The Triad of Being: Instantiation, Conservation, and Self-Grounding in Information Ontology
Executive Summary
The ontology of information has historically hovered in the precarious space between mathematical abstraction and physical reality. For much of the 20th century, physics treated information as a ghostly epistemic layer—a measure of what we know about a system, rather than a constituent of the system itself. This report fundamentally rejects that dualism. Drawing upon the convergence of quantum mechanics, black hole thermodynamics, and information theory, we present a rigorous defense of a unified Information Ontology (O1.1-O1.3).
We posit that the universe is not merely described by information; it is information, instantiated in a physical substrate. This report defends three specific, interlocking claims:
-
Instantiation (O1.1): Information cannot exist as a free-floating abstraction. It requires a physical substrate, governed by thermodynamic costs (Landauer’s Principle) and relativistic equivalence (Mass-Energy-Information).
-
Conservation (O1.3): Information is physically conserved. It cannot be destroyed, only scrambled. This is necessitated by the unitarity of quantum mechanics and defended against the apparent paradoxes of black holes via the Holographic Principle and the No-Hiding Theorem.
-
Self-Grounding (O1.2): The substrate that holds this information cannot rest on an infinite regress of prior substrates. To avoid logical collapse, the fundamental layer of reality must be self-grounding—a “strange loop” or axiomatic structure that necessitates its own existence, mirroring ancient concepts of the Logos and modern mathematical platonism.
This document serves as an exhaustive analysis of these claims, synthesizing evidence from high-energy physics, computational logic, and metaphysical philosophy to establish a coherent architecture of reality.
Part I: The Necessity of Instantiation (O1.1)
1.1 The Socratic Problem: The Myth of the Floating Bit
The inquiry begins with a deceptively simple Socratic challenge: “Can information exist without being stored somewhere?”
In common parlance, we often treat information as abstract. We speak of the “number 4” or the “concept of justice” as if they reside in a Platonic ether, untouched by the messiness of matter. However, when pressed to “point to the information,” the dualist fails. A number exists in a human brain (neurons firing), in a computer memory (voltage states), or in ink on paper (molecular pigment). To strip the medium is to destroy the message.
If one posits that a pattern exists without a medium, they are positing a ghost. In physics, there is no evidence for non-instantiated patterns. A wave requires a field; a spin requires a particle; a computation requires a computer. This is not merely an empirical observation but a logical necessity rooted in the definition of a “bit.” A bit is a distinction—a difference between 0 and 1. For a difference to exist, there must be a physical variable capable of holding two distinct states. Without a physical variable (a substrate), there is no state, no distinction, and thus no information.
1.2 Landauer’s Principle: The Thermodynamic Weight of Memory
The definitive exorcism of the “abstract bit” occurred in 1961, when Rolf Landauer of IBM Research demonstrated that information is not a free resource. He was addressing a century-old problem known as Maxwell’s Demon, a thought experiment that threatened the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Demon was imagined to sort fast and slow molecules into separate chambers without doing mechanical work, thereby creating a temperature difference (reducing entropy) for free.
Landauer realized that for the Demon to sort molecules, it must measure their speed and store that information. Eventually, the Demon’s memory would fill up. To continue working, it would have to erase its memory. Landauer proved that the act of erasure is logically irreversible and therefore thermodynamically costly. To forget one bit of information, the system must dissipate a precise minimum amount of energy as heat.
1.2.1 The Landauer Limit
The formula derived by Landauer links the abstract world of logic to the concrete world of heat:
Eerasure≥kBTln2
Where:
-
kB is the Boltzmann constant (1.38×10−23J/K).
-
T is the temperature of the environment.
-
ln2 is the natural logarithm of 2 (approx. 0.693).
This equation tells us that “forgetting” is a physical act. When you delete a file on your computer, you are not just clearing a pointer; you are performing a thermodynamic operation that increases the entropy of the universe.
1.2.2 Experimental Verification
For decades, this was a theoretical lower bound. However, recent experiments have empirically verified Landauer’s prediction. In 2012, researchers verified the heat dissipation of single-bit erasure using a colloidal particle trapped in a laser potential, confirming that the limit is not just a theoretical construct but a physical law.
