Information Realism
Informational
Realism: The Structure and Derivation of Physical Reality
Author: Rowan Brad Quni-Gudzinas
Affiliation: QNFO Contact:
rowan.quni@qnfo.org ORCID: 0009-0002-4317-5604
ISNI: 0000 0005 2645 6062 DOI:
10.5281/zenodo.17171020 Publication Date: 2025-09-21
Version: 1.0
This manuscript presents a comprehensive theory of Informational
Realism, a form of Ontic Structural Realism which posits that
information is the fundamental constituent of the universe. The
framework is developed from first principles, tracing the philosophical
evolution from substance-based metaphysics to structural realism. It is
then formalized using axiomatic set theory (ZFC) to define the static
universe of all possible informational states and category theory to
describe the dynamic processes governing them. From a minimal set of
axioms—the conservation of information (unitarity), the constraint on
information processing (the Data Processing Inequality), and a formal
definition of measurement—the theory derives the core phenomena of
quantum mechanics. The measurement problem, quantum entanglement, the
uncertainty principle, and wave-particle duality are shown to be
necessary informational corollaries, not arbitrary features of a
material substrate. The framework further demonstrates the emergence of
spacetime from entanglement geometry and dynamics from quantum
computational processes. It provides an axiomatic resolution to the
black hole information paradox, defines the epistemological limits of
scientific inquiry, and is distinguished from other quantum
interpretations. The theory culminates in a concrete, falsifiable
prediction regarding a quantized action floor for measurement, elevating
it from a philosophical framework to a testable scientific program.
Keywords: Informational Realism, Ontic Structural Realism, Quantum
Information Theory, Philosophy of Science, Category Theory, Quantum
Foundations, Measurement Problem, Black Hole Information Paradox
1.0
Ontological Foundations of Informational Realism
A comprehensive theory of physical reality requires a coherent
ontological framework. The theory of **Informational
Realism** proposes a fundamental shift from traditional
substance-based metaphysics, arguing that the universe’s ultimate
constituent is not matter or energy, but information itself. This
section traces the philosophical evolution that leads to this position,
defines its core tenets, and describes its key variants, thereby setting
the stage for the theory’s formal mathematical and physical
development.
1.1
The Philosophical Evolution from Substance to Structure
The proposal that reality is informational is the culmination of a
long-standing philosophical refinement in response to challenges posed
by the history of science. This evolution begins with scientific realism
and, under the pressure of historical evidence, transforms into a
defensible structuralist position from which Informational Realism
emerges.
##### 1.1.1 The Tenets of
Scientific Realism
Traditional scientific realism is the stance that
our best scientific theories describe a mind-independent world. This
position rests on three core commitments: (1) a metaphysical commitment
to a mind-independent reality; (2) a semantic commitment that theories
are truth-apt statements about that reality; and (3) an
epistemic commitment that mature, successful theories are
approximately true. The “no-miracles argument” supports
this epistemic claim, suggesting that the profound predictive success of
theories would be inexplicable if they were not latching onto the real
structure of the world.
##### 1.1.2
The Historical Challenge: The Pessimistic Meta-Induction
Traditional scientific realism faces a powerful challenge from the
historical record of scientific progress. This challenge, the
pessimistic meta-induction, uses the history of science
as inductive evidence against the truth claims of current theories. Its
central premise is that the history of science is a graveyard of
discarded ontologies (e.g., phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous
aether) from theories once considered empirically successful. The
argument concludes by induction that our current theories’ ontologies,
such as those of the Standard Model, are likely also false and will
eventually be superseded.
##### 1.1.3
The Response: The Formulation of Structural Realism
In response to the pessimistic meta-induction, a more nuanced
position, Structural Realism, was developed. Its core
insight, articulated by John Worrall (1989), is that while descriptions
of the underlying nature of things (the ontology) are often
discontinuous between successive theories, the *mathematical
equations describing the relations* between phenomena are frequently
preserved or subsumed. Structural Realism thus shifts the locus of
realist commitment from the intrinsic nature of objects to the objective
reality of the relational structures described by the mathematical
formalism of our theories. This allows for realism about the structure
of the world without commitment to a specific, and likely transient,
ontology of objects.
##### 1.1.4 The
Bifurcation of Structural Realism
This structuralist turn evolved into two distinct positions.
Epistemic Structural Realism (ESR) is a cautious
variant maintaining that while objects (“relata”) may exist as the nodes
in the relational structure, their intrinsic nature is fundamentally
unknowable; our knowledge is limited to the structure of relations.
