<HTML><BODY><p style="margin-top: 0px;" dir="ltr">Dear FISers, <br> The current debate about information has just a possible development, I think.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Everybody defines information in the way he prefers: subjective, biotic, bit, and so on. <br> Therefore, every study that talks about "information" is meaningless.<br> In particular, subjective accounts of information are useless, because, in their framework, the information is not measurable, but just depends on the observer: if me, John and Mary see the same can, I think that the Coke is good, John thinks that he is thirsty and Mary that the aluminium is a malleable material. <br> 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. </p>
<p dir="ltr">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. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Therefore, by now, the term "information" is definitely out of my scientific vocabulary. <br> </p>
<div id="mail-app-auto-default-signature">
<p dir="ltr">--<br> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android</p>
</div></BODY></HTML>