This leads to a profound ontological conclusion: Information is Physical. If manipulating information (erasure) exchanges energy with the physical world, then the variable holding the information must be a physical degree of freedom. There is no “software” distinct from “hardware.” The state of the bit is the state of the matter.
1.3 The Mass-Energy-Information Equivalence
If information possesses energy (as Landauer proved), and energy is equivalent to mass (E=mc2), then logic dictates that information must possess mass. This is the Mass-Energy-Information Equivalence Principle proposed by physicist Melvin Vopson.
Vopson argues that information should be considered a fifth state of matter, alongside solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. The mass of a single bit of information at room temperature (T=300K) can be derived by combining Landauer’s principle with Einstein’s relativity:
mbit=c2kBTln2
Plugging in the constants, the mass of a bit is approximately:
mbit≈3.19×10−38 kg
1.3.1 Implications for the Universe
While this mass is infinitesimally small, it aggregates. Vopson predicts that the relentless creation of digital information (the “datasphere”) will eventually result in a measurable amount of mass. He termed this the “Information Catastrophe,” predicting that in roughly 350 years, at current growth rates, the number of bits produced would equal the number of atoms on Earth.
More importantly for ontology, this hypothesis suggests that information gravitates. If bits have mass, they interact with the fabric of spacetime. A hard drive full of data is heavier than an erased one. Vopson has proposed experimental protocols to test this, including measuring the mass change of storage devices and detecting spectral shifts in positron-electron annihilation where information erasure might release excess photons.
If confirmed, this would be the final nail in the coffin of dualism. Information would not just be “carried” by matter; it would be a constituent of the universe’s mass-energy budget, potentially even explaining Dark Matter.
1.4 The “It From Bit” vs. “Bit From It” Dialectic
The realization of information’s physicality ignited a debate on primacy. Which is fundamental: the particle (“It”) or the information (“Bit”)?
1.4.1 Wheeler’s “It From Bit”
John Archibald Wheeler, a titan of 20th-century physics, championed the view that information is the bedrock of reality. His aphorism “It from Bit” suggests that every particle, every field, and even spacetime itself derives its function and existence from binary choices—bits—elicited by quantum measurement.
In Wheeler’s view, the universe is a “participatory” system. We pose yes/no questions to nature (measurements), and reality crystallizes around the answers. “No element in the description of physics shows itself as closer to primordial than the elementary quantum phenomenon… the elementary act of observer-participancy”. For Wheeler, the “substrate” is not a pre-existing material stuff, but the information-gathering act itself.
1.4.2 The Realist Rejoinder: “Bit From It”
Opposing this is the “Bit from It” camp, including David Deutsch and traditional realists. They argue that for a “bit” to exist, there must be a physical variable to distinguish 0 from 1. Distinguishability requires a medium. Deutsch argues that “It from Bit” (if taken to mean information without reality) is a category error because information is a property of physical systems, not a replacement for them.
Critics like J.L. Mackie (in moral philosophy) and physicalists in ontology argue against “queer” abstract entities that have power without substance. They demand a “grounding” in concrete reality.
1.4.3 The Synthesis: Substrate-Information Unity
The O1.1 ontology presented here resolves this dialectic through Unity. We assert that the distinction between “It” and “Bit” is artificial.
-
Matter is not “stuff” with properties; matter is a bundle of properties (mass, charge, spin).
-
Properties are informational values.
-
Therefore, the “It” is composed of “Bits,” but those “Bits” are instantiated in the quantum fields that constitute the “It.”
There is no floating information (“Bit without It”), nor is there featureless matter (“It without Bit”). The substrate is the instantiated information.
1.5 Section Conclusion (Part I)
We have successfully defended Claim 1: Information cannot float free.
-
Thermodynamics: Landauer’s Principle proves that manipulating information requires energy exchange; therefore, information variables are coupled to physical degrees of freedom.
-
Relativity: The Mass-Energy-Information equivalence posits that information has mass and gravitates, making it a tangible component of the physical universe.
-
Ontology: A distinction (bit) requires a distinguishing medium. There is no software without hardware.
The universe is not a computer and a program; the universe is a physical structure where the structure itself is the computation.
Part II: The Conservation of Information (O1.3)
Having established that information is physical (instantiated), we now address its durability. Common intuition, driven by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, suggests that things decay, memories fade, and information is lost. However, deep physics suggests the exact opposite: Information is indestructible.
