[Fis] Why is FIS important?

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List: 

Recently, Pedro asked about the difference between the inanimate and the animate.

Given the orientation of many information scientists toward the infinite credibility of mathematics, I was rather surprised, one might even say stunned, by this concern.

Later, Joseph asked about CS Peirce’s notion of information, presumably in relation to his personal constructive inferences about the the nature quantum theory with respect to the animate and the inanimate. 

The timely convergence of these two inquires prompt a bit of introspection about the meaning or the implications of FIS in a broader context, unconstrained by the Shannon “its and bits”

A colleague pointed me toward the works of Eric J. Topol.  In addition to his books on application of theories of information in non-mathematical disciplines, his lucid writings are demonstrated at the following web address:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714316/pdf/nihms900018.pdf

Do these highly speculative but rationally justified assertions (in the Peircian sense of from its to titbits to bits?) relate to FIS?
If so, what are the rational connections between our rational discussions and E J Topol’s rational expectations and his well-articulated conjectures?

(This post is intentionally provocative.  Can I safely assume that few if anyone (except Pedro!) will have the courage to respond?)

Cheers

Jerry


(E.W. FYI)