vladimir s. lerner - arising information regularities in an observer (arxiv, july 2013, 2nd)

7/28/2019 Vladimir S. Lerner - Arising Information Regularities in an Observer (ArXiv, July 2013, 2nd)

1/34

Arising information regularities in an observer

Vladimir S. Lerner, California, USA

Abst ract

Considering a conversion of an observed uncertainty to the observers certainty, the paper verifies the

minimax principle of both the optimal extracting and spending of information, which generally refers to

getting a maximum of information from each of its observed minimum and minimize the maximum while

consuming it. This dual complimentary principle functionally unifies observer regularities: integral

measuring each observing process under multiple trial actions; converting the observed uncertainty to

information-certainty by generation of internal information micro and macrodynamics and verification of

trial information; enclosing the internal dynamics in information network (IN), whose logic integrates the

observers requested information in the IN code; building concurrently the IN temporary hierarchy, whose

high level enfolds information logic that requests new information for the running observer IN, extending

the logic code; self-forming the observers inner dynamical and geometrical structures with a limited

bo und ary, sh ap ed by th e IN in forma ti on geometry du rin g th e ti me -s pa ce co op erat iv e pr oc es se s.

These regularities establish united information mechanism, whose integral logic self-operates this

mechanism, transforming observed uncertainty to physical reality-matter.

Key words: integral uncertainty-certainty, internal conversion, minimax, information network, logic,

code.

Introduction

Observers are everywhere, from communicating people, animals, different species to any interacting

subjects, accepting, transforming and exchanging information.

Up to now, their common information regularities, emergence, differentiation, and appearance have not

bee n st ud ied by un it ed in fo rmati on ap proac h.

The paper shows how an information observer gets information from observing random process and how

and why it converts external uncertainty in its certainty-information, creating inner information dynamics

and information network with its logic and code.

Even though multiple physical studies [1-11] reveal information nature of the analyzed physical processes

in an observer, until A. Wheelers theory [12-16] of information-theoretic origin of an observer (it from

bit ) , th e ob se rve r ha s st ud ied mo st ly fr om ph ys ical po in t of vi ew.

The questions still are: How this bit appears and how does information acquire physical properties?

The information processes of an observer, its information structure and regularities have been not

adequately understood.

A. Weller has included the observer in wave function [16], while according to standard paradigm:

Quantum Mechanics is Natural.

1


2/34

The concept of recent publications [17,18] states that in Quantum Bayesianism, which combines quantum

theory with probability theory, the wave function does not exists in the world-rather it merely reflects an

individuals mental state.

We have shown (in [19-25] and in this paper) that quantum information processes, resulting from

Bayesian form of entropy integral measure, arise in observer at conversion of this uncertainty to the

equivalent certainty-information path functional measure.

The conversions information micro- macro processes finally provide physical information.

This paper extends results [21-25] by analyzing emergence and arises of observers regularities.

The paper is organized as following.

Starting with formal introduction of the information observer (Sec.1), it shows that its probability

transformations define integral information measure on a random process, expressed by entropy

functional on trajectories of controlled Markov diffusion process (Sec.2).

Since information, enfolded in the entropy functional (EF) of a random process, is unknown-uncertain for

the observer, it needs to be converted to the observers certainty-information.

In Sec.3 we find a conversion process, using the condition of equivalence of the entropy functional with a

certain-information functional, defined as information path functional (IPF) on its extremal trajectories,

which best approximate the EF. These extremals form the conversion process, satisfying variation

equations, determined through dynamic Hamiltonian, which holds both minimal and maximal solutions

for the IPF, while the minimal involves imposing a constraint on the Hamiltonian.

Thus, the functionals equivalence brings an information maxmin principle for EF-IPF and the

information transformation of random uncertain process to a certain process, chosen by this principle.

For the controlled Markov process, this principle entails the impulse controls, extracting the cutoff

information from the EF and integrating it through the multi-dimensional process (Sec.4).

It has shown that each cutoff delivers approximately one-bit information, depending on the cutting off

correlations of the random process.

The impulse control executes the information transformations, switches the entropy functional from its

minimum to maximum and back from maximum to minimum, while absolute maximum of the entropy

functional allows the impulse control delivering maximal amount of information from these

transformations, which are a source of Feller kernel information. Similarly, the maximin principle,

following from the functionals equivalence, is satisfied through the cutoff actions, selecting the suitable

EF functional portions and transforming it to the IPF portion of the conversion process.

The cutting impulse control consists of a step-down control function, which cuts the Markov process and

transforms it to Brownian process, and a step-up control function, which cuts the Brownian process and

starts the conversion process (Sec.5). The step-down function implements transition of the related

2


3/34

pro ces s pro babil it ie s tha t cr eat e th e EF , wh il e th e Bro wn ian pr oc es s enf ol ds th e max imal ent ro py

contributions along its multi-dimensional trajectory.

Both controlled functions cut off the process correlations and deliver their hidden maximal information.

Each step-up function consists of two almost simultaneous actions (during its switch): the first one

intervenes in Brownian process, picking up a pair of simultaneous states (from the cutting off process

ensemble) with maximal information, while the second one transforms them to starting conversion

pro ce ss , ho ld in g th e in fo rma ti on rat e of th e ki ll ed Br ow ni an mov em en t.

The execution of these actions requires a pair of mirror controls, applied to each of the pickup states,

which set up a pair of Hamiltonian conjugated trajectories, holding both initial states and information

speeds of the ended Brownian process and transferring information from this process.

The delivered maximal information (taken from each cutoff observing minimum) satisfies to the

conjugated process maximum Hamiltonian, until the dynamic constraint minimizes the Hamiltonian.

Each pair of the observers conversion process (Sec.6) carries complex conjugated probabilities and

components of the entropys analogue of function of action, which, interfering near moment 1k , entangle

on interval (Fig.1). By turning on the step-down control nearby moment2 1k , the observer imposes the

constraint, minimizing the current process information speed movement on extremals between the

moment of turning this control off 1ko and its stopping on 2k .

The conjugated dynamics proceed on interval1 o

, with intervalo

of switch from 1k to 1ko , where

unified mirror control entangles the dynamics up tot

v2k

-locality of turning the constraint off.

Overcoming the constraint threshold on a path fr om the Hamiltonian minimum, with following release of

the maximal Hamiltonian, at the 2k -locality, produces impulse tx ; this impulse is consistent with a

sharp increaset

x of killing Brownian motion at the same 2k -locality. The interference and

entanglement produce real information1[ ( )]

o

ap ti x being converted from related entropy *[ ( )]o

ap ts x .

[A simplified example of these processes analogous to watching a random moving point with both eyes,

while a fractional information from the most informative simultaneously appearing points coincides,

pro du cin g jo in t in forma ti on (I n Sec .7 we ana ly ze neu ron al dy namics of re la te d ex am pl es )].

During the dynamic movement, the delivered information is produced via is multiple Yes-No trial actions

(from the start-up control through the end of the step-down control, Fig.1).

This information is verified with that required by the observer IN logic.

While under the step-down control the delivered information is entangled, its part becomes free

information, attracting new information, which drives and finalizes collection of the entropy and

information functional in the multi-dimensional process.

3


4/34

Since each cutting fraction of -dimensional entropy functional is transferred to Hamiltonian function of

actions on interval : , the observers actual transforming (control) action allows it not to

measure directly the entropy functional, instead dealing with

n

** [ ( )]o

ap ts x

*[ ( )]o

ap ts x , and, therefore, to avoid taking

the math expectations for measuring EF.

Moreover, since the observing random process had been killed (cut), the observer operates only with

conversion process, currently transforming portion of EF, for each process dimension, while the EF of

whole random process disappears with the dissolving last portion of the remaining -th dimension.n

Explicitly, after ending conversion time interval2 , each multiple pair uncertainty-certainty reaches

equality

[ ( )] [ ( )]o oap t ap t os x i x = , (0.1)

and theobservering process uncertainty( )t

x [ ( )]oap t

s x , transferred to information-certainty:

1[ ( )] [ ( )] [ ( )]o o o

ap t o ap t ap t i x i x i x = + 2 , (0.2)

concurrently contributes to both related entropys and information functionalso

aso

pI :

and , (0.3)1

[ ( )]n

oi o

ap t oi a

i

s x s

=

= 1

[ ( )]n

oi o

ap t oi p

i

i x I

=

=on interval for each -dimension.

oi i

The currently summing integral contributions become automatically equal by the end of each k trial:ok ok

a pIs = , (0.4)

satisfyingo

a

o

pIs = (0.5)at completing the trial for last -th dimension. This means, the local controls could act independently

and not simultaneously for each independent dimension and the frequencies of considered Browniandiffusion, as soon as their local conditions (0.1) and in (0.3) are reached.

n

Even though the local equivalence (0.1) is held (at some moments, when the observed information

satisfies to maxmin principle), the integration in (0.3) is continued until the equal integral information in

(0.1-0.5) approaches to that requested by the observer information networks (IN) cooperative logic with

its code. The observers intention to end the conversion process (by applying the step-down control

imposing the constraint) coincides with its ability to attract new information via free information fo r each

trial . The free information initiates building a temporary IN with short term memory, which starts at

cooperation of conjugated dynamics and continues until its cooperative force is sufficient for adjoiningthis local with existing IN. End of these functionals collections indicates a temporary INs satisfaction

with the required information, which symbolizes the observers surprise.

