Talk:Extreme physical information

message: This article and other B. Roy Frieden related articles needs to be fact checked and POV-pushing edits need to be ameliorated.  In particular, edits by the data.optics.arizona.edu anon raise the issue of conflict of interest re WP:VAIN-WP:NPOV-WP:AUTO, since this anon is IRL none other than Roy Frieden (who is Prof. Em. of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona).  The data.optics.arizona.edu anon has used the following IPs to make a number of questionable edits:
#
##16 June 2006 states controversial claims as established fact in Extreme physical information
##16 June 2006 adds "Physics actually derives out of information, through the principle of Extreme physical information" to Information; this is egregiously misleading, in my view
##6 June 2006: adds cites of his papers to Extreme physical information
##23 May 2006 adds uncritical description of his own work in Lagrangian and uncritically cites his own controversial book
##20 May 2005 confesses IRL identity
## 22 October 2004 attributes the uncertainty principle to the Cramer-Rao inequality, which is potentially misleading
Friedenr 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The controversial claims of Roy Frieden

message: Our Wikipedia software doesn't reflect line breaks.  I'd appreciate it if you would refactor using ":" or "*" at the beginning of each (logical) line so that it will work properly.  I'll reply to the content later, but you're making it difficult to read.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Frieden is too inexperienced here to do this himself, but I have just done this for him.  I am also adding a header above which I think is useful for newbies. ---CH 01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the refactoring.  I probably won't make many substantive comments for a day or so, though.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please refactor 

message: :Quoting from the article:
----
Frieden (2004: 81-84) grounds EPI in three axioms:
* Law of Conservation of information change. Let an act of observation perturb a source and the data gathered from that source. Let the perturbed information be δI and δJ. Then δI = δJ.
*There exist sequences of functions i_{n}(x) and j_{n}(x) such that I = \int \sum_{n} i_{n}(x)\,dx and J = \int \sum_{n} j_{n}(x)\,dx.
* Microscopic zero condition.   \exist \kappa, 0<\kappa<1, such that i_{n}(x) - \kappa j_{n}(x) = 0.
----
Those axioms do not have sufficient context to be included in the article.  If you want to add context, go ahead, but without that context, I don't think they belong here — whether or not your theory is useful, those axioms are not useful to the reader of the article. 
As for my CV, I'm not presently in an academic institution, so we call it a "resume", but I have two published papers in information theory among my 20-odd papers, and have some uncredited work in information theory with Robert McEliece and in set theory with my late mother (and probably some other mentions in journals and books).  My Ph.D. at CalTech is (primarily) in mathematical logic, and I satisfied the course requirements for a minor in physics, although I didn't take the qualifying exams required to actually get that minor.  (Very little of this paragraph satifies [[WP:V]erifiabilty requirements.  I just thought you might want to know who I am.) 
I may have more specific critisms of the article later, but your quotes from other reviews should at least be balanced by quotes from the critical review.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could easily add whatever context you want, perhaps e.g. inserting the definition of the i_n  (Fisher components).  I am quite willing to compromise, with goal of removing that off-putting heading.  However, I have the impression that no compromise toward this goal is possible here.  Your mind is made up and nothing will change it.  You are giving entirely too much weight to self-serving "reviews," and virtually none to actual empirical evidence for the approach.  Empirical evidence is the ultimate "proof" in physics (see the well known work of C. Popper).  This is compared to math (seeing you are a mathematician), where instead rigorous proof provides the basis for acceptance. Thus, Lavis & Streater in their review bemoaned the lack of "rigor" of the approach, something completely beside the point here.  Their one positive was to actually find algebraic errors, which no one else had done.  These were easy to correct and were incorporated into the 2nd edition (the main ref. for the article).  By the way, the corrections were naturally accomodated by the overall approach.  150.135.248.180 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Empirical evidence" is not the ultimate "proof" of a physical theory — usefulness is.
150.135.248.180 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I still don't see how the Bactra review and the SIAM review could have been of the same book, though.
150.135.248.180 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I admit I'm suspicious of claims of new physical metalaws; but it looks like I may have reason to be.  Neutron Spectra seems to actually be minimizing I, rather than I - J; and, for all I know, some of the others may be minimizing "information entropy" rather than "Fisher information" or your I - J.
150.135.248.180 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axioms 

message: 
CONDITIONS
- As per Wiki, the Tag conditions come in two parts:
[A]. Neutrality.
As the Neutrality is not in dispute (see above), this condition is now regarded to be redundant.
**PASS the Test. Vufors 08:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal Of The Tag 

message: I would be more impressed if the references for "fundamental" results were written by someone other than Frieden, himself, but I suppose they'll do.  As I've mentioned in the case of other articles written by the expert in the field, conference proceedings are not necessarily peer-reviewed, and survey works in "new" fields may only be reviewed by the author, other than for obvious typos.  This applies even if the publisher normally produces peer-reviewed works.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to expand the text out so that Wiki people can get a working knowledge. I have arranged the text, so that it can be expanded. This may take some time, as I have other University commitments. Reviewers are not a good place to get comments from, they only summarise what they see or read, they never confirm it with calculations. It is through application and sources in peer reviewed Science Journals the ideas make it or die. Good luck on your Admin Nomination - Regards to you - Vufors 06:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources 