Ontic Structural Realism (OSR), championed by James
Ladyman (1998), is a more radical variant that makes the metaphysical
claim that structure is all there is. Relations are ontologically
primary, and what we perceive as “objects” are reducible to their place
within this structural network.
1.2 The
Ontological Primacy of Information
Building on this philosophical evolution, Informational Realism
emerges as a specific, physically grounded form of Ontic Structural
Realism. It provides a concrete candidate for the “structure” that OSR
posits is fundamental.
This framework identifies the abstract structure with the concrete
physical and mathematical concept of “information,” a position
articulated by Luciano Floridi (2008). The laws of physics are
re-interpreted as the rules governing the processing and transformation
of this fundamental informational substrate. This identification
profoundly inverts the traditional materialist hierarchy. In the
classical view, information is a secondary property of a material
substrate (e.g., ink on paper). In the informational view, the
informational structure is primary, and what is perceived as a material
substrate—such as an elementary particle—is a manifestation or stable
pattern of underlying informational processes.
To make this concept rigorous, the theory defines reality’s basic
constituents as informational objects. The framework of
Object-Oriented Programming provides a powerful analogy: an object is
defined not by its underlying substance but by its state (data) and the
rules governing its interactions with other objects (methods). Applying
this to physics, an electron is defined not by some underlying “stuff,”
but by its properties (mass, charge, spin) and its lawful interactions.
Its identity is entirely relational and dynamic.
1.3 Key Variants
of Informational Realism
Two major variants offer complementary perspectives on this
informational reality. Informational Structural Realism
(ISR), primarily associated with Luciano Floridi, provides a
comprehensive descriptive ontology. Its main function is to map
reality’s structural composition, providing a formal language for
analyzing any system in terms of its informational objects and their
relations. It posits that the ultimate ground of this structure is
dedomena—mind-independent data existing as fundamental
points of difference from which all information, and thus all reality,
is constructed.
A second, generative variant is proposed within this manuscript,
described as a Fisher Information Field Theory (FIFT).
This conceptual model moves beyond a descriptive project to offer a
generative account of how the informational universe evolves. It
postulates dynamic information fields: a J-field as a
universal reservoir of latent informational potential (pure
possibility), an I-field as a transformative agent that
actualizes this potential into definite structures, and a
K-field as a stabilizing agent that ensures systemic
coherence and persistence over time.
2.0 The Formal
Mathematical Architecture
After establishing the philosophical foundations, the theory requires
a rigorous mathematical language. This architecture is twofold: a static
set-theoretic foundation defines the universe of all possible
informational states, and a dynamic categorical framework describes the
processes that govern these states.
2.1
The Static Universe of States: A Set-Theoretic Foundation
To ground the theory in a paradox-free, universally accepted
language, the framework adopts **Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with
the Axiom of Choice** (ZFC). ZFC provides the foundational object
(the empty set), generative tools for constructing complex sets
(pairing, union, power set), rules for defining subsets (specification),
and axioms to enforce a well-founded structure that prevents paradoxes
(regularity). The axioms of infinity and choice guarantee the existence
of infinite sets and the choice functions required for the mathematics
of quantum mechanics.
Using ZFC, we define the Informational Census,
denoted \(\Omega\), as the totality of
all possible information, coextensive with the von Neumann cumulative
hierarchy (the class of all hereditary well-founded sets). Because a
“set of all sets” leads to Russell’s Paradox, \(\Omega\) is a **proper
class**—a collection too large to be a set itself.
Physical reality, however, corresponds to a distinguishable subset of
this space. A physical measurement, with its finite resolution, acts as
an equivalence relation (\(\sim\)) on \(\Omega\) that partitions it into sets of
indistinguishable microstates. The Physical Poll,
denoted \(\mathcal{E}\), is the
quotient set \(\Omega/\sim\),
representing the coarse-grained reality accessible to observation. The
Axiom of Replacement ensures that \(\mathcal{E}\) is a well-defined set.
This set-theoretic coarse-graining has a profound consequence. By
definition, the cardinality of the observable space is less than that of
the total possibility space: \(|\mathcal{E}|
< |\Omega|\). The mapping from \(\Omega\) to \(\mathcal{E}\) is therefore a many-to-one
(surjective but not injective) function, which means information is
necessarily lost in any observation. This unavoidable loss is the
Information Deficit.
2.2
The Dynamic Logic of Processes: A Categorical Framework
To describe dynamics, evolution, and interaction, the framework uses
the language of category theory. The field of
Categorical Quantum Mechanics (CQM), pioneered by
Abramsky and Coecke (2004), provides a powerful, process-oriented
reformulation of quantum theory where physical processes, not static
states, are the fundamental primitives. Its central strength is its
focus on compositionality, providing rigorous rules for
combining processes sequentially (one after another) or in parallel (at
the same time).