As it is seen from (0.3), maximum of the observed information is upper bound by its maximal dimension.

Since equalities (0.3),(0.5) require theoretically infinite number n, which relates to undefined number of

computation, reaching this equality is possible only approximately.

4


5/34

The observer approaches the integral certainty, evaluating its proximity through the growing functional

sums of , which also evaluates the entropy functionals math expectations along all random

trajectories paths (that actually builds observers EF).

[ ( )]o

ap t oi x

The IN logics accepted accuracy [23(2)] limits the exactness of equalities (0.3-0.5), which should not

exceed the INs minimal unavoidable cooperative error in building the code.

Each logics triple code consists of digits, whose both highs and time-space intervals depend on incoming

information, while the IN triplets size discriminates the hierarchical distance between the nearest

triplets, which, in turn, depends on the observers requested frequency spectrum of information (limited

by ad mi ss ib le ran ge of th e in va ri ant s of in fo rma ti on dy na mi cs an d th e dimens io n) .

Since logics code is built by the conversion process, through the equivalence of portions of uncertainty

and certainty functionals that is checked concurrently via Yes-No actions, the IN triplets logic

accumulates a history of verified information, while its each triple digits is selected from retrieved

information via minimax (which implies competition to reach it through comparison of the digits history).

Saving logics history by memorizing it requires energy, but erasing the intermediate computational

results of initially irreversible logics will bring a reversible computer, and according to that: The usual

general-purpose computing automaton (e.g., a Turing machine) is logically irreversible [26].

The observer IN currently builds its logic information code (as a program executing computing with

Gdels limitations), which operates the observer action that retrieves, processes, collects, and memorizes

its information. This coding program logic concurrently structures the information observer, whose

microdynamics start with conversion of the observed random information in the conjugated dynamics and

end with the entanglement. On the macrolevel, the extremals of information path functional, which

averages a manifold of the hidden information, describe the information macrodynamics in terms of

information forces acting on the flows, distributed in space-time along the measured process, which are

assembling in the INs logic . Moment of approaching informationo

pI to that, requested by the observer

IN cooperative logic, evaluates upper border of time interval, which finally verifies measured integral

information of this observation, while the moment of imposing constraint at the entanglement of

conjugated dynamics determines its low border. This time border between the observers information

micro and macrodynamic processes connects information with physics, reversibility and irreversibility.

The paper mathematics identifies all above relations, last part of Sec.6 summarizes the regularities, and

shows how the IN bound cooperative dynamics can enclose and generate a Wheelers bit.

Sec.7 illustrates the information regularities on examples from neuronal dynamics.

The paper simple principle of equivalence the observer uncertainty-certainty leads to mathematical and

logical self-consistence, which through the minimax law creates observers regularity and its reality.

5


6/34

1.Basic Notions

1.1.Information

On intuitive level, information is associated with diverse forms of changes (transformations) in material

and/or non-material observations, expressed universally and unconnectedly to the changes cause and

origin.

Information is a fo rmal loga ri thmi c compara ti ve measure of the compared states ( ax , px ) (events):

[ln( ( ) / ( ))]ap a pI E P x P x= , (1.1)

connecting them through diverse forms of transformations, evaluated by mathematical expectation of the logarithms ratio

of the states priory probability ( )aP x to the posteriori probability ( )pP x .

(Here we conditionally divide an observed process of itsposteriori-dependedpart from a priori part).

Mathematical expectation (1.1), applied to these proce ss differential probabilities ,a

s xP and ,

p

s xP along

pr oc es s tr aject or ie s ( , ), ( , )a px s t x s t (starting at moment ), acquires form of entropy functionals

measure:

s

, , , , , ,[ln( / )] ln[( ( ) / ( ))] ( )

t

a p a p a

ap s x s x s x s x s x s x

x

I E P P P d P d P d = =

, (1.2)

which holds the Bayesian probabilities on the trajectories.

This measure integrates the logarithmic relative probability throughout all elementary random outcomes

d of random process [ ( , ), ( , )]t a px x s t x s t and enables accumulate more process information than the sum

of information measures (1.1) counted for the process separated states [23(1)].

The probabilistic description generalizes different forms of specific functional transformations,

represented through the probabilities ratios (1.1-1.2) for various random events andpr oc es se s, studied inKolmogorovs theory of probability and founded as a logical science [27].

This randomness with their probabilities we consider as a source of information, which implies that some

of them, but not all of such randomness produces information.

A logarithmical distance (for each elementary random outcome d of random process tx ):

, ,ln ( ) ln ( ) ( ln ( ))a p

s x s x ap d P d P d s s s = = p ap= , (1.3)

represented by a difference of a pr io ry and a po st er io ri entropies, measures uncertainty,

resulting from the transformation of probabilities for the source events.

0a

s > 0ps >

A change brings a certainty orinformation if its uncertainty is removed by equivalent elementary

information : . Thus, information is delivered at

aps

api 0ap aps i = 0ap aps i= > , which requires p as s< with a

po si ti ve lo ga ri th mi c densi ty me asu re at 0 ( )p 1< < . Condition of zero information: corresponds

to a redundant change, transforming a priory probability to equal posteriori probability, or this

0ap

i =

6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence


7/34

information transformation is an identicalundistinguished, redundant, while information conveys non-

redundant changes, decreasing uncertainty.

Whereas the notion of information formally separates the distinguished from undistinguished (or

repeating) subsets (events, processes), formulas (1.1-1.3) evaluate numerically this separation.

Information generally evaluates various multiple relationships represented via transformations (1.1-1.2)

and generalizes them, being independenton the diverse physical entities that carry this information.

Some logical transformations in symbolic dynamic systems theory [28], preserve an entropy as a metric

invariant, allowing to classify these transformations.

1.2. In form at ion Observer

Observing a priory and posteriori processes (events), an observer connects them by measuring

information (1.1,1.2), and such connection integrates both observations in an information process .

Since wordin-for-ma-tion literally means the act or fact of forming-to pu t a fo rm , measuring information

through forming a process (for example, from the observed events) implements that meaning.

In such formal consideration, information builds its observer, which holds these connections as the

information. This link implies a dual complementary relation between information and the observer:

information means an observer, andobserver is a holderof this information.

The observed information creates the observer, and observer builds and holds the observed information

through removing uncertainty at its extraction, acquisition, and accumulation.

Information can be produced at the process interactions, including their transformation (1.1-1.3) and

superposition, but the observer, in addition to that, acquires the produced information and accumulates it.

For each particular observer, an observing process is primarily unknown, and its observed uncertainty

should be converted to the observers certainty-information through its inner conversion process.

Hence, the above concepts include building the information observer via its self-conversion process.

2. The probability transformation, measured by an entropy functional on trajectories of Markov

diffusion process

Let have the n -dimensional controlled stochastic Ito differential equation:

d xt= ( t,a xt,u )dt+t (t, xt)dt, xs = , t[s, T]= , s [0,T]1R+ (2.1)

with the standard limitations [29] on drift function , depending on control , diffusion( , , ) ( , )ut t ta t x u a t x= tu (t, xt), and

Wiener process ( , )t

t = , which are defined on a probability space of the elementary random events with the

variables located innR ; ( )

tx x t= is a diffusion process, as a solution of (2.1) under control u ; is at ( ,s t) -algebra

created by the events { ( )x B }, and are transition probabilities on( ,P s x, , )t B ;s t ,s x = , (s x )AP P are the

corresponding conditional probabilitys distributions on an extended ( , )s ; are the related mathematical,s x

E [ ]i

7


8/34

expectations. The dimensions holds independent Brownian processes with multi-orthogonal eigenvectors of dispersion

. (2.1a)2 ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) 0Tb t x t x t x =

t

>

Suppose control function u provides transformation of an initial processt

x , with transition probabilities , to

other diffusion process

( , , , )P s x t B

( , )

t

t

s

v d

=

( )

( , , , ) exp{ (ttx t B

P s t B

, (2.1b)

with transition probabilities

,)} ( )s P ds x

=

( )t ts s

, (2.2)

=where is an additive functional of process ( )t

x x t= [30], measured regarding at any( , )s t s t with

probability 1, andt t

s s

= +

,s xP P=

, ., [ ( ( ))]

t

s x sE exp <

Then, at this transformation, the transitional probabilitys functions (2.2) determine the corresponding

extensive distributions on with a density measure

( , , , )tP s t B

, ( )s x A ( , )s

,

,

( ) exp{ ( )}s x t

s

s x

Pp

P = =

. (2.3)

