The following text was not created in collaboration with or with the assistance of artificial intelligence. We welcomed the initiative of colleagues dealing with informa-tics and information sciences to write an article or chapter devoted to the topic of information from the point of view of cognition and decision-making of people and human systems, especially because we have been practically dealing with the issue of cognition and decision-making for a long time in the context of education and training of professionals, managers and leaders. We started our work according to the standard procedure, but gradually getting deeper and deeper into the studied and researched issues forced us first to try to find a relevant answer to the question: „What is information?“ as we are supposed to imagine and thus also answer the question „What is the nature of information?“ from the point of view of cognition, reasoning and decision-making of people and human systems. The reasons for our embarrassment and uncertainty were and still are ambiguities, which we will try to explain in the next text, where we present general statements about the procedure and results of our current considerations. In practice, we verified the meaning of the words of the author of the uchronic novel „The Year 2440, an Unseen Dream“ from 1771, L. S. Mercier, who wrote: „…first one thought and then wrote, today one first writes, decides and acts, and only then thinks“ [3]. The struggle with different models of definitions of information, communication processes, according to different scientific disciplines, also forces us to agree with the recommendation of the French sociologist G. Tarde: „… before we start carving words into the rock, let’s take the time to think everything through properly.“. [3] (p. 161) We came across different dimensions and limits, or rather restrictions or limits of the analogous „Procrustean bed“ effect of the mind, ways of thinking and methods of cognition, formed and determined/ prede-termined by ontology, epistemology or philosophy, current paradigms and models and methodologies based on them for learning and creating knowledge by various sciences or scientific fields in the entire spectrum known to us, with an overlap into the domain of information, cognitive, decision-making and conative, whether in the individual (personal), socio-cultural, economic or ecological dimension. We verified that even rigorously researched physical categories such as light [4], time [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], motion and others, for example, physical quantities or con- stants, thought and concocted ad limitum within a given science or paradigm, ultimately beyond its boundaries, defined by the subject matter and methodology, they „lose“ or at least change their information or knowledge potential and its axiological aspects, such as power, meaning and sense, value, price, stability, or clarity and accuracy. We have a similar experience, for example, with the categories process/state [10], [11], [12], necessity, possibility or causality, or concepts such as being, existence [7], reality [13], truth [14] or information and knowledge [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [36], [56]. There is probably a difference between writing about things, describing what and how we see, and other other ways, for example, collecting records of knowledge from various places about what we somehow found out about in the present or from the documentable past, and then somehow to structure. Structuring and shaping for communi-cation is the business of our speech, which enables and shares what we „see,“ perceive, and imagine, including how we think about it, and even how we think about our thinking, and so on. , ad infinitum. Nevertheless, there is a „finitum“ somewhere, whether its reference point or criterion is the ability to distinguish, relativity, or believability, truth or pro-bability, or usefulness, realistic applicability and possibility, or empir-ical necessity. Communicating and sharing is a matter of potential dialogue, not a conversation in the form of a „media“ popularization of a topic or a conference workshop. However, we will not discover, create or invent anything really new. Perhaps we will only offer a „new“ construction (innovation, reconstruction, reshaping), a different way of thinking and thinking about phenomena (what appears) or better phenomena; maybe we will provoke a dialogue or even inspire someone. What we can give a more or less meaningful report (not a statement) is to record how we think and think about a topic or problem (that’s possible). However, in the end, we always come more or less distinctly and clearly (simpler or more complicated) to the same thing, and above all to the „limit“ of our ability (possibility) to communicate and share our experience, knowledge and understanding (concrete human beings). It is about biotic and social non/transmissibility. What is transferable and adaptable by imitation and training are methods, techniques, ways and procedures, i.e. „craft“, its direct performance, i.e. what we use the term work for. Work, whatever it is, is not only an expenditure of energy, but above all an experience, whether applied or acquired. Work (action/act) means expenditure of energy – movement, including mental work, and the essence of its nature is that it must have meaning, not just meaning, purpose or goal. The essence of the nature of work is therefore active „movement“ in various modalities and complexities, i.e. the mani-festation of „force“ or specific sets/complexities of various „forces“ in the act of an event (situation), accompanied by will and power, in the best cases of will to will and will to power, in the sense of „I can“. Linked to these is the theme of freedom with its two attendants, which are risk and responsibility. Movement as its happening and at the same time a fact, as its manifestation, and we can call it differently, for example, the release of specific energy in a specific way, an act, a work or a process . However, if we mean a process, then it should not be thought of as a „homogeneous“ flow, but according to Whitehead [10] understand it doubly as an event (fact/act) and an unnecessary self-organization, and according to Bondy [13], as the happening of a situation without determination, i.e. the „ultimate basic situation“ that „is“ and „happens“.