>From Loet's post:
>During the recent conference in Vienna, I was amazed how many of our
colleagues wish to ground information in physics.<
I would say that I was disappointed . . .

For me this exchange on It from Bit is problematic as its seems to simply
revisit the same problem introduced with Shannon's use of the term
“information“ in his Mathematical Theory of Communication – but dressed
with a slightly different face. I had this same problem with “lack of
precise thinking“ (or terminology?) in the It from Bit video from last
month. This endless(?) debate around an old issue of “meaningful
information“ versus “meaningless information“ (aka DATA awaiting MEANINGFUL
interpretation) I find unhelpful in addressing FOUNDATIONAL issues. If we
cannot keep our terms straight I am not sure how progress is made.

Yes, of course physics has a place in the conversation, but the needless
blurring of basic terms does not, I think, advance the project. If a basic
nomenclature and/or taxonomy cannot be agreed and then abided in these
conversations, it leaves me wondering how I might contribute. I am new to
this group, but this seems like it should have been dealt with from the
start in agreeing the FIS group goals.

[image: --]
Marcus Abundis
[image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to