Dear Luigi,
Congratulations for your essay,
With very sound ideas, clearly stated. I feel very much at home with your exposition.
I completely adhere to your position that we interpret changes of state (information) as signs, that empirical facts do not speak by themselves, nor really exist by themselves, but as a result of an interpretation.
You would probably like very much reading Uexküll, who was the first to clearly draw attention on the varied worlds that every animal builds out of a common environment. You would probably run against Gibson's theory of perception, which proclaims that signs are just out there around, to be picked by the sensory system: an extremely Platonist view, at the most elementary sensory level.
I eschew Platonist statements, like Tegmark's claiming the world is mathematical, not for philosophical, nor theoretical motivations, but for the mere reason that it is an absolute statement, an ontological position. To put it metaphorically, it is as if God had been whispering to the ear of the speaker. Absolute statement means there is no way to discuss it: it does not comply with Popper's criterion for scientificity. I would welcome a position like ``Look, suppose the world is mathematical, and see all the pleasant developments I can draw from that'', because that is a scientific stance.
The nuance... it is not a nuance. It is completely different. The first form impresses the layman, but is a lie. It is very harmful, because it incites to keep believing that science is not relative to a cognitive subject. That it is not made of linguistic statements that a man, shipwreck on this small drop of living planet in the cosmos, is trying to formulate about this wonder that he is there, alive, in the middle of the world.
I follow you: ``it is not possible to remove the human nature'' (not desirable either, our need, what we yearn for is things that make sense to us), and I now know that I follow Niels Bohr on this point, with a reference I did not know.
Warm Regards,
