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

[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 <55mrcs at 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 at listas.unizar.es
    http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Fis mailing list
  Fis at listas.unizar.es
  http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20150615/04ea102b/attachment.html>