Few words carry more authority in contemporary physics than information.
When ontology begins to wobble, “information” is invoked as stabiliser.
But what is being stabilised?
And what, precisely, is information?
1. The Black Hole Anxiety
The black hole information paradox — associated with work by figures such as Stephen Hawking — arises from a perceived tension:
-
General relativity predicts black holes with event horizons from which nothing escapes.
-
Quantum field theory implies unitary evolution, which preserves information.
If a black hole evaporates via Hawking radiation and information is lost, quantum unitarity appears violated.
Therefore, we are told, information must somehow be preserved.
The paradox feels existential.
Because “loss of information” is treated as ontological catastrophe.
But why?
2. Information as Reified Constraint
In physics, information is often treated as if it were a conserved substance — something that flows, is stored, or is destroyed.
Yet strictly speaking, information is not an object.
It is a measure defined relative to a formal system of distinctions.
In every case, information is parasitic on constraint.
There is no information without a prior specification of:
-
possible states,
-
allowable transformations,
-
and equivalence relations.
Information is not a thing in the world.
It is a property of a constraint system.
3. The Category Error
The information paradox arises because two different constraint systems are treated as if they share a single, global informational ledger.
-
In quantum theory, unitarity preserves the structure of state space.
-
In general relativity, horizon formation restructures the geometric accessibility of events.
When these are conflated, we demand that “information” be conserved across incompatible constraint regimes.
But if information is defined relative to a given instance space, then asking whether it is “lost” across radically different construals is already a category mistake.
The paradox emerges only if we assume a universal information substrate beneath both.
That assumption is not derived.
It is inherited.
4. When Substance Disappears, Information Replaces It
Modern physics largely abandoned substance ontology.
At each stage, as ontological solidity thins, information is invoked as the new fundamental.
But this move quietly reinstates what it claims to transcend.
Information becomes the new substance — abstract, intangible, but ontologically privileged.
Relationally, this is unnecessary.
Constraint suffices.
5. Reframing the Paradox
If we treat both general relativity and quantum theory as constraint systems defining distinct instance spaces, then the black hole paradox shifts form.
The real question is not:
Is information destroyed?
It is:
Are we illegitimately projecting a single informational measure across incompatible constraint regimes?
If so, the “loss” is not ontological.
It is perspectival misalignment.
Information is conserved within the domain in which it is defined.
Outside that domain, the concept may simply not apply.
6. Toward Informational Modesty
A relational meta-theory would treat information not as ontological bedrock but as a derived property of structured potential.
Different constraint systems generate different informational structures.
Compatibility between systems would require:
-
mapping correspondences between informational measures,
-
identifying where those correspondences break,
-
and determining whether breakdown reflects genuine incompatibility or merely domain limitation.
The drama cools again.
No metaphysical crisis.
Just structured coordination problems.
Closing Displacement
The phrase “information cannot be destroyed” carries theological overtones.
It promises permanence in a universe increasingly stripped of substance.
But relationally, permanence belongs only to constraint structures within their domains of coherence.
Information is not sacred.
It is local.
And once we recognise that locality, the black hole stops threatening reality itself.
It merely marks a boundary in our current map of coordination.
No comments:
Post a Comment