A Ha and TD, the problem might lie with my interpretation of Gitt's thesis. Putting it in one's own words is not always the answer. Then one's own interpretation comes through and not always that of the author. So let me again work through what he says and perhaps I can clarify some of the points. I know he distinguishes between information and Universal Information (UI). He does questions and answers in his book "Without Excuse." Let me give the questions. If anyone is interested in an answer, let me know and I will give his specific wording for it.
Your criteria seem to be mostly subjective?
Is it information when I am both sender and receiver at the same time?
Would a photograph be Universal Information according to your definition?
Is Universal Information created when lottery numbers are drawn?
Is there a conservation law for UI similar to the law of Conservation of Energy?
Does UI have anything to do with entropy as stated in the Law of Thermodynamics?
Natural languages are changing all the time. Doesn't this contradict your thesis that coding conventions should be conserved?
Are synergetics, founded by German physicist Hermann Haken, an indication that order can emerge from disorder and thus evolution would be possible?
What is your view of the Miller experiments that are cited as proof of chemical evolution?
The SOS signal is periodic and is viewed as UI. Doesn't that contradict the conditions of UI?
Can new UI be created through mutations?
When the structure of a crystal is studied under a microscope, who is the sender in this instance?
Has your definition of information been selected arbitrarily? Could there not be other possibilities?
Biological systems are more complex than technological systems. Should there not be a specific definition of information from biological systems?
Biological systems often has the capacity to adapt to the environment. Shouldn't this be seen as either an increase or creation of UI by material means?
Can scientific laws change with time?
Does the sender also belong to your definition of UI? If that were true then the conclusion is, of course, that the sender exists.
Doesn't the application - scientific laws have no exceptions - preclude a priori process that may exist?
How many scientific laws are there?
Have you presented your concept of the Scientific Laws of Universal Information to your peers? How long have you taken to compile the concept in its present form?