Dear Arturo, I am less pessimistic than you about treating and measuring information.
First off, that information is always relative is the obverse of the third law of thermodynamics. It cannot be otherwise. <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/FISPAP.pdf> Secondly, you are correct that there are important metaphysical aspects of information. To my knowledge, it is the only discipline predicated on *absence* -- the absence of constraint (popularly characterized as "uncertainty"). We know from the third law that such entropic-like measures are always relative to some assumed reference. Actual information is calculated as a decrease in apophasis and shares that same relativity. While you might feel that the metaphysical associations disqualify information as an instrument of science, I would suggest that it rather opens a new window onto our vision of reality. <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/publications/philosophy/3rdwindow/> Should you think information measures useless because of such metaphysical associations, I would submit that measures of apophasis can be quite useful in remediation of environmental problems (and problems in a host of other realms as well). (See the example beginning on p51 of <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/Methods2.pdf>.) Let me end by saying that I understand fully your exasperation with information theory (IT). For almost two decades I abjured IT, because I considered it nonsensical that a TV screen with "snow" (no signal) should have more information that a picture of a movie star. (My vexation was based on similar reasons as yours.) Then it finally dawned on me that some of the founders of IT had made serious pedagogical errors with their definitions. I eventually sorted out my own perspective (See Chapter 5 of <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/publications/ecosystems/gand/>), and went on to build my entire career on concepts related to IT. I would encourage you give it all another look. IT can be quite rewarding! Peace, Bob > > Dear FISers, > The current debate about information has just a possible development, I > think. > Everybody defines information in the way he prefers: subjective, biotic, > bit, and so on. > Therefore, every study that talks about "information" is meaningless. > In particular, subjective accounts of information are useless, because, in > their framework, the information is not measurable, but just depends on > the observer: if me, John and Mary see the same can, I think that the Coke > is good, John thinks that he is thirsty and Mary that the aluminium is a > malleable material. > On the other side, I suggested in a previous post how the information > entropy (such as Shannon's, or Bekenstein's, or Hawking's) may change > according to the relativistic speed of the hypothetical observer. > Therefore, I suggest to fully remove the term "information" from every > scientific account. The term "information" refers, in Popper's terms, to > a not falsifiable theory, to pseudoscience: it is a metaphysical claim, > like the concepts of Essence, Being, God and so on. > Therefore, by now, the term "information" is definitely out of my > scientific vocabulary. >  > -- > Inviato da Libero Mail per > Android_______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
