At a time when the forces of obfuscation in America are engaged in a campaign against the theory of evolution on behalf of Intelligent Design, it is perhaps worth asking Zeilinger how the idea that there is no difference between in formation and reality can be compatible with the emergence of information processing systems such as we are from a lifeless reality. And it is perhaps also worth asking the editors of Nature how, at a time when, rightly, papers on Intelligent Design are consistently rejected by peer-reviewed journals, an essay like Zeilinger’s is not.They attack this Nature essay:
The discovery that individual events are irreducibly random is probably one of the most significant findings of the twentieth century. ...Anton Zeilinger is widely respected, and often mentioned as a candidate for a Nobel Prize if one were ever to be awarded for quantum foundational word related to Bell's Theorem.
John Bell showed that the quantum predictions for entanglement are in conflict with local realism. ...
Maybe this suggests that reality and information are two sides of the same coin, that they are in a deep sense indistinguishable.
We don't know that anything is irreducibly random, or that there is any such meaningful concept. We do know that certain quantum phenomena seems random, and cannot be explained as just the random sampling of local hidden variables.
But random just means difficult to predict. We say that coin tosses are random because it is impractical to predict the outcome, but maybe not impossible.
A free neutron has a half-life of 15 minutes, so that might seem irreducibly random. But we now know that a neutron is composed of 3 quarks and many gluons, so the decay may be reducible to the mechanics of those particles, and those may or may not be deterministic.
Meanwhile, Slashdot asks Are We Entering a "Golden Age of Quantum Computing Research"?