This perspective is formalized in the **Category of
Information** (Inf). The objects of this category are sets of
information states from the Physical Poll \(\mathcal{E}\). The morphisms (\(f: A \to B\)) are information-processing
channels that represent all physical processes, including interactions
and time evolution. To capture the full structure of quantum physics,
Inf is endowed with the structure of a **dagger symmetric monoidal
category. - The monoidal** structure allows for
the description of multiple, composite systems via the tensor product
(\(\otimes\)). - The
symmetric structure encodes the physical principle that
the ordering of parallel systems is irrelevant. - The
dagger (\(\dagger\))
is an operation that maps a process to its adjoint, representing process
reversal. It provides a formal link between processes like state
preparation and their corresponding measurements.
This categorical framework has an associated graphical language of
string diagrams, where systems are represented as wires
and processes as boxes. This calculus allows for intuitive, topological
reasoning about complex quantum interactions, abstracting away the
cumbersome algebra of the standard Hilbert space formalism.
3.0
The Axiomatic Principles of an Informational Universe
Building on the mathematical architecture, the framework posits
universal principles governing the conservation, processing, and
observation of information. These axioms are presented as the
fundamental laws of physics.
3.1 Axiom I:
The Conservation of Information
The first axiom states that information in an isolated system is
conserved. This is the informational equivalent of unitarity in quantum
mechanics. Information content is quantified by **von Neumann
entropy**. For a physical state represented by a density matrix
\(\rho\), the uncertainty is given
by:
\[
S(\rho) = -\text{Tr}(\rho \log_2 \rho). \quad (3.1)
\]
A pure state, known with certainty, has zero
entropy; a mixed state, representing a probabilistic
ensemble, has positive entropy. The axiom formally states that for any
isolated system undergoing a unitary transformation \(U\), the von Neumann entropy of the state
is conserved: \(S(U\rho U^\dagger) =
S(\rho)\). This axiom expresses the principles of
unitarity and reversibility for all
fundamental processes.
3.2
Axiom II: The Constraint on Information Processing
The second axiom elevates the **Data Processing
Inequality** (DPI) from information theory to a fundamental
physical law governing information flow. The axiom applies to any
process that can be modeled as a Markov chain (\(X \to Y \to Z\)), where the future depends
only on the present. The DPI states that for any such chain, the
mutual information between the beginning and the end
cannot exceed the mutual information between the beginning and any
intermediate stage:
\[
I(X;Z) \le I(X;Y). \quad (3.2)
\]
The physical meaning of this axiom is profound: any local physical
process can only preserve or degrade the information a system contains
about its source; it can never create or amplify new information. This
single principle of causality is sufficient to derive many core “rules”
of quantum mechanics, including the no-cloning theorem
and the prohibition of superluminal communication via entanglement.
3.3 Axiom III: The
Nature of Observation
The third axiom provides a quantitative, physical definition of
measurement. It defines measurement as any physical interaction that
reduces an observer’s uncertainty about a system. This uncertainty is
termed the Information Deficit (\(\Delta I\)) and is formally quantified by
the conditional entropy:
\[
\Delta I \equiv H(X|Y) = S(XY) - S(Y). \quad (3.3)
\]
A measurement is any physical process that results
in a reduction of this deficit: \(H(X'|Y') < H(X|Y)\). This
definition reveals a key signature of **quantum
entanglement**: the possibility of negative conditional entropy.
In quantum systems, \(H(X|Y)\) can be
negative, implying that the entropy of the whole system is less than the
entropy of one of its parts (\(S(XY) <
S(Y)\)). This is mathematically impossible if information is a
local property; it signifies that in entangled systems, information is
stored non-locally in the correlations between the parts.
4.0
The Derivation of Quantum Phenomena as Informational
Corollaries
The power of this axiomatic framework lies in its ability to derive
the characteristic—and often paradoxical—features of quantum mechanics
as necessary consequences of these fundamental laws of information.
4.1
The Measurement Problem and “Wave Function Collapse”
The measurement problem is resolved by demonstrating that “collapse”
is not a fundamental, ad-hoc process distinct from unitary evolution. It
is an emergent, irreversible thermodynamic phenomenon that is a
necessary consequence of measurement (Axiom III) under the constraint of
information conservation (Axiom I).
The proof proceeds by considering an isolated system comprising a
quantum object \(X\) and an
observer/environment \(Y\). 1. By Axiom
I, the evolution of the total system \(XY\) is unitary, and its total entropy
\(S(XY)\) is conserved. 2. By Axiom
III, a measurement is an interaction that reduces the Information
Deficit \(H(X|Y) = S(XY) - S(Y)\). 3.
