are becoming faster and smaller. Therefore, one day, a single atom may be able to simulate fully what a present day PC can do. This leads us to the fascinating possibility that every little constituent of our Universe may be able to simulate any other, given enough time and energy. The Universe therefore consists of a great number of little universal quantum computers. But this surely makes the Universe itself the largest quantum computer. So how powerful is our largest quantum computer? How many bits, how many computational steps? What is the total amount of information that the computer can hold? Since our view is that everything in reality is composed of information, it would be useful to know how much information there is in total and whether this total amount is growing or shrinking. The Second Law already tells us that the physical entropy in the Universe is always increasing. Since physical entropy has the same form as Shannon’s information, the Second Law also tells us that the information content of the Universe can only ever increase too. But what does this mean for us? If we consider our objective to be a full understanding of the Universe then we have to accept that the finish line is always moving further and further away from us. We define our reality through the laws and principles that we establish from the information that we gather. Quantum mechanics, for example, gives us a very different reality to what classical mechanics told us. In the Stone Age, the caveman’s perception of reality and what was possible was also markedly different from what Newton would have understood. In this way we process information from the Universe to create our reality. We can think of the Universe as a large balloon, within which there is a smaller balloon, our reality.

Surfing the Waves: Hyper-Fast Computers

Who hasn’t heard of a computer? In a society entirely dominated by these transistor infested boxes there are probably only a few remaining isolated tribes in the Amazon or around the Kalahari that have not been affected. From organizing our finances, flying a plane, warming up food, controlling our heartbeat (for some), these devices are prevalent in each and every aspect of our society. Whether we are talking about personal computers, mainframe computers, or the embedded computers that we find in our mobile phones or microwave ovens, it is very hard to even imagine a world without them. The term computer, however, means more than just your average Apple Mac or PC. A computer, at its most basic level, is any object that can take instructions, and perform computations based on those instructions. In this sense computation is not limited to a machine or mechanical apparatus; atomic physical phenomena or living organisms are also perfectly valid forms of computers (and in many cases far more powerful than what we can achieve through current models). We’ll discuss alternative models of computation later in this chapter. Computers come in a variety of shapes and sizes and some are not always identifiable as computers at all (would you consider your fridge a computer?). Some are capable of doing millions of calculations in a single second, while others may take long periods of time to do even the most simple calculations. But theoretically, anything one computer is capable of doing, another computer is also capable of doing. Given the right instructions, and sufficient memory, the computer found in your fridge could, for example, simulate Microsoft Windows. The fact that it might be ridiculous to waste time using the embedded computer in your fridge to do anything other than what it was designed for is irrelevant – the point is that it obeys the same model of computation as every other computer and can therefore – by hook or by crook – eventually achieve the same result. This notion is based on what is now called the Church–Turing thesis (dating back to 1936), a hypothesis about the nature of mechanical calculation devices, such as electronic computers.

Quantum Schmuntum: Lights, Camera, Action!

Spring 2005, whilst sitting at my desk in the physics department at Leeds University, marking yet more exam papers, I was interrupted by a phone call. Interruptions were not such a surprise at the time, a few weeks previously I had published an article on quantum theory in the popular science magazine, New Scientist, and had since been inundated with all sorts of calls from the public. Most callers were very enthusiastic, clearly demonstrating a healthy appetite for more information on this fascinating topic, albeit occasionally one or two either hadn’t read the article, or perhaps had read into it a little too much. Comments ranging from ‘Can quantum mechanics help prevent my hair loss?’ to someone telling me that they had met their twin brother in a parallel Universe, were par for the course, and I was getting a couple of such questions each day. At Oxford we used to have a board for the most creative questions, especially the ones that clearly demonstrated the person had grasped some of the principles very well, but had then taken them to an extreme, and often, unbeknown to them, had violated several other physical laws on the way. Such questions served to remind us of the responsibility we had in communicating science – to make it clear and approachable but yet to be pragmatic. As a colleague of mine often said – sometimes working with a little physics can be more dangerous than working with none at all. ‘Hello Professor Vedral, my name is Jon Spooner, I’m a theatre director and I am putting together a play on quantum theory’, said the voice as I picked up the phone. ‘I am weaving elements of quantum theory into the play and we want you as a consultant to verify whether we are interpreting it accurately’. Totally stunned for at least a good couple of seconds, I asked myself, ‘This guy is doing what?’ Had I misheard? A play on quantum theory? Anyway it occurred to me that there might be an appetite for something like this, given how successful the production of Copenhagen, a play by Michael Freyn, had been a few years back.

