Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . . Loss of Information

2015-06-15 Thread Joseph Brenner
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 
  To: Marcus Abundis 
  Cc: Foundations of Information Science Information Science 
  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 
   
 

 

___
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


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

2015-06-15 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Traditionally the fis list is a place where polite exchange and 
scholarly style of communication are maintained. We have been in place 
for almost 20 years, and very rarely we have had any personally 
disappointing message. Let us keep that way, please. At the time being I 
see no big matter to intervene, particularly after Loet's calming 
message, so let us get get ahead with the exchanges, emphasizing not 
incurring in derogatory or ironic comments. Let us keep fis style up!


For the new people in the list, they are reminded that _individual 
exchanges are restricted to two messages per week_, that  _attached 
files are unwelcome_, and that there are _fis archives where massive 
records of exchanged messaged are kept_:


(shorter term) http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/
(longer term) https://www.mail-archive.com/fis@listas.unizar.es/

Unfortunately, several thousand messages were lost in a computer crash 
at the University of Zaragoza's servers and in previous migrations of 
the list. We are trying to recover all of them and properly archive in 
the new FIS web pages at http://fis.sciforum.net/ (courtesy of 
Sciforum-MDPI).


all the best ---Pedro
--

-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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


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

2015-06-15 Thread Steven Ericsson-Zenith
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://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig 
 
 ___
 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


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

2015-06-14 Thread Jeremy Sherman
Amen.

On Sun, 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.

 [image: --]
 Marcus Abundis
 [image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis
 http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig


 ___
 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] It from Bit redux . . .

2015-06-14 Thread Marcus Abundis
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.

[image: --]
Marcus Abundis
[image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis
http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis