the least because many agree with John Wheeler’s dictum that “every physical quantity derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications” (Wheeler 1989). Yet let me emphasize the trivial facts that physics is the product of information-processing by *brains*, based on interactions of systems chosen and prepared by *brains*, measured with artifacts (instruments) created by *brains*, using algorithms (mathematics and models) developed by *brains* and following plans, purposes and quantitative predictions made by *brains*. Perhaps the principal obstacle in an effort to persuade physicists to accept the idea of information being a purely biological concept, is the perceived lack of a widely accepted definition of pragmatic information that is truly objective, i.e., unrelated to any human use or practice.[^2]

Philosophers have struggled for a long time with an *ab initio* definition of information. Physicists often consider information in its general sense to be a statement that resolves a set of alternatives, i.e., which resolves uncertainty. Others consider “data” to be the essence of information. Most visualize information as a quantity expressed in number of bits. Rather than attempting to define information *ab initio*, I find it more appropriate to start with *interaction between bodies* as the primary concept or 