Using the definition of a conditional entropy of processt

x regarding processt

, we have

,( / ) { ln[ ( )]}t t s xS x E p = , (2.4)

where,s x

E are conditional mathematical expectation, taken along the process trajectoriest

x (by analogy with M. Kac

[31]). From (2.3) we get

,( / ) { ( )}t

t t s x sS x E = , (2.5)

where the additive functional, at its upper limit T, has the form [32]:

1 11/ 2 ( , ) (2 ( , )) ( , ) ( ( , ) ( , ) ( )T T

T u T u u

s t t t t t

s s

a t x b t x a t x dt t x a t x d t = + . (2.6)

Since the transformed processt

(2.1b) has the same diffusion matrix but zero drift, we have

1

, { ( ( , ) ( , ) ( )} 0

T

u

s x t t

s

E t x a t x d t = , (2.6a)

and we come to the entropy functional, expressed via parameters of the initial controllable stochastic equation (1.1) in the

form:

. (2.7)1

,( / ) 1/ 2 { ( , ) (2 ( , )) ( , ) }

T

u T u

t t s x t t t

s

S x E a t x b t x a t x dt =

The proofs of formulas (2.2), (2.3), (2.6) can be found in [28, 30]. Expression (2.7) and its validation are in [33].

The entropy functional (2.4,2.5) is an information indicatorof a distinction between the processes tx and

t

by th ese process es me as ur es; it measu res a quantity of information of process tx regarding process

t . For the process equivalent measures, this quantity is zero, and it is a positive for the process

nonequivalent measures.

8


9/34

3. Conversion of uncertain entropy functional to certain information functional

Let us have entropy functional (EF) (2.7), defined at transforming process tx to t by control :tu

( [ ])tut

S xt

. (3.1)

Trajectories of conversion process we find from the condition of equivalence of two functionals attransformation: , (3.1a)[ ] [TtS x S x ]t

where is an equivalent certain-information path functional IPF, defined on the conversion process

trajectories

[ ]tS x

tx .

Holding the equivalence relation (3.1a) requires finding such trajectoryt

x along which the best

approximation of the EF by IPF or their least difference is achieved:

[ ] [ ] min 0t

T

t tx

S x S x . (3.1b)

Such trajectory should satisfy some variation principle, which implies thatt

x ought to be an extremal of

at the condition of equivalence:[ ]tS x

[ ] [ ]t

T

tx

S x extr S x= t . (3.1c)

The solved variation problem [19], determines the extremals via dynamic Hamiltonian :H

1( ) 1 / 2 (2 )u T u uS X

a X b a b a H t x

= + + = =

S

t, (3.2)

whose function depends on the applied control.[ ( , )]u u t ta a u t x=

At any fixed initial condit ions ( ) and the control functions, satisfying Jacobi Hamiltonian Eq. for

(3.2), its extreme is unique for considered class function: for example, the space piecewise differentiable

,o o

t x

1

( , )n

tx KC R and space piecewise continues at t functions in1

( , )tu KC U ( , )n

R U [20].

The Hamiltonian solutions can potentially bring both minimal and maximal solutions for functional

(at its equivalence with the entropy functional in (2.7)). The minimal solution is reached at

[ ]tS x

2

2( ) 0u T T

S SP a b

x x

= +

= , (3.3)

which presents constraint, imposed on the extreme solutions at the equality.

With no constraint, Hamiltonian (3.2) carries the trajectories, bringing maximal solution for IPF,

compared to the solution at (3.3).

Since the maximum holds the extreme solutions, as the necessary condition of the functionals

equivalence, this condition should be reached first (before imposing the constraint), and the minimum, as

the sufficient condition, should be reached next.

Thus, the functionals equivalence brings an information maxmin principle for EF-IPF with transforming

random uncertain processt

to a certain processt

x , chosen by this principle. Or the equivalent

transformation of uncertainty to certainty originates both this variation principle and the conversion

9


10/34

pro ce ss ca rryin g th is tr ans fo rm at ion. Fi nd ing th e ce rt ai nt y pr oces s (Se c. 5) in cl ud es su per po si ti on of th e

extreme conjugated Hamiltonian processes, their entanglement, and movement under the constraint.

The applied control implements this principle through a cutting off the Markov processtu tx (Sec.4),

optimal extracting of maximum information from each of the cutoff minimum and controlling its

consumption, minimizing the maximum (Secs.5, 6).

4. The cutting off entropy functional measure on trajectories of Markov diffusion process by

applying the impulse control

Let us define on the space of a piece-wise continuous as the step functions attu ( , )KC U t :

lim ( , )k

k

def

t ou u t

= x lim ( , )

kk

def

t ou u t

+

+= , , (4.1)x

m

which are differentiable, excluding the set

, (4.1a)1\{ }o m

k k = = 1,..., ,k=

and applied on diffusion process tx from moment k o to k , and then from moment k to k o + ,

implementing the process transformations ( ) ) ( )t k o k o

x x(t k t

+ .

At a vicinity of moment k , between the jump of control u and the jump of control u , we consider a

control impulse

+

( ) (k k o k o

u u u + += + ) . (4.2)

The following statement evaluates the EF information contributions at such transformations.

Proposition.

Entropy functional (2.7) at the switching momentsk

t = of control (4.2) takes the values

1 / 2i

k

u

S

= , (4.3)

and at locality ofkt = : at k o k and k k o + , produced by each of the impulse controls step

functions in (4.1), is estimated by

1 / 4ik

uS

= , ( )

ku u = , k o k (4.3a)

and

1 / 4ik

uS

+ = , ( )k

u u + +

= ,k k o

+ . (4.3b)

Proof. The jump of the control function u in (4.1) from a moment k o to k , acting on the diffusion

pro ces s, mi gh t cut of f th is proc es s af te r mo ment k o . The cut off diffusion process has the same drift

vector and the diffusion matrix as the initial diffusion process.The additive functional for this cut off has the form [32]:

0, ;

, .

k ot

s

k

t

t

= >

(4.4)

The jump of the control function (4.1) fromu+ k to k o + might cut off the diffusion process aftermoment

k with the related additive functional

10


11/34

, ;

0, .

kt

s

k o

t

t

+

+

>=

. (4.5)

For the control impulse (4.2), the additive functional at a vicinity of kt = acquires the form of an

impulse function

t ts s s

++ = , (4.6)

which summarizes (4.3) and (4.4).

The entropy functional (2.7), following from (4.4-4.5), takes the values

0, ;[ ]

,

k ot

s

k

tS E

t

= =

>an d

, ;[ ]

0,

kt

s

k o

tS E

t

++

+

>= =

, (4.7)

changing from 0 to and back from to 0 and acquiring an absolute maximum at kt > , between

k o and k o + .

The multiplicative functional, related to (4.4-4.5), are:

0, ,1,

k ot

s

k

tpt

= >

1,0,

kt

s

k o

tpt

+

+

>=

. (4.8)

Impulse control (4.2) provides an impulse probability density in the form of multiplicative functionalt t

s s sp p p += , (4.9)

wheres

p holds [ ]ik

-function, which determines probabilities at,

( ) 0s xP d =

k ot , k ot + and

, ,(

s x s xP d P d ( ) ) = at kt > .

For the cut off diffusion process, the transitional probability (at k ot an d k ot + ) turns to zero, and

the states ( ), (k k

)x o x o + become independent, while their mutual time correlations are dissolved:

,[ ( ), ( )] 0.

o ok kk k

r E x o x o

+

= + (4.10)

Entropy ( )kS + of additive functional s

(4.5), which is produced within, or at a border of the control

impulse (4.2), is define by the equality

[ ] [ ] ( ) (k o

k o

t t

s s s s )E E

P d +

++ = =

)

, (4.11)

where (P d is a probability evaluation of the impulse s

.

Taking integral of the symmetric -functions

between the above time intervals, we get on the border

[ ] 1/ 2 ( )s kE P =

at k k o =

, or k k o +=

. (4.12)The impulse, produced by deterministic controls (4.2) for each process dimension , is a non

random with

1,...,i = n

m( ) 1, 1,...,ic kP k = = . (4.13)

This probability holds a jump-diffusion transition probability in (4.12) (according to [34]), which is

conserved during the jump.

11


12/34

From (4.11)-(4.13) we get estimation of the entropy functionals information increment when the impulse

control (4.2) is applied (atk

t = for each ) in the form,i k

[ ] 1 /ik k

u

siS E

= = 2 , (4.14)

which proves (2.3).

Since that, each of the symmetrical information contributions (4.6) at a vicinity of kt = :

[ ] ik

ut

si kE S

= and [ ] ik

ut

si kE S

++ =

(4.15)

is estimated by

1 / 4ik

uS

= , ( )ku u = , k o k ; and ,1 / 4i

k

uS

+ = ( )k

u u + +

= ,k k o

+ , (4.16)

which proves (4.3a,b).