2.1 The Bedrock of Unitarity
The strongest argument for information conservation comes from Quantum Mechanics, specifically the principle of Unitarity.
In quantum theory, the state of a system is described by a wavefunction ∣ψ⟩. The evolution of this state over time is governed by the Schrödinger equation, which is mathematically essentially a unitary operator U.
∣ψ(t)⟩=U(t)∣ψ(0)⟩
The defining property of a unitary operator is that its conjugate transpose is its inverse: U†U=I. This implies two non-negotiable consequences:
-
Reversibility: If you know the final state ∣ψ(t)⟩ and the operator U, you can perfectly apply U† to recover the initial state ∣ψ(0)⟩. The past is fully encoded in the present.
-
Conservation of Distinctions: Distinct initial states must evolve into distinct final states. If two different states merged into one, the process would not be invertible (you wouldn’t know which one to go back to). This merging would constitute “information loss.”
If information were truly destroyed, the unitary structure of quantum mechanics would collapse. Probabilities would no longer sum to 100% (probability conservation would fail), and the mathematical consistency of the theory would dissolve. As Stephen Hawking eventually admitted, “unitarity implies that the wave function at any instant of time can be used to determine the wave function at any other time”.
2.2 The Black Hole Information Paradox
The conservation of information faced its greatest existential threat in 1974, when Stephen Hawking analyzed the quantum behavior of black holes.
2.2.1 The Paradox Defined
Hawking calculated that black holes are not truly black; they emit radiation (Hawking Radiation) due to quantum effects near the event horizon. Crucially, his calculation suggested this radiation was “thermal”—completely random, determined only by the black hole’s mass, charge, and spin.
This created a paradox:
-
Take a highly ordered object (e.g., an Encyclopedia) and throw it into a black hole.
-
The black hole grows slightly.
-
Wait for the black hole to evaporate completely via Hawking Radiation.
-
According to Hawking’s 1974 calculation, the radiation is random. The information of the Encyclopedia is gone.
-
Result: A pure quantum state (Encyclopedia) evolved into a mixed thermal state (Radiation). Unitarity is violated. Information is destroyed.
This sparked the “Black Hole War” between Hawking (who accepted information loss) and Leonard Susskind and Gerard ‘t Hooft (who defended conservation).
2.2.2 The Resolution: The Holographic Principle
Susskind and ‘t Hooft realized that if information loss were real, physics would break down everywhere, not just in black holes (energy conservation would fail due to virtual loops). They proposed the Holographic Principle.
They argued that the information of an object falling into a black hole is not lost in the interior but is “imprinted” on the event horizon—the 2D boundary of the black hole. When the black hole radiates, this information is not destroyed but is released back into the universe, encoded in the radiation.
The radiation looks random to a casual observer, just as a scrambled hard drive looks like noise. But subtly, the correlations in the radiation contain the exact data of the Encyclopedia. The information is scrambled, not erased.
2.3 The Mechanism of Preservation: AdS/CFT and No-Hiding
The theoretical victory for information conservation came through two major developments: The AdS/CFT Correspondence and the No-Hiding Theorem.
2.3.1 AdS/CFT: The Mathematical Proof
In 1997, Juan Maldacena discovered the AdS/CFT correspondence. He showed that a universe with gravity (Anti-de Sitter space, or AdS) is mathematically equivalent (dual) to a quantum field theory without gravity living on its boundary (Conformal Field Theory, or CFT).
-
The Boundary (CFT): A standard quantum system which is manifestly unitary. Information is strictly conserved.
-
The Bulk (AdS): Contains black holes and gravity.
Because the two systems are identical (just different descriptions of the same reality), and the Boundary system preserves information, the Bulk system (with black holes) must also preserve information. This was the “smoking gun” that led Stephen Hawking to concede his bet in 2004. He admitted that black hole evaporation must be unitary, even if the mechanism is complex.
2.3.2 The No-Hiding Theorem
In 2007, Samuel Braunstein and Arun Pati formalized this robustness with the No-Hiding Theorem. This theorem states that if information disappears from a primary system (like a black hole), it cannot simply vanish, nor can it be completely hidden in the correlations between the system and the environment.
The theorem proves that the information must migrate entirely to the environment (the radiation).
