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

Mon Jun 15 12:42:24 CEST 2015

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:loet at leydesdorff.net> loet at 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-bounces at 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:steven at iase.us>  

To: Marcus Abundis <mailto:55mrcs at gmail.com>  

Cc: Foundations of Information Science Information Science <mailto:fis at 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 <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

  <http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png> 

_______________________________________________
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/20150615/345f4582/attachment.html>