>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 <http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig>
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