-
No-Cloning: Information cannot be copied.
-
No-Deleting: Information cannot be erased.
-
No-Hiding: Information cannot be hidden.
This was experimentally confirmed using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) systems. Information “lost” from a qubit was fully recovered from the ancilla bits (the environment) via local unitary transformations. This confirms that “loss” is merely a transfer of data to degrees of freedom we are not currently monitoring.
2.4 The Firewall Paradox (AMPS) and the Cost of Conservation
The commitment to information conservation is so strong in modern physics that theorists are willing to sacrifice other beloved principles to save it. In 2012, Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, and Sully (AMPS) pointed out a new conflict.
To preserve information, the outgoing Hawking radiation must be entangled with the early radiation (to carry the data out). However, according to the Equivalence Principle, the radiation must also be entangled with the interior of the black hole (to ensure empty space at the horizon).
-
Monogamy of Entanglement: A quantum system cannot be fully entangled with two separate systems at the same time.
-
The Paradox: The radiation cannot be entangled with both the past radiation (to save information) and the interior (to save General Relativity).
AMPS argued that the entanglement with the interior must break. Breaking this entanglement creates a wall of energy at the horizon—a Firewall—that burns up any observer falling in. While the existence of Firewalls is debated (with alternatives like “Islands” and “Replica Wormholes” emerging in 2019-2020 ), the key takeaway for our report is this: Physicists are willing to break the smooth structure of spacetime (Equivalence Principle) rather than abandon Information Conservation (Unitarity). This demonstrates the supremacy of O1.3 in the hierarchy of physical laws.
2.5 CPT Symmetry and Time Reversal
Another pillar of conservation is CPT Symmetry (Charge, Parity, Time). The CPT theorem states that any local quantum field theory is invariant under the combined operations of C, P, and T. Crucially, this implies Time Reversal Invariance. If a physical process can happen forward, it must be valid backward.
If information were destroyed, the process would be irreversible. You could not run the film backward and get the original state (because the information of the original state is gone). Since CPT symmetry holds (and is tested to extreme precision), fundamental information loss is prohibited. The universe must be rewindable in principle, preserving all data.
2.6 Addressing the Entropy Objection
Counterattack: “If information is conserved, why does entropy increase? Doesn’t entropy mean information is destroyed?”
Defense: This objection confuses Von Neumann Entropy (Quantum Information) with Thermodynamic Entropy (Coarse-Grained Information).
-
Von Neumann Entropy: Measures the purity of the quantum state. Under unitary evolution, this never changes. Ideally, it remains zero for a pure state.
-
Thermodynamic Entropy: Measures our inability to distinguish the specific microstate.
When a book burns, the smoke and ash particles contain the exact same amount of quantum information as the book. The positions and momenta of the ink molecules are mapped onto the positions and momenta of the smoke molecules (via Liouville’s Theorem, which conserves phase space volume). However, to a human observer, the smoke looks “random.” The information has been scrambled into complex correlations between billions of particles—it has become “hidden information.” Entropy increases not because the information vanishes, but because it spreads into degrees of freedom that are practically inaccessible to us. But ontologically, the information is still there.
2.7 Section Conclusion (Part II)
We have successfully defended Claim 2: Information is Conserved.
-
Unitarity: The mathematical bedrock of quantum mechanics forbids the deletion of states.
-
Holography: Black holes preserve information on their boundaries, resolving the paradox of evaporation.
-
No-Hiding Theorem: Proves that information lost from a system migrates to the environment, rendering it recoverable in principle.
The universe is a closed system. Data is never deleted; it is only encrypted.
Part III: The Problem of Grounding (O1.2)
We have established that information is instantiated (Part I) and conserved (Part II). Now we face the deepest ontological question: What supports the substrate?
If information requires a substrate (e.g., a quantum field), and that substrate is physical, one can ask: “What are the properties of that field written on?” If the answer is “a deeper field,” we face an Infinite Regress. If the answer is “nothing,” we face Dogma. This brings us to the necessity of a Self-Grounding ontology.
3.1 The Münchhausen Trilemma and the Failure of Regress
The Münchhausen Trilemma outlines the three endpoints of any quest for justification :
-
Infinite Regress: A depends on B, B depends on C, ad infinitum. (“Turtles all the way down”).
