The term information as it is used in Fauceir Theory fundamentally differs from information theory. Fauceir Theory considers the material realization of information. Information theory intentionally abstracts from the material background, but it is always present. But it is an elementary truth that there is no information transfer without materials that function as messengers, and those messengers undergo transformations during the process.
Let's consider the following information transfer. The story told by this picture would be different in information and fauceir theories. Both focus on different problems and abstract from different side effects.
[Error: Wrong macro arguments: "InformationTransfer" for macro 'img' (maybe wrong macro tag syntax?)]
Information Theory would consider the blow as a single bit of information transfered from the person on the right to the one on the left, no matter whether this blow causes serious injuries, bruises on the scalp in the one or a broken fist in the other person.
Fauceir Theory, by contrast, considers all changes that happen to the sender of information, the thug in our little example, and the receiver, our victim.
Changes to the participants of an information transfer process are essential to be considered, if we want to develop a theory of evolution. One of the blind alleys evolutionary theory get stuck into is the abstraction of information theory. As useful as it might be when calculation informations qualities, redundancy and noise, neglecting changes the participants hampered the development of a concept of evolution of information.
What could be more plausible: evolution is change—neglecting changes that happen during an information transfer process neglects evolution. That's the tragedy. All scientists that started to learn information theory incorporated this abstraction, subconsciously made it an undebatable truth, and consequently got caught in these restrictions. It needs someone unspoiled by academic discourse and even pressure to leave this blind alley.