For \(H(X|Y)\) to decrease while \(S(XY)\) remains constant, the entropy of
the observer/environment, \(S(Y)\),
must necessarily increase. 4. By Landauer’s principle (1961), an
increase in thermodynamic entropy is equivalent to the logical erasure
of information. The increase in \(S(Y)\) corresponds to the irreversible
erasure of the information about the unobserved outcomes of the
superposition, which is dissipated as heat into the environment’s
degrees of freedom.
This irreversible, information-erasing process, which appears
non-unitary when considering only subsystem \(X\), is precisely what is termed “wave
function collapse.” It is derived here as the thermodynamic consequence
of an information-acquiring interaction within a globally
information-conserving universe. The wave function is
thus reinterpreted as an objective field of potential information, and
what appears as “collapse” is a two-stage process:
first, decoherence (Zurek, 2003), where system
information becomes entangled with the environment, followed by
thermodynamic actualization, where one outcome is stabilized as a
classical record. The Quantum Toll Framework, proposed
herein, models this actualization as a thermodynamic phase
transition.
4.2 Quantum
Entanglement and Non-Locality
The paradox of entanglement is resolved by rejecting its foundational
premise of separability. An entangled pair is redefined
as a single, non-local informational object whose state
is holistically defined. The mathematical inseparability of the state
vector reflects a real physical inseparability. As established in Axiom
III, the signature of this state is negative conditional entropy, which
proves that information is stored non-locally.
A local measurement on one part of the system is therefore an
internal update of this unified structure, not a superluminal signal.
The notion of “spooky action at a distance” is a category error arising
from incorrectly applying a two-object model to what is fundamentally a
single, non-local object. Axiom II (the DPI) rigorously guarantees that
this internal update cannot be used for superluminal communication.
4.3 The Uncertainty
Principle
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is reframed as
a fundamental epistemological limit on information extraction. In CQM,
an observable is an information-extraction process,
formalized by the algebraic structure of a **commutative dagger
Frobenius algebra. Complementary observables**,
like position and momentum, correspond to algebraically incompatible
algebras. The uncertainty principle emerges as a direct theorem from
this formalism: the act of measuring one observable (i.e., projecting
onto one basis) necessarily randomizes the state with respect to a
complementary observable, creating an unavoidable trade-off in the
knowledge an observer can acquire.
4.4 Wave-Particle
Duality
The paradox of wave-particle duality is resolved
through the methodological principle of **Levels of
Abstraction** (LoA). The wave and particle aspects are not
contradictory intrinsic properties but are different manifestations of
an underlying informational object, revealed by the informational
context of the experiment. An interference experiment operates at the
“wave LoA,” probing the object’s delocalized,
field-like behavior. A position-detection experiment operates at the
“particle LoA,” probing a localized interaction. The
object manifests different aspects of its nature depending on the
questions asked of it.
5.0
The Emergence of Physical Reality from the Informational
Substrate
The framework culminates by showing how the macroscopic structures of
reality—spacetime and dynamics—are not fundamental but are emergent
properties of the underlying informational network.
5.1 The Genesis of
Spacetime
Spacetime is not a pre-existing container but an
emergent property of the universe’s entanglement patterns. The framework
begins with the principle of background independence,
asserting that all geometry must derive from relational structure.
Geometric proximity between two systems is defined as a monotonically
decreasing function of their mutual information (\(d(A, B) \propto 1/I(A:B)^\alpha\)), meaning
highly entangled systems are geometrically “close.” This defines a
pre-geometric network from which a continuous geometric space (a
manifold) can be derived as the best-fit approximation.
A causal, light-cone structure is then imprinted on
this manifold using causal categories, which restrict
parallel composition to space-like separated systems, thus turning the
space into a spacetime, with causality governed by Axiom II.
5.2 The Genesis of
Dynamics
The laws of motion (dynamics) emerge from the
computational evolution of the universe’s informational state. The
universe’s evolution is modeled as a gigantic **quantum
computation**. The smooth evolution described by the
Schrödinger equation is seen as an effective,
macroscopic approximation of an underlying discrete process, such as a
quantum cellular automaton (QCA). This algorithmic view
is formalized by Constructor Theory (Deutsch, 2013),
which posits that fundamental laws are timeless statements about which
physical transformations are possible versus impossible. Dynamics are a
derived consequence of these timeless computational principles.
6.0 Synthesis,
Critique, and Scientific Status
This final section applies the framework to the black hole
information paradox, assesses its epistemological limits, and identifies
its scientific status.
