(While I was composing this you apparently made a post which might allow me the use of the word “information” to tag the idea I have in my head. That is hopeful; however, I will none the less post this response to your original complaint.)
I still do not believe your definition is sufficiently general to cover the usage I have seen and the removal of meaning does little damage to the ordinary concept; however, if you wish to use another word for what I want to talk about I am willing to do that. You have proposed "sense data". My complaint with that is that it does not relieve your complaint with the usage of the word "information" (in addition it is two words which sort of bothers me when it comes to a name of a fundamental concept). On considering the common use of the term, I think the common concept of data includes the idea of a source so, unless you would be willing to drop that attribute, it fails for exactly the same reason you feel the tag "information" fails. How about we just create a new name “tiggle” (at least that is better than Newton’s redefinition of weight which certainly created major problems in comprehension of his ideas). Tiggle will be something without meaning which is known to exist (essentially, information stripped of all meaning). I will just use "information" and just before posting, replace it with "tiggle". Would that be satisfactory?
***Consider my first example of "information": (00110101001100010101010000001111110101010100010101010) How do you know that any meaning is attached to that? If it has no meaning, does that mean that it is not information? If it is not "information", what is it?***
It is tiggle! Tiggle is the fundamental nature of whatever exists. There is nothing which is not tiggle and everything we know is deduced from tiggle. The problem which interests me is the problem of giving meaning to tiggle: i.e., in your words, turning tiggle into information! Does that make more sense to you?
That is, meaning is something we give to things! Certainly meaning is not fundamental to the universe!
It has dawned upon me that perhaps I do have a theory here. My theory is that the universe is comprised entirely of tiggle. I suggest this is a theory as you apparently do not believe in the existence of tiggle. Certainly you have fought tooth and nail every time I have ever tried to bring the center of attention to bare unadorned tiggle. (You see, it never even occurred to me that someone would doubt the existence of tiggle.)
So, my theory is that the universe is comprised of tiggle and it is indeed a hypothesis which is subject to verification by experiment. And, according to Yanniru, my theory has been verified! Please see http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/15617.shtml
If you check that post out, you will discover the following exchange: ***Occupant (whomever): Are you saying nobody can test this paper's theories with experiment? Yanniru: On the contrary, since Stafford derived the known equations of physics, they have already been amply verified by experiment.***
My only problem with Yanniru appears to be the necessity of the symmetries I use in my prediction of the behavior of tiggle. In his opinion those are assumptions: i.e., he holds fast to the idea that tiggle can exist such that the symmetries need not be true. I think that is no more than a failure on his part to examine the issue carefully. It is my position that unadorned tiggle which violates those symmetries cannot possibly exist and I am prepared to defend that issue in detail.
Thus it is that our differences appear to reduce to your position that tiggle cannot possibly really exist. Yet you accept the existence of photons, electrons, positrons and many other entities which you have never seen with your own eyes. How is it that my theory is so impossible?
Try to think of what I have done as the elimination of the necessity of elementary particles as a fundamental concept in the same sense that Newton showed that it was unnecessary for the planets to be seated in a hierarchy of spheres to create the epicycles as designed by astronomers.
Are we or are we not at the seat of our communication difficulty?
Have fun -- Dick