The entropy functional (2.7), defined through Radon-Nikodyms probability density measure (1.3), holds

all properties of the considered cut off controllable process, where both,s x

P an d,s x

P are defined.

Corollaries

From (2.7) and (4.4, 4.3) it follows that:

(a)-The stepwise control function ( )k

u u = , implementing transformation ( ) (t k o t k x ) , converts the

entropy functional from its minimum at kt o to the maximum at k o k ;

(b)-The stepwise control function ( )k

u u + +

= , implementing transformation ( ) ( )t k t k o

x + ,converts the

entropy functional from its maximum at kt > to the minimum at k k o + ;

(c)-The impulse control functionk

u

implementing transformations ( ) ( ) (t k o t k t k o

x x ) + , switches

the entropy functional from its minimum to maximum and back from maximum to minimum, while the

absolute maximum of the entropy functional at a vicinity ofk

t = allows the impulse control to deliver

the maximal amountof information (4.14) from these transformations;

(d)- Dissolving the correlation between the process cut off points (2.10) leads to losing the functional

connections at these discrete points, which evaluate the Fellers kernel measure [35].

(e)-The relation of that measure to additive functional [36] in form (4.6) allows evaluating the kernels

information by the entropy functional (4.5).

(f)-The jump action (4.2) on Markov process, associated with killing its drift, selects the Fellers

measure of the kernel [37, 38, other], while the cutoff information functional pr ov id es information

measure of the Feller kernel, andis a source of a kernel information, estimated by (4.14).

In a multi-dimensional diffusion process, the stepwise controls, acting on the process all dimensions,

sequentially stops and starts the process, evaluating the multiple functional information.

The dissolved element of correlation matrix at these moments provides independence of the cutting off

Markov process fractions, leading to orthogonality of their correlation matrix.

5. The specific of the transformed processes

5. 1. The cuto ff proce ss

12


13/34

First, it is a random, following from Eq.(2.1) under applying the cutoff control to the drift function in

(1.1). Secondly, it should integrate non-random information contributions ( )iu

kS

along its n-

dimensional trajectory, formed during the transformation of probabilityt

sp

to

t

sp

+in (4.8).

The first control ( )ku u = transfers Markov process (t k ox ) to Brownian process ( )t k , which holds

pro babil it y , car rie s ma xi mal,s xP d ( ) 1 ( )iu

kS

( )o

, delivered at this transformation, and can be measured

via the killed correlation of processt k

x .

Such transformation is associated with killing the Brownian process at the rate of increment of related

additive functional ( ) / ( )t i t is k s k

d for each single dimension i [38].

The killing Brownian motion can take a sharp increase at locality of hitting a time varying barrier [39].

The second control ( )k

u u + += , cutting the Brownian process, might transfers the rate of killed Brownian

pro ces s ( )t k

to a Markovian process (t k o

x ) + at

, ,/ 0t

s s x s xp P P+

+ + + +=

, , ( )s xP d 1+ + . (5.1)And control ( )ku u + += starts a certain (non-random) process (t k ox ) + , satisfying the variation conditions

(Sec 3), with the eigenvalue of diffusion operator [39,40] for the process ( )t k

, determined by that rate.

The transferred eigenvalue 2i holds information frequency and speed, driven by the generated maximal

entropy contribution

1 2( )iu

k iS

i = (5.2)

during interval of observation1i k k o = , where k o here is the moment preceding moment k of

applying control ( )ku u + += .

The initial conditions of the starting dynamic process are determined by a boundary, defined through the

step-up control function ( )k

u u + += , which absorbs the terminated (killed) process and transfers 2i to

the conversion process at the momentk o + [24]. Elementary information contribution (5.2) of ( /S x )t t

should coincide with that required by conversion process variation principle(Sec.3), which is determined

by th e VP ma xi ma l in forma ti on in va ri an t ( )i io

a of starting dynamic process [23(2)]. We get equality

1 2 ( )i i i io = a , (5.2a)

which, at the known rate of diffusion operator (or additive functional), identifies1i and, hence, the

locality of boundary momentk

(at a fixed moment of opening observationk o

) of cutting off the

Brownian process.

The minimax principle, applied to an ensemble of the boundary-absorbed process, chooses a pair of the

ensemble mirror states, possessing maximal information of their information distinction simultaneously

with probability (5.1) for such minimal chosen number of the process states at the cutting moment.

13


14/34

The control transfers these captured boundary pair-mirror states and the eigenvalue of the killed

Brownian movement to the complex conjugated dynamics.

u+

On the spot of switching this control, there are two simultaneous events (pair-mirror states), each of

which can be controlled separately by observer inner controls12 1 2( , )v v v v+ + + +=

0 2,

o ot

, being a pair of mirror

reflection of u . Such controls, applying within time intervals+ 2 k 2k < = (Fig.1):

2

,2

,( )

0

ov t

u u tt

+ ++ +

< = = >

, (5.3)

where is a component of , act directly on the process pair-mirror states. The transformedv+ u+ +

pro vi des fre qu en cy fu nct io n ~f + to a new (conversion) process through spectral representation of

related Furies transformations, which is connected with parameterio of the VP invariant (5.2a).

5. 2. Conversion process

Since the conversion process, is a solution of Hamiltonian Equations (with conjugated Hamiltonians

, Sec.3), it is described by complex conjugated trajectories1 2 1( , )H H H H= 2 12( , )

t tx x x+ +

( )t

S x ( tS x+ +

with their

functions of action , having complex conjugated components , and their

pro babil it ie s, de te rmi ne d on th ese pro ces ses ac cordi ng ly .

12 12S H= dt )

+ vControl functions , at u12 12( )v f x+ = + += + in (5.3), convey the transition from the captured boundary

states12( , )x x x+ + and eigenvalues + (of the killed Brownian movement) to the starting complex

conjugated dynamics. Multi-dimensional process holds many extremals with different information speeds.The minimax criterion selects both sequences of the criterions ranged eigenvalues and related pair states

for all dimensions. The generated multi-dimensional information dynamics evolve in information form of

Schrdingers process with its bridge and entanglement [22], which cooperates in information

hierarchical network of the conversion process [23,24].

Chapters 1-5 have explained the fo rmal EF-IPF connections and their associated processes; more details

bel lo w br ing s in si de of ob serv er s sp eci fi cs.

6. The observers proceeding of the conversion process and holding its information

Suppose, the EF uncertainty affects an observer at some random interval of the process tx potential

observation which randomly divides( ),tx tx on a priory ( )ax t and a posteriori ( )px t processes.

Using maxmin prediction, the observer virtually (imaginably) trials ( )a

x t and ( )p

x t by a set of impulses

, which control the related random parts[ , ]a p

uu u u = ( ), ( )a px t x t of process tx .

14


15/34

Each observer testing actions and produce transformation of the probabilities, generating the

observers portions of the entropy functional

au

pu

[ ( )]ap ts x for process ( )tx .

By observing uncertainty of th epro ce ss[ ( )]ap ts x ( )tx , each observer intervenes in random process,

changing the process initial probabilities ( aP , ) and entropy measure of this observation.pP

Observing multi-dimensional process involves numerous such interventions, generating the process

functional uncertainty measure of an observer.

Observers EF also comprises external collective (cooperative) information affecting observation [41].

We assume that the uncertainty measure is defined before the probing changes, and it can be considered

as an objective measure of some random process.

If each cutting actions *( )a

u and *( )pu potentially curtail the random process parts *( )tx and*( )tx

on interval , killing the cutoff by moment* 2k (Fig.1), then the problem consists of converting entropy

po rt io n to rela ted in format ion fu nction al po rt ion us in g th e st ep-up

controls

*)] ]o

ap a

)u

[ (t

s x

*(p

[ ( )p t

s x [ ( )]oap t o

i x

during the conversion process 1( ),t o ox 2 = + , where the related symbols indicate

random and non-random intervals. The conjugated dynamics proceed on intervalo

1 o , with

intervalo

of control *(pu ) switch from 1k to 1ko , where unified mirror control entangles the

dynamics on interval up to

tv

2 2k -locality of turning the constraint off.

Both observers external and internal processes on Fig.1 , which the observer proceeds simultaneously,

are combined in a common time, as a difference from Fig.2, where these processes are shown sequentially

in time for comparison. The observers time course might differ in the time scale from external process.

Control*( )

au transforms the process probabilities

*,/t

t x ,p P P = ( in (4. 8) ) f rom Ma rko vian to

Brownian

,t xP

* ,P pr oc es s, cut ti ng en tr op y *[ ( )]

o

ap ts x jointly with control *( )pu . This control transforms

pro ba bi li ti es ,con ve rti ng po rti on* , ,

/t x

p P P + +=t+

*)][ (o

ap ts x to 1)][ (o

ap ti x , and concurrently starts the

pro ces s wi th pr ob ab il ity on in te rv al , fi nis hing it by th e mo men t of ki ll ing,t xP+ + 2

*

2 2k + , where

* 1ko 1o , 1 1 1k o 1,o o k 1 ,o k o = + (Fig.1).

