Hi arfa.

Sorry for my tardiness in getting back to you.

Going backwards:

Information is just something we define, again this is completely arbitrary. If I want the information to be the total number of camels I own, then I can safely ignore that each camel is 3-dimensional, occupies space etc. That is, it's perfectly safe to count up a total number of elements in some set, be those elements camels, past presidents of the US, whatever they are. They can also be numbers and therefore not physical, but abstract.

If you really think Quantum Quack's "model" hasn't been demolished conclusively (it describes nothing useful), then you have a long way to go holding up your "math is flawed" theory.

It doesn't lose the information I want to recover from a set of objects named camels, which is: how many camels are there? I don't want to know how much each camel weighs, how many humps it has, what sex it is, or any other information than a single number: the size of my set of camels. You present a non-argument.

See how seductive and insidious the human mind's 'preference' for abstraction/philosophy is? It just led you to lose touch with the 'camels in reality' units/dynamics/properties etc, and dropped you in a fantasy 'dimensionless points infinities' abstracted-number-sets 'world' of your own making. And do so without demure, or even a murmur or a fleeting questioning of that process inbuilt into the human psyche and our currently all too human maths based on abstraction and philosophy from the outset and throughout (as I have pointed out already).

And no; information is related to the actual existence in energy-space dynamics of features having discernible properties, parameters and interaction profiles and extents in 3-D physical universal phenomena.

Once you abstract the camels into NOTIONAL DIMENSIONLESS CENTERS via sterile 'labels/numbers',

**then you are no longer able to MODEL REALITY of the camels' individual and collective extents, interactions and superposition properties and effects in the camel dynamics** which occur in reality between real camels and not 'dimensionless points' abstractions represented by numbers/symbols which have lost all reality context of 'camels' from which you abstracted the dimensionless abstractions.

The problems are all of a piece from the 'dimensionless point' notional starting axioms, and all the obvious non-sequitur results which follow (undefined, undetermined, infinity upon infinity etc), as I already mentioned more than once before now.

Get it? The very abstraction into numbers makes the 'set' applicable to ANY number of dimensionless points, irrespective of the original 'units' from which the numbers were abstracted.

**Sure, its useful to have 'techniques' which apply to some GENERAL case, irrespective of the origins/units involved in reality physically, BUT the technique is obviously limited and flawed when it comes to all those things I have been pointing to that need to be catered for in the starting axioms if we are going to COMPLETE both the maths and physics ToE models.**
That's where I am coming from and going to; looking/reviewing to identify and remove all purely philosophical notions from the get-go of the maths construct/practice/outputs/modelings. While it's a lot of 'fun' exploring fantasy abstract/philosophy based 'worlds/models', it is not what the MAIN GAME of both maths and physics is about: The REALITY context and how best to model/explain it without unnecessary confusing/contradictory and just plain 'un-real' overlays. The maths-as-a-gaming tool of fantasy is OK in its place, but that place does not extend to the reality.

Let's have two maths systems, one for all the fantasy/abstraction 'gamers', and one for th reality freaks wanting to complete the REAL maths and physics consistent and without undetermined etc 'axiomatic nonsense outputs' and so-called 'unreal physics explanations' which are now holding us back from completing the reality math/physics ToE.

Sorry I can't stay and chat. See ya again whenever, arfa, everyone!