Reddit reviews The Philosophy of Information

>One might ask, "but are you not assuming the existence of lan- guage. Therefore the whole theory rests on this assumption making it axiomatic?". To which I would answer that since a language is required to formulate that question, the question is self-defeating.
In fact any written, spoken or sign-based counter argument to the existence of language would have to use language and would be self- defeating. Hence, the existence of language is immune against all language-based counter-arguments.

This is too quick. I can understand and communicate an objection through language, but that doesn't mean the objection is self-defeating, even though the objection is self-referential in some sense. The objection in fact seems well founded to me, you are indeed relying on axiom-like conceptions rooted in language throughout your exposition about what constitutes primitive notions, primitive theories, primitive predicates, laws of unrestricted semantics, and so on.

Edit: This project, even if it were successfully argued, overstates it's achievement. It may be that the universe is informational in nature (you might be interested in Floridi's Philosophy of Information), but this is a major claim to be defended, and is exactly the issue at stake if you want to say that all physical phenomena can be represented by a number together with some unspecified set of rules of inference. If the universe is informational, then the fact that the universe can be represented as information is a trivial tautological corollary -- that is exactly what it means to say the universe is informational! It is not particularly interesting to specify exactly how we might represent the information content -- I imagine there are many ways of doing this. It's also unclear what is meant to be achieved by making your digitalization system 'axiomless' -- you certainly aren't going to be able to escape the concerns over naive foundationalism simply because you avoid the word 'axiom' in your ontology.

> but the jury is out among llamas as to whether a transmission/empowerment can really happen over the internet.

Simultaneous discernment-release and awareness-release sounds implausible to me in an inherently asynchronous medium...

Source: The Philosophy of Information

I'm not a math genius. I installed Anaconda which includes the Spyder IDE. I'm using that to go through the scikit-learn tutorials.

Yesterday I ordered the book The Philosophy of Information by Luciano Floridi. I've been doing some brain-storming and I've realized that information is not the same as knowledge. What we really want to do is convert information into knowledge using a process. This seems obvious, but you really need to think about it on a deep, theoretical level to understand your true goal. Information only becomes knowledge when some kind of action is performed on it. You really need to break down these actions into logical steps to go from information to knowledge.