By ending moment2k of this transformation (Sec.4), both the cutoff random process ( )tx

[ ( )]o

and its

entropy portion disappear, transforming it to information functional portion[ (t

)]oap

s x o

ap ti x .

Other dimensions with the cutoff controls supply the related contributions, which are integrated by the

EF-IPF using the minimax criterion for all dimensions.

15


16/34

The required minimax means stepwise jump probabilities, changing each maximum entropy*[ ( )]

o

ap ts x to

minimum (at cutting moment * ) and to relatedinformation 2[ ( )]o

ap ti x on interval of its accumulation.2

Among multiple random copies of such jumps, the observers maxmin satisfies the most probable

opposite jumps, that could be produced by some the opposite controls , which,

we assume, are reflections of control

1 2* 1 *( ) , ( )a ao ou v u + 2v11,a a au u u+ = , extending its action internally. These observers

opposite inner controls are functions1 2( , )o o ov v v 1 1 2( ),o o ov f x v 2 ( )of x+ = = of the cutting maximum

information states ,x x

+

, holding the maximal information distinction simultaneously in the selected

random ensemble, while the step-up controa

u starts complex conjugated dynamics (Secs.3,5) with

initial s ,

l

state x x + . The inner controls ( , )tf x xfunc tions ( ,tv f x x ),t tv+ + + = = initiate opposite

directional-conversion process, which, being the solution of Hamiltonian Eqs, is described by complex

conjugated trajectoriest

x , tx+ . These processes carry their complex conjugated probabilities and

components of the entropys analogue function of action, interferin nearby mog ment 1k (Fig.1).

Moment of their joining 1ko indicates disappearance of the entropy imaginary components of

Hamiltonian dynamics:

* * *[ ( )] [ ( ) 2 [ ( )] [ ( )]o o o o

ap t ap t ap t ap t s x s x s x i x+ + = = 1 , (6.1)

pr od uc in g re al in fo rma ti on co nv er te d fr om en tr op y1[ ( )]

o

ap ti x *[ ( )]

o

ap ts x , where interval

o is defined by

the control function (5.3). The complex conjugated dynamics entangle on interval holding information

. Hence, initial observer uncertainty

2

2[ ( )]o

ap ti x [ ( )]o

ap ts x istransferring to its information-certainty

1[ ( )] [ ( )] [ ( )]o o o

ap t o ap t ap t i x i x i x = + 2 . (6.2)

By turning on the step-down control at moment 1k , the observer imposes the constraint, minimizing the

pro ces s in fo rmati on sp ee d mo ve me nt on ex tr ema ls , wh ich de te rmi nes th e mo me nt of tu rn in g th is co nt rol

off 1ko and its stopping 2k , Fig.1. Whereas step-up control launches complex dynamics at

moment

[ ]a ou v

1o , its step-down action, as , starting at moments[ ]p tu v 1k , allocates its interval of control

switcho to interfering processes ( ,t t t)x x x+ , and ends the control action during a finite time interval

2 2 1k ko = until it stops at moment 2k , finishing o .

At moment*

1ko , control cuts off posteriori process[ ]p

tu v*( )

px , while starting entanglement of

pro ces se st

x t,x+ and continues it until moment 2k of killing both Brownian process and this

16


17/34

entanglement. A sudden risetx , at 2k -locality, corresponds turning off the constraint by the control

end, while slight growth 2( )tx o in this locality is limited by the Hamiltonian maximum. At imposing

the constraint, potential function (Sec.3) approaches zero: ( , ) ( ) 0,u T TX

P t x a X bx

= +

which is possible

when its controllable left part reaches a threshold, restricted by its diffusion right part,

at ( )u T T X

a X bx

=

. Overcoming this threshold on a path from the Hamiltonian minimum, with following

release of the maximal Hamiltonian at the 2k -locality, produces impulse tx .This impulse is consistent

with a sharp increaset

x of the killing Brownian motion (Sec.5) at the same 2k -locality, while the

killing proceeds between the boundary moments*

1ko and 2k of the process cutoff and stopping.

According to [39] and [22], a sudden death of entanglement, associated with its killing in finite time [42],

is estimated by information ~1/8 Nat of total Nat, accumulated by entanglement, which could

deliver Brownian process

~ln2

tx

tx -locality of ending the inner control .tvthat implies observers at 2kImposing the constraint requires the same information, which the observer spends on this control [24].

Both starting-up and starting-down observers controls require approximately 2/3 of total information,

delivered by observation. The step-up control information and 1/3 of delivered information are spend on

the conjugated information dynamics, while under the step-down control this dynamic information is

entangled in the adjoint conjugated processes on 1 1ko k o = + up to 2k .

txThis means, 1/3 of total information becomes free information (that is covering ), needed for turning

on a next step-up control, being a self-driven by observer.

The conversion process' time interval is determined by both carried1

* *[ ( )]o

ap ts x and the

transformed eigenvalues 1( )o + += for each trial, which hold different process dimensions

frequencies:

* *[ ( )] /o

ap ts x + = . (6.3)

2[ (o

ap ti xTime interval is determined by both known

2 )] and the eigenvalues 1( )o o k

+ += defined via

the minimal Hamiltonian:

2 2[ ( )] /o

ap t oi x + = . (6.4)

Thus, after ending the conversion time interval, each multiple pair reaches equality

[ ( )] [ ( )]o oap t ap t os x i x = . (6.5)

At fulfillment (6.5), the ending (killed) conversion process holds its information by producing the

information code [20,21].

17


18/34

Hence, the observers multiple trial starts with random cutting, reflected by paira

u1,

a a au u u

1

+ = and inner

control , which minimizes actions by Yes-No probes in the conjugating process and ends

with joint control that finally cuts the chosen observed part.

1 2( , )o o ov v va

u

]tv( , )t t tv v v+ = [p

u

Theoretically, if whole cutoff external impulse infinitively small (Sec.2), then both *( )au and *( )pu cut

pro ces s at th e same mo ment **

1 = , providing information [ ( )]o

ap t oi x at internal 1o .

Each equal multiple pair (6.5) concurrently contributes to the related entropy and information functionals

on their time intervals , , accordingly:i

,oi

and , (6.6)*1

[ ( )]n

oi o

ap t i a

i

s x s

=

= 1

[ ( )]n

oi o

ap t oi p

i

i x I

=

=which become equal automatically on the end of each multiple probing trial:

o

a

o

pIs = . (6.7)

The disappearing multiple trial process retains the trial integral information, encoding it in a local

information network as the IN logic [24].

Because each equality in (6.6) requires theoretically infinite numbern, which relates to undefined number

of computation, reaching these equality and (6.7) are possible only approximately. The equalitys

pro xi mi ty in cr ea ses wi th gro wi ng fu nct io na l su ms of , wh ic h eva lu at e th e en trop y fu nct io na l s

math expectations along all random trajectories paths (that actually builds observers EF).

[ ( )]oap t io

i x

Since each -dimensional portion of entropy functional EF (2.7) is transferred to related Hamiltonian

function of action on a fixed interval

n

*

[ ( )]o

ap t

s x *

, the observer actual transforming action allows not to

measure directly the entropy functional, instead dealing with dynamic *[ ( )]o

ap ts x , and therefore to avoid

taking the math expectations for measuring EF. Moreover, once an externally observing random process

had been killed, the observer deals with reflected inner conversion process on its extremal segments.

Since under the step-down control the delivered information is entangled, its part becomes a free

information, attracting new information, which allows collect the entropy and information functional in

the multi-dimensional process. Indeed, the observer conjugated dynamics produce , whose free

information allows the automatic continuation of retrieval each secondary from the EF

until their summary satisfies (6.6). As the observer progressively summarizes , each following

sum of these extremes determines its next conversion process with its minimax for each observers inner

information dynamics.

[ ( )]oiap t io

i x

1[ ( )]t i oi x +

*[ ( )]

ts x

1oi

ap

+

o

ap

18


19/34

Hence, the observers intention to end the conversion process (by applying the step-down control

satisfying the process minimax) coincides with its ability to attract new information via free information

for each trial.

The controls could act independently and not simultaneously for each dimension, as soon as conditions

(6.4), (6.7) are reachedat some moments, determined by the maxmin principle of observed information.

Getting the observer EF deterministic value brings actual the IPF value, i.e. it holds the quantity of

equivalent information automatically.Each observer evaluates its expectations along the trajectories path

by in tegr at in g sequ en ti all y th e EF co ntr ib ut io ns al on g th e pat h.