-
Dogma (Brute Fact): The chain stops at A, which is asserted without justification.
-
Circularity: A depends on B, and B depends on A.
3.1.1 Why Infinite Regress Fails in Physics
In philosophy, infinite regress is merely annoying. In physics, it is catastrophic. We know from the Bekenstein Bound that there is a finite limit to the amount of information (S) that can be contained in a finite region of space (R) with finite energy (E) :
S≤ℏc2πkBRE
If reality consisted of infinite layers of substrates (a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation…), the total information content of any volume of space would be the sum of the information in all those layers. Since the series is infinite, the information density would be infinite. Infinite information density implies infinite entropy, which would cause the universe to collapse into a black hole immediately. Since the universe is not a singularity, the chain of substrates must be finite. There is a bottom layer.
3.2 The Argument Against Brute Facts
The materialist often defaults to the “Brute Fact” option: “The universe just is. The quantum fields are the bottom, and they just happen to exist.” However, this is intellectually vacant. A “Brute Fact” does not explain the fine-tuning or the mathematical consistency of the substrate. Why does the substrate obey Unitarity? Why does it obey Symmetry? A random Brute Fact should be chaotic. The high degree of order (Logos) in the universe suggests the foundation is not random “stuff,” but a structured necessity.
3.3 The Solution: Self-Reference and Strange Loops
This leaves us with the third option, rehabilitated: Virtuous Circularity or Self-Grounding. The fundamental substrate must be a system that necessitates its own existence through self-reference.
3.3.1 Hofstadter’s Strange Loops
Douglas Hofstadter, in I Am a Strange Loop, argues that complex entities (like consciousness) arise from systems that feed back into themselves. A “Strange Loop” is a hierarchy of levels where moving up the hierarchy eventually brings you back to the start. In ontology, the substrate is likely a Strange Loop. The laws of physics create the universe; the universe allows for the existence of information; the information encodes the laws. John Wheeler called this the “Self-Excited Circuit”.
3.3.2 Mathematical Logic and Fixed Points
Mathematical logic provides the tools to understand self-grounding.
-
Fixed Point Theorems: A fixed point is a value that remains invariant under a transformation (f(x)=x). The laws of physics can be viewed as the fixed points of the universe’s operation. They are the rules that remain stable when the universe acts upon itself.
-
Löb’s Theorem: In provability logic, Löb’s theorem (□(□P→P)→□P) shows that for a system to assert its own soundness, it must inherently possess that soundness as a structural property. A self-grounding universe effectively “proves itself” by being the only consistent solution to the equation of existence.
3.4 The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH)
Max Tegmark provides the most rigorous physical model of a self-grounding substrate: The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. Tegmark argues that the universe does not have mathematical properties; it is a mathematical structure.
-
The Argument: Mathematical structures (like the Mandelbrot set or E8 Lie Group) do not need to be “created.” They exist timelessly as logical possibilities. Their existence is necessary, not contingent.
-
Self-Grounding: If the physical universe is isomorphic to a mathematical structure, it solves the grounding problem. It exists because “2+2=4” exists. It doesn’t need a creator or a substrate “made of stuff.” The logic is the substrate.
Critics like Scott Aaronson argue this is “devoid of content” if it doesn’t explain which structure we are. However, as an ontological defense against infinite regress, it is the only robust physical theory currently available. It grounds the “It” in the eternal necessity of the “Bit” (logic).
3.5 Theological and Philosophical Parallels: The Logos
To fully demonstrate the “nuanced understanding” requested, we must acknowledge that this “Self-Grounding Information” ontology mirrors ancient metaphysical insights, specifically the concept of the Logos.
3.5.1 The Logos as Information Substrate
In Stoic philosophy and Johannine theology (“In the beginning was the Word…”), the Logos is the rational principle that orders the universe. It is the “software” that runs reality.
-
Philo of Alexandria described the Logos as the “glue” of the universe, preventing it from dissolving into chaos (Entropy).
-
Information Theory Parallel: This is functionally identical to the modern view of physical laws as information constraints that limit the phase space of the universe.
3.5.2 Trinitarian Information Models
Recent interdisciplinary work has modeled the Trinity using Information Theory terms :
-
The Source (Father): The uncreated origin of the signal.
