Dear Joe and colleagues, 

 

It “flamed” a bit. Thank you for the intervention. The confusion is not only 
ours, but also in the literature. Indeed, we should not blame each other for it.

 

I know that you wish to ground information in “reality”: “logic in reality” or 
LIR. But I understood during the conference for the first time, that “reality” 
then includes res cogitans. For example, “uncertainty” would be “in reality” if 
I correctly understand you.

 

Would this imply that physics as a science would be part of the reality as 
would its object (“nature”)? I would classify the first as res cogitans (in 
this case, cogitatum) and the second as res extensa. But we have no access to 
the latter (“nature”) but as a referent to the former (discourse). Is this part 
of the logic in reality? Is that in the neighbourhood of what you mean with LIR?

 

Best,

Loet

 

  _____  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Emeritus University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ;  
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Honorary Professor,  <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of 
Sussex; 

Guest Professor  <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor,  <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing;

Visiting Professor,  <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; 

 <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en> 
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:11 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . . Loss of Information

 

Dear Colleagues and Reasoned Opponents,

 

A scientific position may be the object of rational disagreement and 
discussion, but the 'ganging up' of some individuals on a highly respected 
colleague is disgraceful and unacceptable. By this note I am suggesting to 
Pedro that Ericsson-Zenith, Sherman and Abundis be removed from the group.

 

The formulation of Loet's comment was somewhat rapid, since the key questions 
are 'what physics, what mathematics (and what logic)". As Loet knows well, he 
and I do not agree on all issues surrounding information. Here I believe he 
might have been over-reacting to speakers at the conference who took 
superannuated postions on the physical grounding of information.

 

Among these positions is the idea that there must be exact, immutable 
defintions and terminology, as if we were not all involved in a complex 
learning process. Who is doing the alleged 'needless blurring of terms'? If 
after all this Abundis is still wondering how he can contribute, as he has 
already said, perhaps he should draw the obvious conclusion.

 

The inability to engage in civilized debate corresponds to an enormous LOSS of 
information in our Information Society. I would not blame the new media, since 
they are only tools, but they enable the very facile expression of some ideas 
better left for other venues.

 

Sadly,

 

Joseph

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith <mailto:ste...@iase.us>  

To: Marcus Abundis <mailto:55m...@gmail.com>  

Cc: Foundations of Information Science Information Science 
<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>  

Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:28 AM

Subject: Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . .

 

Trust me. You are in good company.

 

Steven

 

 

 

 

On Jun 14, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com> 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://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png> 

  

        

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to