Mathematically it corresponds to EF integral (2.7) with not fixed upper limit T , while the end of this

evaluation process is a priori unknown. This means, the local contributions could reach the extreme and

maxmin values sequentially in time (for different dimensions), while their consecutive adding determines

the current, deterministic EF values over each random path, as the currentIPF .

Moreover, both the current functionals equal values (6.5), completing the sum (in (6.6)), and their

single upper limit (6.7) will determine the last contribution at its final moment .nt T

Each local EF transformationt

p

, tot

p+

will be converted to a non-random conversion process, until

trials end, terminating this EF. Observer yields the integral Bayesian information, collected during the

trials, whereas its uncertainty portion are converted in the related certainty portion until all portions of

the EF will be converted in the total IPF. The consecutive EF and IPF contributions are built by cutting

each local correlation of random processt

x (between its parts ( ), ( )a p

x t x t ) and integrating all of them

along trajectories of the multi-dimensional process.

Even though the local equivalence (6.5) is satisfied, the integration (summing) in (6.6) continues until the

integral information from the observationo

pI approaches to that requested by the observer information

networks (IN) cooperative logic1mI + , satisfying equality [24]:

1 12 12( ( ), ( ))o

p m oI I

+= a a . (6.8)

This currently requested information in the form of a quality messenger (qmess) [24], being sent by

observer, is measured by the VP information invariants 12 12( ), ( )o a a (Sec.3), which depends on the

cooperative logic of the IN existing -th upper level, generating the qmess.m

The invariants are functions of density of collected information 12 12[ ( )]i

iof

= ), where frequencyi

f of

delivered information is determined via the observers parameter of uncertainty io .

The observer selects the requested information depending on the frequency of information spectrum,

while the information invariants, restricted by VP, limit io and therefore restrains each density.

Since information density determines the IN attracting information cooperative force:

, (6.9)12 12

[( ) 1]X

19


20/34

which evaluates observers intentional effort, it limits both the obtainable frequency and the observers

intention to get this information spectrum, holding the observerattention during each observation process

[24]. These relations implicates building temporary (for each qmess) a local IN for each IPF collection,

which should support the observers existing IN and its logic .

The local IN starts building, verifies and binds its triplets nodes with short term memory, and

continues building until its final density will match that by (6.8).

The free information initiates this IN building, which provides its following triple cooperation enables

attracting the IN subsequently build node. The temporary IN builds until concentration of maximums of

information, enclosed in its final nodes, reaches the density, predicted by (6.9), whose cooperative force

is sufficient for adjoining the local with existing IN. Moment of approaching informationo

pI to that,

requested by the observer IN cooperative logic, evaluates an upper border of this time interval, while the

moment of imposing constraint at the entanglement of conjugated dynamics determines its low border.

The ending functionals collections coincides with the INs satisfaction with the needed information

(evaluated by (6.8),(6.9)), which symbolizes the observer expression of a surprise, when the integrated

information, being temporary memorized in the local IN, starts memorizing in the observer IN.

After memorizing, the IN absorbs the local IN, being compressed in the observer IN upper level (with

information density 1m + ), which generates information invariant with an elevated information

density that requests the related frequency of new information.

2( m +a )

(Before such memorized attachment, the observer could not be surprised, even though its existing IN

might predict this invariant for a future request of new validating information).

Each such invariant evaluates a quality of observers information enclosed in this IN level [20].

The observer starting-up controls information , through interaction with incoming informationa a ,

pro du ce s su ffic ient in forma ti on [21 ], ca pable th e sequential and consecutive increase of the observer

triplets quality of the IN information, which is required for both forming next triplet and adjoining it

subsequently to the observer INs node. The observers self-imposing dynamics guarantee persistence of

the entire observers operations and the continued extension of its information as needed.

Therefore, the observer initiates observation by its free information (from previous actions) that starts

bu il d te mp ora ry IN (w it h it s ST M) un ti l it s en la rg in g densi ty ap pro ach to th at requ es ted by exi st in g

observers IN and its main logic. With the satisfaction, observer uncertainty disappears, evaluating hi s

expectations from the entropy functional via math expectations along all random trajectories paths ,

which actually builds its EF, IPF and finally the IN logic.

The conversion process time interval finalizes dynamic measuring of initial hidden information,

concentrated in the external cutoff correlations, which is correlated with the observer process during the

controls intervention in this process. Such destruction of initial correlations and then formation of

correlations during the measurement potentially erases the primary hidden information, leading to

20


21/34

decoherence [43]. At these moments, the observer acquires each portion of the requested information

(carrying invariant ), while the IN bound, cooperative information dynamics self-memorize it.2( m +a )

Remembering information indicates the process irreversibility and physical activity [44].

Since memorizing spends an energy, which equals to that spent on the memory erasure, the IN memorized

information has physical properties [45,46,47].

The observers microdynamics start with conversion of the observed random information in the

conjugated dynamics and end with the entanglement. On the macrolevel, the VP extremals of information

pat h fu nct io na l (which av er ag es vi a th e EF a ma ni fo ld of th e hi dd en in fo rma ti on ), de sc rib e th e

information macrodynamics in terms of the information forces acting on the flows [20,21], distributed in

space-time along the measured process; the macrodynamics are assembled in the INs logics .

Moment of acquiring the requested information finally verifies the measured information of observations,

pro vi di ng th e ti me in te rva l as the border s ma cr o pa ramete r be tween th e ob se rve r s in forma ti on mi cro-

and macrodynamic processes, which connects information with physics, reversibility and irreversibility.

Each logics triple code consists of digits, whose both the highs and time-space intervals depend on

incoming information, whereas the triplets size discriminates the IN hierarchical distance between the

nearest triplets, which, in turn, depends on the observers requested frequency spectrum of information

(limited by admissible range of the invariants of information dynamics). Since logics code is built by the

conversion process through the equivalence of portions of uncertainty and certainty functionals (that is

checked concurrently via Yes-No actions), the IN triplets logic accumulates a history of verified

information, while its each triple digits is selected from retrieved information via minimax (which

implies a competition to reach it through comparison of the digits history).

Saving logics history by memorizing it requires energy, but erasing the intermediate computational

results of initially irreversible logics will bring a reversible computer [26], and according to that: The

usual general-purpose computing automaton (e.g., a Turing machine) is logically irreversible.

The observers IN currently built its logic information code (as a program executing computing with

Gdels limitations), which operates the observer action that retrieves, processes, collects, and memorizes

its information. This coding program logic concurrently structures the information observer.

The regularity summary

General principle: Get maximum information from each of its observed minimum an d minimize the

maximum at transformation of observed uncertainty to equal observers certainty-information.

This dual complementary principle functionally unifies the observer main regularities:

1. Integral measuring each observing process under multiple trial actions;

2. Converting the observed uncertainty to information-certainty by generation internal information micro-

and macrodynamics and verification of trial information;

21


22/34

3. Enclosing the internal dynamics in information network (IN), whose logic integrates the observers

requested information in the IN code;

4. Building concurrently the IN temporal hierarchy, whose high level enfolds information logic that

requests new information, while the enclosed logic is attached to observers running IN, extending the

logic code;

5. Self-forming the observers inner dynamical and geometrical structures with a limited boundary,

shaped by the IN information geometry during the time-space cooperative processes;

And their speci fi cs:

1. Extracting max min information under observers impulse actions, which convert the observed process

by gen er ati ng in te rna l pai r-w ise co njugat ed co op er at iv e dy namics at ea ch tr ia l;

2. Producing entangled information-certainty through the dynamic cooperation, which generates free

information, requesting information for each next trial, until the total integrating information satisfies the

needs of the observer information networks (IN) according to its logic; this includes building a

temporary IN with short term memory, initiated by free information, until its cooperative force is

sufficient for adjoining this local with observer existing IN;

3. Self-cooperating the entangled information in the IN triple nodes, which are sequentially and

hierarchically enclosed by applying the minimax;

4. Creating the IN nodes triplet code, whose double spiral information geometry follows from the

conjugated space- time cooperative dynamics;

5. Providing the observers integral logic via the triple codes hierarchy.

These regularities establish a united information mechanism, whose integral logic self-operates this

mechanism, transforming observed uncertainty to physical reality-matter. The formally described

information regularities are specified on particular information and physical processes via their

identification, control and implementation [19-20], serving for prediction of new detail discoveries.

The regularities of inner dynamics allow us discussing the appearances of a bit, which could potentially

enclose high-level intelligent information. Lets have two examples. Human genome code contains approximately (by different estimations) between and

96 10 96.5 10 bits

excluding redundant information.

This code information logic can be enclosed in the IN -level triplet structure, whose final informationm

compresses (70) [23], with number of conversion process . It gives3mN bi= ts 2n m 22 23n forhuman code, whose INs final bit compresses all its (715-778) non-redundant MB.