-
The Channel/Message (Son/Logos): The instantiation of the information (The “Word made Flesh”). This parallels the physical instantiation of information (O1.1).
-
The Receiver/Interpreter (Spirit): The semantic grounding that gives the information meaning.
While distinct from physics, these models show that the problem of “Self-Grounding” (how one God exists in three relations without external dependency) has formally the same structure as the “Self-Excited Circuit” of Wheeler or the “Strange Loop” of Hofstadter. Both require a system that contains its own origin to avoid infinite regress.
3.5.3 Open vs. Classical Theism: The Conservation Debate
The theological debate between Open Theism and Classical Theism also mirrors the physics debate on Information Conservation.
-
Classical Theism (Omniscience): God knows the future perfectly. The “Block Universe” is fixed. Information is conserved (eternal). This aligns with Unitarity and the Block Time of relativity.
-
Open Theism: The future is open; God “learns” as events happen. Information is created over time. This aligns with non-unitary or stochastic interpretations of quantum mechanics (like Copenhagen collapse) where information is strictly not conserved (or new information enters).
The triumph of Unitarity in modern physics (via AdS/CFT and the Black Hole resolution) heavily favors the “Classical/Block” view: The information of the future already exists, encoded in the present. Reality is a completed 4D manifold, not a growing 3D edge.
3.6 Section Conclusion (Part III)
We have successfully defended Claim 3: The Fundamental Substrate Must Be Self-Grounding.
-
Regress Fails: Infinite layers violate the Bekenstein Bound.
-
Self-Reference Succeeds: The only logical termination is a system that defines itself—a “Strange Loop,” a “Mathematical Structure,” or a “Logos.”
-
Necessity: The substrate exists not as a brute fact, but as a logical necessity (like a number system).
Part IV: Synthesis and Conclusion
4.1 The Complete O1.2 Ontology
Combining the three parts, we arrive at a coherent worldview:
| Component | Principle | Physical Law | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| O1.1 Instantiation | No Floating Bits | Landauer’s Principle / Mass-Energy Equivalence | Information is tangible, heavy, and energetic. The Universe is a Hard Drive. |
| O1.3 Conservation | No Deletion | Unitarity / No-Hiding Theorem | The Past is Eternal. Death is encryption, not erasure. |
| O1.2 Grounding | No Infinite Regress | Mathematical Universe / Self-Reference | Reality is a Self-Consistent Logical Structure (Logos). |
4.2 Addressing Counter-Attacks
Counterattack 1: “Information is just a human concept.” Defense: If information were merely conceptual, the Black Hole Information Paradox would be a category error. Physics does not break down if a “concept” is lost. It breaks down only if a physical quantity is lost. The fact that the entire physics community spent 40 years fighting over the preservation of bits in black holes proves that bits are as real as atoms. Unitarity is a law of nature, not a law of thought.
Counterattack 2: “Entropy destroys information.” Defense: Entropy is a measure of scrambling, not destruction. The No-Hiding Theorem proves that “lost” information moves to the environment. Burning a book increases entropy but preserves the microstate information in the smoke. The universe never hits “delete”; it only hits “encrypt.”
Counterattack 3: “Self-grounding is circular reasoning.” Defense: In foundational logic, linear justification must end. The only alternative to infinite regress (which is physically impossible due to information density limits) is a loop. A system that grounds itself (like the set of all sets, or the laws of physics) is not logically fallacious; it is ontologically necessary. It is a “Virtuous Circle,” not a vicious one.
Counterattack 4: “Why can’t the universe be a brute fact?” Defense: A brute fact is an admission of defeat. Furthermore, the universe exhibits specific mathematical properties (Unitarity, Symmetries) that are consistent and intelligible. A “Brute Fact” universe would likely be incoherent. The “Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics” implies the universe is a mathematical/informational structure, which is self-grounding by definition (O1.2).
4.3 Final Outlook
The journey from Landauer’s erasure of a bit to the evaporation of a black hole reveals a singular truth: Information is the primary substance of the cosmos. It is written on the fabric of spacetime, it carries the weight of gravity, and it persists through the fires of singularities. We do not live in a universe of “stuff” that happens to carry information. We live in a universe of Information that presents itself as stuff. The substrate is the Code, and the Code is the Substrate.
Q.E.D.
[