Place Your Bets: In It to Win It

Until now we have discussed how life propagates and how life eventually ends; but I guess what most of us are preoccupied with is ‘what we do in between.’ In this chapter, I would like to stay in-between these two extremes and enjoy the moment. What more could we ask for? Excitement is what I, for one, would like to have. Whilst the concept of excitement may be subjective, most would agree that some modicum of risk comes as a given. It is much harder to get excited by certainty (let’s face it, we all find certainty boring). Let us instead choose life and discuss the various ways to make it more exciting. It’s 1962 Las Vegas, the city of dreams. Millions are made and lost every minute of every day. The city is littered with dreams of rookies making their way across the Nevada desert with borrowed money to chance their arm. Perhaps he will come back a millionaire or perhaps he will come back with his tail between his legs. But this day is different. Today a new cowboy is in town. He enters one of the casinos, the music is going, the cameras are on him, and the wine and the girls are on tap. He looks around, spots the blackjack table and makes a beeline straight for it. When the sexiest game in town is poker – why is this guy spending all his time on the blackjack table? He has a strategy, he thinks, that will beat the dealer. In his pocket, he has $10,000 to play with (in 1962 not an insignificant amount – worth around a cool quarter of a million dollars today), so this guy clearly means business. He starts to play the game like any rookie, placing small bets, quite innocuous, but as the game wears on, whilst others were leaving the table, this guy is still going. Slowly but surely his strategy seemed to be working. Of course, no casino likes winners, and is particularly wary of those that go about their business with such ruthless efficiency in such a cool and methodical manner.

Children of the Aimless Chance: Randomness versus Determinism

In our search for the ultimate law, P, that allows us to encode the whole of reality we have come across a very fundamental obstacle. As Deutsch argued, P cannot be all-encompassing, simply because it cannot explain its own origins. We need a law more fundamental than P, from which P can be derived. But then this more fundamental law also needs to come from somewhere. This is like the metaphor of the painter in the lunatic asylum, who is trying to paint a picture of the garden he is sitting in. He can never find a way to completely include himself in the picture and gets caught in an infinite regression. Does this mean we can never understand the whole of reality? Maybe so, given that any postulate that we start from needs its own explanation. Any law that underlies reality ultimately needs an a priori law. This puts us in a bit of a ‘Catch 22’ situation. So, are we resigned to failure or is there a way out? Is there some fundamental level at which events have no a priori causes and we can break the infinite regression? What does it mean for an event to have no a priori cause? This means that, even with all prior knowledge, we cannot infer that this event will take place. Furthermore, if there were genuinely acausal events in this Universe, this would imply a fundamentally random element of reality that cannot be reduced to anything deterministic. This is a hugely controversial area, with various proponents of religion, science, and philosophy all having a quite contrasting set of views on this. Often people get very emotional over this question, as it has profound implications for us as human beings. Could it be that some events just don’t have first causes? The British philosopher Bertrand Russell thought so. In Russell’s famous debate with Reverend Copleston on the origin of the world, Copleston thought everything must have a cause, and therefore the world has a cause – and this cause is ultimately God himself.

Destruction ab Toto: Nothing from Something

The main view promoted by this book is that underlying many different aspects of reality is some form of information processing. The theory of information started rather innocently, as the result of a very specific question that Shannon considered, which was how to maximize the capacity of communication between two users. Shannon showed that all we need is to associate a probability to an event, and defined a metric that allowed you to quantify the information content of that event. Interestingly, because of its simplicity and intuitiveness, Shannon’s views have been successfully applied to many other problems. We can view biological information through Shannon’s theory as a communication in time (where the objective of natural selection is to propagate the gene pool into the future). But it is not only that communications and biology are trying to optimize information. In physics, systems arrange themselves so that entropy is maximized, and this entropy is quantified in the same way as Shannon’s information. We encounter the same form of information in other phenomena. Financial speculation is also governed by the same concept of entropy, and optimizing your profit is the same problem as optimizing your channel capacity. In social theory, society is governed by its interconnectedness or correlation and this correlation itself is quantified by Shannon’s entropy. Underlying all these phenomena was the classical Boolean logic where events had clear outcomes, either yes or no, on or off, and so on. In our most accurate description of reality, given by quantum theory, we know that bits of information are an approximation to a much more precise concept of qubits. Qubits, unlike bits, can exist in a multitude of states, any combination of yes and no, on and off. Shannon’s information theory has been extended to account for quantum theory and the resulting framework, quantum information theory, has already shown a number of advantages. The greater power of quantum information theory is manifested in more secure cryptographic protocols, a completely new order of computing, quantum teleportation, and a number of other applications that were simply not possible according to Shannon’s view.

Murphy’s Law: I Knew this Would Happen to Me

Life now seems so robust that it becomes difficult to imagine how it could ever end. Are we now masters of our own destiny? With the robustness of biological information, combined with deliberate genetic engineering, are we capable of adapting to any environment Nature throws at us? Aside from some exceptional force majeure (in which case no payout is guaranteed) is there any condition under which life may end? One of the most topical and interesting discussions is whether life could run out of energy to function. But how could life ever run out of energy; and what does this actually mean? Are we just talking about the Sun dying or natural resources being depleted? The argument is that however life evolves in the future, it is difficult to imagine how it could run without the basic fuel. So if the Sun does die, we may find ourselves in a bit of pickle. However, in my view this hypothesis is entirely incorrect. At the end of the day, regardless of what happens in the Universe, the total energy is always conserved and it is merely our ability to process this energy that remains in question. Regardless of the Sun dying or natural resources being depleted, the same energy still exists within the Universe, and the challenge would then be to find different ways of harnessing it. My argument in this chapter is that life paradoxically ends not when it underdoses on fuel, but, more fundamentally, when it overdoses on ‘information’ (i.e. when it reaches a saturation point and can no longer process any further information). We have all experienced instances where we feel we cannot absorb any more information. The question is: is this fatal? What would you like the epitaph on your tombstone to read when you die? Usually people do not have a strong desire to inscribe anything grand or meaningful themselves, but their close ones, the family, friends, and relatives, choose to write something down to commemorate their loss.