The Universe light horizon is evaluated by [48], which could be enfolded and compressed in the

IN integral information code with final ~1 bit that, according to above estimation, potentially encloses

conversion processes within its ending

12210 bits

m512n 250 -th triplets hierarchical level, absorbed by the INbo rd er [20 ]. (T he compu ta bl e -fr om (6. 6) ). A bit , th rou gh th e ob se rve r coo pe ra ti ve dy nam ics,

bei ng me mo ri zed in it s IN, ho ld s ph ysi ca l pro pe rt ie s wi th in th e ob se rv er cr ea ted in ne r cod e lo gi c.

n

22


23/34

7. Illustration of the information regularities on examples from neuronal dynamics.Discussion

Analyzing these example, presented in reviews and studies [49-59] (which include extensive

References), we explain and comment some of their information functions using formal results [20-25]

and this paper. Here, we relate observers external processes to sensory information, while its internal

pro ce sses up ho ld ref le ct ed in format io n th ro ug h th e in te rn al dy namics (IM D) sy nc hron iz ed pro cee ding s.

According to review [49], a single spike represents an elementary quantum information, composed

from the interfering wave neuronal membrane potentials, which is transferred to post-synaptic

po tent ial . Wh il e th e sy na pt ic tr ans mis si on is a mechan is m of co nv ers io n of th e sp ik e, or a sequ en ce of

spikes, into a graded variation of the postsynaptic membrane potential that encodes this

information The pre-synaptic impulse triggers connection with the synaptic space, which starts the

Brownian diffusion of the neuro-transmitter, opening the passage of information between the pre- and

the postsynaptic neuron. The transferring quantum packet determines the amplitude and rate of the

po st -s yn apt ic re sp on se and th e ty pe and qu al it y of th e co nv ey ed in forma ti on .

I nst ead of t he aut hor s t erm quant um , we use i nf or mat i on conj ugat ed dynami cs

t hat convey t hi s i nf or mat i on.

Although there are several possibilities to start releasing the states on the border the post synaptic

transmission, usually only a single one close to the centre of the Post Synaptic Density have a higher

pro ba bi li ty to starts the opening formation of binding the receptors. This eccentricity influences the

rate of neuro-transmitters that bind the postsynaptic receptors [49].

I t i l l us t r at es s el ec t i venes s of t he spec i f i c mi ni max s t a t e s of t he Br owni an

ensembl e ( l ocat ed on a border t he Br owni an di f f us i on,Sec.5

) , al l owi ng t o chos et he maxi mum pr obabl e st at es of t he ensembl e, havi ng t he r at e, ampl i t ude, and

t he t i me cour se of t he pos t - synapt i c pot ent i al , whi ch i s t r i gger ed by the

i mpul se ( Sec . 4, 6, Fig.1), r el at ed t o t he s pi ke.

Each Post Synaptic Density is composed of four chains arranged by any combination of four subunits,

which have two types of binding receptors [49].

I t i s a s t r ai ght anal ogue of our f our uni t s i n each el ement ar y i nf or mat i on

l evel of i nf or mat i on net wor k ( I N) wi t h t wo bi di ng ac t i ons of t he cont r ol s (Fig.3),

compos i ng t he t r i pl et s node.

The starting composition of the receptors subunits depends on the level of maturation of the synapse,

which is changed during the development and as a function of the synaptic activity.

The real interaction between excitatory and inhibitory synapses is based on delicate equilibriums and

precis e mec hani sms tha t regul at e th e in format io n fl ow in th e dend rit e tr ee. Th er e is a so rt of

equilibrium between the cooperative effect due to the summation of the synaptic activities of excitatory

23


24/34

neurons and the inhibitory effect due to the reduction of the driving force that produces the information

transmission.

The mi ni max mec hani sm i nc l udes r egul at i on, equi l i br i um and cooper at i on [ 21] ,

whose j oi nt pr oceedi ng l i mi t s bot h i nt er nal and ex te rnal i nf or mat i on

pr ocess i ng, Sec . 6.The post-synaptic regulation of the information, passing by synaptic transmission, is governed by

several different mechanisms involving: the diffusion of the neuro-transmitter in the synaptic space,

the absolute and relative number of receptors Post Synaptic Density, their dynamics and/or

composition. These functions depend on geometry of dendric tree, which has hierarchical structure

analogous to the IN, (Fig.3). Distinctive levels of potentials between different dendrite tree

bran che s prod uc e in for ma ti on fl ow s bet ween th e gra ft in g (j oin t) po in ts of th e de nd ri te tr ee s bra nc hes.

Dendrites of the levelnA are embedded onto mother branches that are at the level 1nA that, in turn,

are grafted to their mother branches at the level 2nA and so on up to the main dendrite ( 0A ) emerging

directly from the starting information. As the synapses are the points of passage of the information

among the neurons, the grafting points can be considered the points of passage of information among

the dendrite branches. A good approximation to this situation could be a model where each daughter

branch is co nsi de red a sor t of a bi di rec tio na l e le ct ri cal sy naps e of th e mo th er br an ch : t he acti vi ty of

each branch of the levelnA can influence the activity of the branch of the level 1nA and vice versa...

The direction of the current depends on the values of the potential level of two sides of grafting point

and , being in the direction of the mother forn

VA1n

VA

1nVA VA

n

> , and in the direction of the daughter

in the opposite case. The grafting points represent nodes for information flowing in the dendrite

tree [49]. This network holds the structural functions of dendrite tree, its hierarchically dependent

nodes, bidirectional flows of information, concurrent formation of all structure with starting flow of

information, selective maxmin influence of nearest nodes and their decrease with the distance from the

node. The descr i bed s t r uc t ur e has a di r ec t anal ogy of t he I N nest ed s t r uc t ur e,

ho l di ng t wo oppos i t e di r ect i onal i nf or mat i on f l ows , whi ch model s not onl y

obs er ver s l ogi c al s t r uc t ur e, but r at her r eal dendr i t e br an s t r uc t ur e dur i ng

each of i t s f or mat i on.

Although it is generally accepted that the spike sequence is the way the information is coded by, we

admit that neuron does not use a single neural code but at least two [49].

Hence, t he aut hors s uppose t hat t here i s a spi ke code ( t hat mi ght ho l d t he I MD

cont r ol s wi t h ac t ual i mpul se s hi gh and l engt h) , anot her i s t he t r i pl et s code,

composed of f our subuni t s , whi ch i s t r ansf err ed bet ween I N nodes [ 21] .

24


25/34

For mal l y deal i ng wi t h an i mpul se ( Sec . 4) and cons i der i ng i t s s i mul t aneous

ac t i ons , we ac t ual l y appl y i t i n I MD wi t h t he i mpul se ampl i t ude di s t r i but ed on

a di st ance ( t i me) , whi ch can be i mpl ement ed onl y f or real di st ance i mpul se-

s pi k e pot ent i al ( i nvol vi ng our s i mpl i f i c at i on of t he c ont r ol i mpul s e) .

The cont r ol i mpul se r i ses at t he end of t he ext r emal segment (Fig.1) , af t er

i nf or mat i on, car r i ed up by t he pr opagat i ng dynami cs, compensat es t he segment s

i nner i nf or mat i on ( det er mi ned by t he segment macr oequat i ons, dynami c const r ai nt

and i nvar i ant s , Sec s. 3, 5) . Fi r s t , t hi s es t a bl i s hes t he di r ec t c onnec t i on

bet ween t he i nf or mat i on anal ogi es of bot h t he spi ke and t he t hr eshol d. Second,

i t br i ngs t he spi ke i nf or mat i on measur e f or each i t s gener at i on, eval uat ed i n

bi t s ( Sec . 6) . The i nt er spi ke i nt er val s car r y t he encoded i nf or mat i on, t he same

way t hat t he di scr eet i nt er val s bet ween t he appl i ed i mpul se cont r o l s do i t .

Conduct i v i t y of an axon depends mai nl y on i nt er - neur onal el ect r i cal

conduct ance, whi ch, i n I MD model , i s det er mi ned by t he di f f us i on conduct i v i t y

o f t he cooper at i ve connect i ons , comput ed v i a a der i vat i on o f t he cor r el at i on

f unc t i ons . A s i gnal , pass i ng th rough t hi s conduc t i v i t y, mi ght modi f y a t opol ogy

of a s i ngl e, as wel l as a mul t i pl e connect i on, changi ng i t s macr odynami c

f unc t i ons ( and a poss i bl y l eadi ng t o di s t i nc t net wor ks ) under di f f er ent i nput s .

Neu ral os cil la to ry ne two rk s, me asu red by th e br ai n osc il la ti on s fre qu en cy , po wer and ph ase ,

dynamically reduce the high-dimensional information into a low-dimensional code, which encodes the

cognitive processes and dynamic routing of information [50].

The I MD model i s char ac t er i zed by t he sequent i al gr owt h of t he i nf or mat i on

ef f ect i veness o f t he i mpul se and s t ep cont r o l s a l ong t he I N spat i al t empora l

hi er ar chy. Thi s i s connect ed wi t h changi ng t he qual i t y of t he I N node s

i nf ormat i on dependi ng on t he node s l ocat i on wi t hi n t he I N geomet r y.

