Hi Krassimir,

> Unfortunately, Masters stay silent and not teach us to use their
Did you have someone or something specific in mind?

Further to your post, I am unsure of how you mean the word “fen“ – if you
mean an intellectual swamp or bog, then of course this is agreed.

But I disagree that the discussion has diverted from the original topic of
four great domains. If “information“ is to be a “Science“ should we not be
clear in “consistently describing and explaining“ (what Science, in fact,
does) what we mean by information? This powerful regularity is what makes
science, Science, no? But then we have some who seem to suggest that such
consistency is not desired (Brenner post Mon Jun 15 12:10:35 CEST 2015?) .
. . which would, to my mind, wholly eliminate the topic from consideration
as a science (okay, what to call it then?). As you suggest “It [a
definition] is not needed if no theory is built on it.“ Which then points
to Xueshan Yan’s note (Tue Jun 16 18:35:18 CEST 2015)
> At present time, if FIS colleagues always are involved in this endless
controversy, our endeavor may end fruitlessly.<
to suggest we may simply be defeated by the project in the end. For my
part, I am not ready to surrender.

For me, the whole “It from Bit“ exchange circles around “meaningful vs.
meaningless“ issues named long ago in Shannon and Weaver 1949. Their own
comments on their usage of “information“ detached from meaning as being
“bizarre and unsatisfying“ . . . and then finding a need to name Level A,
Level B, and Level C (in themselves inadequate frameworks) to begin
wrestling with the matter – but to no depth, and in the end simply
“hopefully“ invoking some future “Theory of Meaning“ which now falls to us?

The fact that this “meaningful vs. meaningless“ issues is now being framed
in terms of physics is, to my mind, incidental. And the God *you* allude to
as the a “needed observer“(?) to make a purely physics based perspective
somehow meaningful, points to this as well, I think.

In short, I do not think we are talking about different definitions of
“information“ I think we are talking about wether “information“ is even

[image: --]
Marcus Abundis
[image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to