Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:11:36 AM, Michel wrote: > *** Karl:
[Karl's last paragraph:] > As to the assertion of a colleague that the term "information" can not > be subject to a formal definition: if one wants to use a term in a > rational, logical discourse, then the term has to be defined. If we > are to remain in the romantic stage, where "information" is like > "love", "patriotism", "morality" or so, then of course there is no > need to connect the term to the basis of rational discourses. > Otherwise, the need to explicate the roots of a term by showing its > fundaments in a+b=c is of elementary importance. > *** My reply to Karl: > Ok to avoid the mix of the stuff and its reception. > In the addition table: did you meant that having "5" has a result of > an addition of two positive integers, the missing information is: "was > it got from 1+4, 2+3, 3+2, or 4+1" ? If yes, that's indeed a very > simple situation helping to define what is information. If I am wrong, > please just tell me. That is also my impression of Karl's contribution: an example of information, not a definition of it. > The suggestion you did in the last paragraph is of much interest, too. > I hope that FISers will post comments about it. I hope I'm not the colleague mentioned there, because that's most certainly not my position. I believe I offer one of the clearest definitions of information (and, of course, the only correct one!) And I certainly disagree with the implication that all proper definitions are mathematical in form. [Gavin:] > I think the danger is actually there is no such thing as information. > *** My comment about the inexistence of such information: > That is a main point to discuss, and again I hope that FISers will > post their opinions about it. So do I! > *** My reply to Robert: > It does not shock me that chemical reactions are considered as part of > physics, even if chemical reactions are often used to separate the two > fields for pratical purposes. > Since biology is often viewed as part of chemistry, it can be viewed > as physics too (still does not shock me!), but I'm quite sure that > such a conclusion is polemical: this discussion may be postponed to > the next FIS session, focussing on biology, despite that it is of > interest here. I think there's a big difference between saying, as I do, that in principle all chemical and biological phenomena can be reduced to physics, and saying, as I most certainly do not, that the disciplines of chemistry and biology are or should be part of the discipline of physics. That would be just an academic land grab and I'd want no part of it. -- Robin Faichney <http://www.robinfaichney.org/> _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