message: I am overall happy with the article, except for one needed clarification (response to 2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph).  It was a fair remark, and can be squarely answered, as in the material I added today (see below).  If you want to shorten it, that's okay, as long as the meaning is not significantly altered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.135.248.197 (talk • contribs) 20:05, September 14, 2006  (UTC)
The preceding message was posted a few hours ago.  Now (5PM, MST, Sept. 14) I see that the material I added to the article is no longer in the article.  Was it somehow blocked?  Please inform.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.135.248.197 (talk • contribs) 00::05, September 15, 2006  (UTC)
:The last sentence of the addition is just wrong.  "Detection coordinates" (which is a name for a standard concept, so I won't argue much) has nothing to do with the location of the observer.  In fact, in general, the choice of coordinates has little to do with the location of the observer, and conflating those concepts may be a serious error.  There may be something to be said in regard the principle of least action depending on the coordinate system chosen, but it doesn't, in general, do so.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material added by B.R. Frieden on Sept. 14, 2006

message: Let me address the critical-sounding statement that was added to the article,
"Some critics regard the theory as vague and ill-defined. For example, the location of the extremum may depend on the coordinate system used to model the physical objects."
In response, I wish to make two points:
(1) EPI is not alone in having this apparent (see below) drawback.  In general, the ordinary Lagrange action approach suffers it as well (for details, see H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, 1950; Sec. 6-6, pp. 207-208).  For example, the action approach is only independent of Lorentz coordinate transformation in special cases of the potential.  In fact, Goldstein states (on p. 208) that for this reason he will limit his famous development to only two special cases of the potential: the free field and the electromagnetic field (p. 208).  The gravitational potential, for example, is ruled out (p. 208).   
(2) The Wheeler participancy of the observer that is cited in the article includes the observer's choice of coordinate system.  It is by now well known in modern physics that, according to which coordinates are chosen, a different physical effect can be seen. For example, in the optical double slit experiment, if the coordinates so chosen are in the image plane the physics obeys the electromagnetic wave equation, whereas if they are in the slits the physics obeys the Schrodinger wave equation.  Thus, the dependence of an EPI output upon the chosen coordinates is a realistic property and not a drawback.  We would want a general approach to physics to have this property.
I really would appreciate engaging in a constructive discussion of these matters. A legitimate theory can only profit by it.  
150.135.248.197 22:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you've edited your response, I cannot comment on point (1), although I believe it to be incorrect.  Point (2) is just wrong.  That is a non-standard, and, IMHO, improper interpretation of quantum mechanics, to assert that the choice of "coordinates" effects the results of the optical double slit experiment.  The choice of observation may affect the result, but not the choice of coordinates.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  B.R. Frieden response, Sept. 20, 2006 

message: We need some citations from real people and real papers before you can say this. Regards Vufors
# Frieden's alleged "method" for obtaining Lagrangians appears not to be well-defined . If so, one might suspect that this "method" is in fact merely a tool for constructing ad hoc "hand-waving" derivation of known results. 
# The desired extremum of I − J may not always exist. 
# Frieden appears to be trying to follow the model of Edwin Jaynes, who applied Shannon's notion of information to physics in 1957 (following an even earlier observation of John von Neumann), which led to the principle of maximum entropy. However, while Shannon's entropy has a clear non-parametric rationale, the "information" interpretation of Fisher information is less clear, particularly in the context of Fisher's claims, and apparently limits Frieden to one-parameter models.
* I also noted this odd statment in the so called ref section. "Note that these are general refs. The criticisms above are not necessarily based on them" - WHAT!!! Not necessarily based... find real stuff folks! How odd? Vufors 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for the critics 

message: Frieden is a total crackpot, and we all know it.81.178.157.195 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that. His stuff may not be a nice clean theory but I definitely get the feeling there is something there and it is not crackpot. In mathematics the umbral calculus stated off the same way and took over a hundred years before the underlying reason it worked was teased out and it was put on a firm foundation. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows if it correct? The explanation in the article is nonsense. 178.38.122.224 (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be deleted 

message: The claim that "... the mathematical axioms of L. Hardy ... underlie all known physics" requires a reliable source, not one based on this fringe non-mainstream theory.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardy's axioms 

message: This article doesn't remotely explain its thesis. For example:
:
\mathcal{I}
-
\mathcal{J}
=
\mathrm {Extremum}
What are these functions of? What can vary? Instances? Parameters? 
Example? 
Is there any content here at at all??
Since when does this kind of nonsense get onto Wikipedia? 178.38.122.224 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This might help: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00054 .  In this paper it is described how the antisymmetric part of the Fisher information for a Kahler structure (on a finite dimensional Hilbert space) has special significance.  It is probably not a great stretch to intuit then that perhaps 'I' and 'J' relate to the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of an appropriate model, respectively, unfortunately as of May 2015 the arxiv seems to be rather thin on examples in this direction geared towards the 'EPI' approach.  Regardless, one can probably then view I - J = extremum in at least this context as just a restatement of the Cramer-Rao inequality, for the special case where the underlying structure of the geometry can be decomposed into symmetric and antisymmetric parts. RogueTeddy (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense article