Trust me. You are in good company. Steven
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Abundis <[email protected]> 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 > about.me/marcus.abundis > > <http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig> > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > [email protected] > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected] http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
