Irrelevant.
***Relevant. dearest sister in Christ!
People dealt with gravity and motion and information long before those theorists came along, just as you acknowledge.
Maybe the terms “retain the meanings assigned” by those AFTERWARDS and maybe they don’t. To IMPOSE such definitions afterwards upon colloquial expressionism is a battle more for the grammarian rather than the classic linguist. I take a linguistic approach rather than a a grammarian approach.
There is no doubt that Newton’s observations generated such a fantastic reconsideration of terms such as gravity and acceleration that history was changed. But Shannon did not change the history associated with sending “information” over a point-to-point communication network, such as ethernet or the telegraph.
I am disappointed with a person, very dear to me, who has decided he is an atheist. He is intelligent and should know better - but I suspect he has been beguiled.
In that regard, the words of the serpent to Eve in the Garden of Eden are clear in my mind. The serpent said "did God really say..." (Gen 3:1 NIV).
So, as you might see, communication is front and center to me - especially this week. And this thread and our sidebar has focused on that very subject.
One of the truisms in Shannon's model is that if the sender encodes the message in say, French, the receiver must also be decoding in French and not say, German, or else the communication fails.
And here we have a problem.
You are certainly free to use whatever word meanings you desire. And if you choose colloquialisms, you are welcome to them.
I reject colloquialisms. This is also because of Scripture. For instance, in today's colloquialisms, bad and good are interchangeable - a reflection of what has actually happened in society:
So we have an irreconcilable language difference that makes continuing this dialogue pointless but thank you for your time, Kevmo, it has helped me deal with the disappointment mentioned earlier.