6.1
A Unifying Test Case: The Black Hole Information Paradox
The black hole information paradox arises from the
conflict between semi-classical gravity, which suggests information is
destroyed during black hole evaporation (Hawking, 1975), and quantum
mechanics, which requires information to be conserved (Axiom I).
Informational Realism resolves this axiomatically: information cannot be
lost. The scientific task shifts from asking if information
escapes to how. The mechanism is that information is scrambled
and re-encoded in subtle, non-local correlations within the outgoing
Hawking radiation. Recent validation of the Page curve
(Page, 1993) shows that the entanglement entropy of the radiation
follows the precise behavior required for a unitary,
information-preserving process. The information is practically
inaccessible due to the exponential computational complexity required
for its retrieval, but it is not fundamentally lost.
6.2
Epistemological Constraints of the Framework
The framework’s own axioms place fundamental limits on what can be
known. Axiom II (the DPI) proves that any observation is an
information-losing process, making the universe’s complete, fine-grained
state (the Informational Census) fundamentally inaccessible. The goal of
science is therefore not to find the “true” model but the best possible
approximation, a task formalized as finding models that minimize the
Kullback-Leibler divergence from the true
data-generating process. This information loss also explains the
practical necessity of regularization in all
non-trivial data analysis.
6.3
Comparative Analysis with Other Quantum Interpretations
Informational Realism is a thoroughly realist position. Unlike the
Copenhagen interpretation, it provides a physical
explanation for measurement instead of positing an arbitrary
quantum-classical cut. Compared to the **Many-Worlds
Interpretation** (MWI), it is more ontologically parsimonious,
positing one universe of informational potentials rather than an
infinite number of branching actual worlds. In direct opposition to
Quantum Bayesianism (QBism), which treats information
as a subjective belief, IR treats information as an objective,
mind-independent feature of reality.
6.4
Philosophical Critiques and Falsifiable Predictions
The framework answers philosophical critiques such as the
Newman Problem (the charge that structural claims are
trivial) by grounding its structures in dynamic, constrained physical
processes. It addresses the charge of being untestable metaphysics by
positioning itself as a generative theory from which existing physics
should be derivable as an effective approximation. Most importantly, the
Quantum Toll model of measurement makes a concrete, **falsifiable
prediction**: the formation of a stable, classical measurement
outcome is a threshold event requiring a minimum, quantized exchange of
physical action (\(S = n\hbar\)).
Experiments probing interactions at extremely low action levels could
provide a definitive test, elevating the theory from a philosophical
framework to a testable scientific program.
References
Abramsky, S., & Coecke, B. (2004). A categorical semantics of
quantum protocols. In *Proceedings of the 19th Annual IEEE Symposium
on Logic in Computer Science* (pp. 415–425). IEEE Computer Society.
https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2004.1319612
Bekenstein, J. D. (1973). Black holes and entropy. *Physical
Review D, 7*(8), 2333–2346.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333
Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox.
Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3), 195–200.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195
Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (2006). *Elements of information
theory* (2nd ed.). Wiley-Interscience.
Deutsch, D. (2013). Constructor theory. Synthese, 190(18),
4331–4359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0279-z
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can
quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered
complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 777–780.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
Everett, H. (1957). “Relative State” formulation of quantum
mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3), 454–462.
https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454
Floridi, L. (2008). A defence of informational structural realism.
Synthese, 161(2), 219–253.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9163-z
Hawking, S. W. (1975). Particle creation by black holes.
Communications in Mathematical Physics, 43(3), 199–220.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02345020
Ladyman, J. (1998). What is structural realism? *Studies in
History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 29*(3), 409–424.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(98)00021-9
Landauer, R. (1961). Irreversibility and heat generation in the
computing process. *IBM Journal of Research and Development,
5*(3), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.53.0183
Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010). *Quantum computation
and quantum information* (10th anniversary ed.). Cambridge
University Press.
Page, D. N. (1993). Information in black hole radiation. *Physical
Review Letters, 71*(23), 3743–3746.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.3743
Schrödinger, E. (1935). Die gegenwärtige Situation in der
Quantenmechanik [The present situation in quantum mechanics].
Naturwissenschaften, 23(48), 807–812.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01491891
Wheeler, J. A. (1990). Information, physics, quantum: The search for
links. In W. H. Zurek (Ed.), *Complexity, entropy and the physics of
information* (pp. 3–28). Addison-Wesley.
Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds?
Dialectica, 43(1–2), 99–124.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1989.tb00933.x
Zurek, W. H. (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum
origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(3),
715–775. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715