Thes e changes i nc r ease t he i nt ens i t y of t he cooper at i ve coupl i ng and i t s

compet i t i ve abi l i t i es , whi ch make t he segment s synchr oni zat i on mor e st abl e and

r obus t agai ns t noi se, addi ng an er r or cor r ec t i on capabi l i t y f or decodi ng [ 21] .

Even though these results were published [19, others], the reviewers [49] conclude; None of the

approaches furnishes a precise indication of the meaning of the single spike or of the spike sequences

or of the spike occurrence, in terms ofinformation in the symbolic language of the neurons.

Now is wid el y accept ed [5 0, 51 ] th at br ain sy st em sh ou ld int eg rat e th e ob se rv ed in for ma tio n, us in g

working memory- long-term potentiating (LTD) for a predictive learning. ..

There are different LTD experimental and simulation studies [51-56] for integration of observation and

verification of dendrite collected information. Its specifically shown [51,52] that a single neuroncould be decomposed into a multi-layer neural network, which is able to perform all sorts of nonlinear

25


26/34

computations. The bimodal dendritic integration code [54] allows a single cell to perform two different

state-dependent computations: strength encoding and detection of sharp waves.

Key components of integral information processing are the neuron is synaptic connections, which

involve the LTD slow-motion information frequency.

The i nf or mat i on obser ver concur r ent l y ver i f i es t he ent r opy i nt egr al s

Bayes i an i nf or mat i on, wher eas i t s par t s are conver t ed i n t he cer t ai nt y

par t s unt i l al l por t i ons of t he EF wi l l be c onver t ed i n t he t ot al I PF

( Sec . 2) . I nf or mat i on, memor i zed i n obser ver s exi s t i ng I N l evel , has

l ess i nf or mat i on f r equency, compar ed t o t he cur r ent col l ec t i on of t he

r equest ed qmess h i gh- l evel i nf ormat i on ( Sec. 6) . When i nf ormat i on i s

t empor ar y assembl ed i n t he l ocal I N ( wi t h STM) , i t s r ever se act i on wor ks

as an i nf or mat i on f eedback f r om t he ex i s t i ng t o a r unni ng l evel of t he

I N. I f t he memor y r et r i eval coi nc i des wi t h r equest ed i nf or mat i on, such I Nr eac t i ve ac t i on coul d enf or ce ext r ac t i on of i nf or mat i on and i t s

synchr oni zat i on ( wor ki ng as a modul at i on i n t he LTD) wi t h t hat needed by

t he obser ver s I N. That hel ps i nt egr at i on of bot h EF and I PF by bi ndi ng

t hei r por t i ons accor di ng t o t he t i me cour se, whi ch operat es as a LTD.

The experiments and simulation [56] show that maximizing minimum of the EF integral Bayesian

pro ba bi li ty in fo rma ti on me as ure (c or res po nding th e au th or s mul ti pl e pro ba bi li ti es) all ows to re ach th e

effective LTD learning [55].

The review results [51,53] confirm that the dendrite branches pyramidal neurons function, working assingle integrative compartments, are able to combine and multiplicate incoming signals according to a

threshold nonlinearity, in a similar way to a typical point neuron with modulation of neuronal output .

According to studies [57,58], an observer automatically implements logarithmic relationship between

stimulus and perceptions, which Webers law establishes. Additionally, Fechner's law states that

subjective sensation is proportional to the logarithm of the stimulus intensity.

Both results imply that observers neuronal dynamics provide perceptibly of both entropy measure and

acceptance of information (as a subjective sensation).

Review [59] provides the evidence of converging the motivational effect on cognitive and sensorypro ce ss es , con ne ct in g att en ti on and mo ti va ti on .

The I MD r el at ed sensor y- cogni t i on pr oc es ses bui l d and manage a t empor al - space

pat hway t o i nf o rmat i on s t o red i n the I N [ 19, 20] .

The cited and many other neurodynamics studies (including cited in [19]) support and confirm

the paper formal results.

26


27/34

References

1. Bohr N. Atomi c ph ys ic s and hu ma n kn ow le dg e, Wiley, New York, 1958.

2. Dirac P. A. M. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics , Oxford University Press (Clarendon),

London/New York,1947.

3. Von Neumann J. Ma th em ati ca l fo un da ti on s of qu antu m th eo ry , Princeton University Press,

Princeton,1955.

4. Wigner E. Review of the quantum mechanical measurement problem. InQuantum Optics, Ex pe rimen ta l

Gravity, and Measurement Theory . NATO AS1 Series: Physics, Series B, 94 , 58, Eds. P. Meystre & M. 0.

Scully, 1983.

5. Wigner E. The unreasonable effectivenss of mathematics in the natural sciences, Communications in

Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13 (1), 1960.

8. Bohm D.J. A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of hidden variables. Phys. Rev. 85 ,

166179, 1952.

9.Bohm D. J. A new theory of the relationship of mind to matter. Journal Am. Soc. Psychic. Res. 80 , 113

135, 1986.

10. Bohm D.J. and Hiley B.J. The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory ,

Routledge, London, 1993.

11. Eccles J.C. Do mental events cause neural events analogously to the probability fields of quantum

mechanics? Proceedings of the Royal Society, B277: 411428, 1986.

12. Wheeler J. A. On recognizing law without law. Am. J. Ph ys. , 51(5), 398404,1983.

13. Wheeler J. A., Zurek W. Ed. Information, physics, quantum: The search for links, Complexity,

En tr op y, an d th e Ph ys ic s of In fo rmati on , Redwood, California, Wesley,1990.

14. Wheeler J. A. The Computer and the Universe, In te rn ationa l Jo urn al of Th eo ret ic al Ph ysi cs, 21 (6/7),

557-572, 1982.

15. Wheeler J. A. and Ford K. It from bit. In Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam: A life in Physics,

Ne w Yo rk , No rt on , 199 8.

16 . Wheeler J. A. Quantum Mechanics, A Half Century Late r Include the Observer in the Wave Function?

Ep is teme 5:1-18, 1977.

17. Von Baeyer H.Ch. Quantum Weirdness? It's All In Your Mind. A new version of quantum theory

sweeps away the bizarre paradoxes of the microscopic world. The cost? Quantum information exists only

in your imagination, Scientific American, 47-51, June 2013.18 .Fuchs Ch.A. Quantum Bayesianism at the Perimeter, arxiv.org, 1003.5182, 2010.

19. Lerner V.S. In fo rm ation Sy st ems An aly si s an d Mo de ling: An In fo rmati on al Ma cr ody na mi cs Ap pro ach ,

Kluwer Publ., Boston, 1999.

20. Lerner V.S. In fo rm ation Pa th Fu nct io na l an d In fo rm at io na l Ma cr ody nam ic s , Nova Science, New York,

2010.

27
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1003.5182&ei=Iq6bUa2mCKKgiAKLyoGAAQ&usg=AFQjCNHU866hq3Q3JRYVQMiU3t88MCRA7w&sig2=IMZ6cT9k47eYwoZZbWkzUghttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1003.5182&ei=Iq6bUa2mCKKgiAKLyoGAAQ&usg=AFQjCNHU866hq3Q3JRYVQMiU3t88MCRA7w&sig2=IMZ6cT9k47eYwoZZbWkzUg


28/34

21. Lerner V.S. An observers information dynamics: Acquisition of information and the origin of the

cognitive dynamics, Jo ur nal In fo rm at io n Sc ie nce s, 184 : 111-139, 2012.

22. Lerner V.S. Hidden stochastic, quantum and dynamic information of Markov diffusion process and its

evaluation by an entropy integral measure under the impulse control's actions, arXiv, 1207.3091, 2012.

23. Lerner V.S. Hidden information and regularities of information dynamics I,2,3, arXiv,1207.5265,

1207.6563, 1208.3241, 2012.

24 . Lerner V.S. The information and its observer: external and internal information

pr oce ss es , in for ma ti on coo pe rat io n, an d th e or ig in of th e ob se rv er in te ll ec t, arXiv, 1212.1710,2012 .

25. Lerner V.S. Hidden Information and Regularities of an In formation Observer: A review of the main

results, arXiv,1303.0777,2013 .

26. Bennett C.H. Logical Reversibility of Computation, IB M J. Re s. De ve lo p, 525-532. 1973.

27. Kolmogorov A.N. Logical basis for information theory and probability theory, IE EE Tr ans . In fo rm .

Theory, 14 (5): 662664, 1968.

28. Lind D. A., Marcus B. An in tr od uc ti on to sy mb ol ic dyn am ic s an d co din g, Cambridge University Press,

1995.

29. Dynkin E.B. Controlled Markov Processes , Springer, Berlin-He

vladimir s. lerner - arising information regularities in an observer (arxiv, july 2013, 2nd)

Documents