Everybody defines information in the way he prefers: subjective, biotic, bit, and so on. Therefore, every study that talks about "information" is meaningless.
Dear Arturo, The “Therefore” does not follow. It is a non-igitur. For example, Shannon’s information theory is not necessarily meaningless, although the measure (e.g., bits) is devoid of meaning. It provides, among other things, a statistics. On the other side, I suggested in a previous post how the information entropy (such as Shannon's, or Bekenstein's, or Hawking's) may change according to the relativistic speed of the hypothetical observer. Rather obscure, in my opinion. Therefore, I suggest to fully remove the term "information" from every scientific account. The term "information" refers, in Popper's terms, to a not falsifiable theory, to pseudoscience: it is a metaphysical claim, like the concepts of Essence, Being, God and so on. All mathematical theories are non-falsifiable. Shannon-type information is just a measure. Information can be provided with subjective meaning. Many of our colleagues confuse this subjective meaning of information with information itself. Information can also be provided with (inter-subjective) meaning in a discourse such as biology or physics. The discourse then functions as an “observer”. However, the meaningful information (the signal) is to be distinguished from the information as uncertainty (noise; variation) before this selection. Best, Loet Therefore, by now, the term "information" is definitely out of my scientific vocabulary. -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
