On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Marcus Abundis <> wrote:

> 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://]
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to