Back to Basics: Bits and Pieces

The concept of information is so ubiquitous nowadays that it is simply unavoidable. It has revolutionized the way we perceive the world, and for someone not to know that we live in the information age would make you wonder where they’ve been for the last 30 years. In this information age we are no longer grappling with steam engines or locomotives; we are now grappling with understanding and improving our information processing abilities – to develop faster computers, more efficient ways to communicate across ever vaster distances, more balanced financial markets, and more efficient societies. A common misconception is that the information age is just technological. Well let me tell you once and for all that it is not! The information age at its heart is about affecting and better understanding just about any process Nature throws at us: physical, biological, sociological, whatever you name it – nothing escapes. Even though many would accept that we live in the age of information, surprisingly the concept of information itself is still often not well understood. In order to see why this is so, it’s perhaps worth reflecting a little on the age that preceded it, the industrial age. Central concepts within the industrial age, which can be said to have begun in the early eighteenth century in the north of England, were work and heat. People have, to date, found these concepts and their applicability much more intuitive and easier to grasp than the equivalent role information plays in the information age. In the industrial age, the useful application of work and heat was largely evident through the resulting machinery, the type of engineering, buildings, ships, trains, etc. It was easy to point your finger and say ‘look, this is a sign of the industrial age’. In Leeds, for example, as I used to take my usual walk down Foundry Street in the area called Holbeck, traces of the industrial revolution were still quite evident. John Marshall’s Temple Mills and Matthew Murray’s Round Foundry are particularly striking examples; grand imposing buildings demanding respect and appreciation for the hundreds of people who worked in squalid conditions and around the clock to ensure that the country remained well fed, clothed, or transported.

Information for all Seasons

Imagine that you arrive late at a party. Everyone is already there, sitting at a big round table. The host invites you to sit down with the others and you realize that they are engaged in what appears to be some kind of a game. The host tells you nothing other than to sit down and join in. Let’s say that you quite like playing poker, and you get excited at the prospect of participating, but you quickly realize that this is not poker. Then it dawns on you that you actually have absolutely no idea what is going on. You turn around to consult the host, but he seems to have disappeared. You take a deep breath and keep quiet, not wanting to reveal your ignorance quite so early in the evening, and you quietly continue to observe. The first thing you notice is that no one is allowed to utter any words, so it’s not obvious at all whether this is a game. This seems slightly odd but you think this may be one of the rules of the game and so you play along. You observe that the players are using a common deck of cards, resembling Tarot cards, each card with an elaborate picture on it, such as a warrior killing a lion, or a lady holding two crossed swords. After a while it becomes clear that players take turns to reveal a set of cards, one at a time. As each subsequent card is laid down, adjacent to the previous one, the other players closely observe the card being laid down as well as any body language of the player to further substantiate the meaning of the card. So it’s finally the turn of the player sitting next to you. He puts down a king standing over a dead lion with his sword raised above his head; you think to yourself, ‘Is this guy talking about a particular king who killed a lion?’, ‘Is he talking about royalty in general?’, or ‘Is this card a metaphor for some kind of personal triumph?’.

Social Informatics: Get Connected or Die Tryin’

Everybody knows a Joe. Joe is the kind of guy who was the most popular boy in class, head boy at school, the life and soul of the party, and whenever he needs something, it just seems to happen for him. This is the guy we love to hate! Why is he getting all the breaks when we have to work so damn hard? As we continue to grind out each day at work, we see Joe is the guy with a big house, fast car, and the most beautiful women swooning over him. Most men would give their right arm to have a bit of that magic. So, how does he do it? Of course, I cannot tell you for sure (if I could my next book would be a bestselling self-help book), but it should come as no surprise that people with more friends and contacts tend to be more successful than people with fewer. Intuitively, we know that these people, by virtue of their wide range of contacts, seem to have more support and opportunity to make the choices they want. Likewise, again it’s no surprise that more interconnected societies tend to be able to cope better with challenging events than ones where people are segregated or isolated. Initially it seems unlikely that this connectedness has anything to do with Shannon’s information theory; after all what does sending a message down a telephone line have to do with how societies function or respond to events? The first substantial clue that information may play some role in sociology came in 1971 from the American economist and Nobel Laureate, Thomas Schelling. Up until his time sociology was a highly qualitative subject (and still predominantly is); however he showed how certain social paradigms could be approached in the same rigorous quantitative manner as other processes where exchange of information is the key driver. Schelling is an interesting character. He served with the Marshall Plan (the plan to help Europe recover after World War II), the White House, and the Executive Office of the President from 1948 to 1953, as well as holding a string of positions at illustrious academic institutions, including Yale and Harvard.