Trust me. You are in good company.


> On 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.
> Marcus Abundis
>  <>                             
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to