Rick Rosner: In physics, there are many conservation laws or principles that are generally supported by experimental evidence. For example, energy is conserved, and momentum is conserved. The conservation of information is a more complex and debated topic, particularly in quantum mechanics and cosmology. While there are arguments that information is conserved in quantum mechanical systems—such as in unitary evolution in quantum mechanics and black hole information paradox discussions—its conservation on a universal scale is still an open question.

Some theories extend the idea of information conservation to the entire universe across time. However, within a traditional Big Bang framework, it is unclear whether information is strictly conserved all the way back to t=0. The earliest stages of the universe, particularly at the Planck scale (approximately 10−35), fall within the domain of quantum gravity, a regime not yet fully understood. If one were to challenge the conservation of information, this extreme early state would be a key point of contention.

The notion that the entire universe—when compressed into an ultra-hot, dense state at the Planck epoch—contained as much information as the present-day universe is a debated topic. Some interpretations of holographic principles suggest that information is encoded at the boundary of spacetime rather than being lost or destroyed. Others argue that the sheer compression of the universe at such an early stage might limit the number of distinguishable states, affecting how information is counted over time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What, then, would be the smallest unit of information in the universe? The smallest meaningful unit of information is often considered the bit, as in classical information theory. In quantum mechanics, this is generalized to the qubit, which can exist in superposition states. 

Rosner: However, defining a “fundamental” unit of information in a physical sense is more complex. Some approaches, such as Wheeler’s “It from Bit” hypothesis, suggest that information is the most fundamental entity in physics. Meanwhile, quantum gravity proposals, such as loop quantum gravity and string theory, attempt to define the smallest meaningful structures of spacetime itself.

Even discussing the entire universe as a whole is tricky, as we only have access to the observable universe—the region from which light has had time to reach us since the Big Bang. The cosmological horizon marks the boundary beyond which we cannot receive information due to the finite speed of light and the expansion of the universe. While we theorize about the universe beyond this horizon, observational evidence is necessarily limited. This raises a fundamental question: does the universe exist as a whole entity if we cannot observe it in its entirety? Big Bang cosmology provides an explanation for why the entire universe is not visible, but this does not necessarily resolve questions about whether it should be treated as a single, well-defined system in information-theoretic terms.

But if the entire universe isn’t visible—if it’s hidden behind a spacetime curtain—does that admit other possible frameworks for the universe? I’d say yes. Obviously, the universe has a Big Bang-like aspect. But as we’ve discussed endlessly, that does not necessarily mean that a single, precise Big Bang occurred where all of matter and space were collapsed into a tiny, sub-pinpoint-sized expanse.

Jacobsen: When we speak about quanta in informational cosmology, how would you use that term more precisely? Do we even need that term? Is there an IC (informational cosmology) equivalent that is more precise? 

Rosner: Talking about quanta may be misleading, as it encourages people to draw analogies with the “it from bit” hypothesis—the idea that the universe functions like a computer. This concept gained some traction in the 1970s but never inspired an entire generational research push the way string theory did.

However, when discussing quanta, we refer to discrete packets of energy emitted in quantum events. Their discreteness—the fact that they exist as defined, quantized packets of energy—makes them ripe for analogy with the binary nature of computers, where circuits flip between 0s and 1s. That analogy, though, may lead people down the wrong conceptual path.

Certainly, the amount of energy in a quantum—such as a photon emitted when a hydrogen atom transitions from its first excited state to its ground state—is a well-defined quantity. But that photon’s energy changes over time if it is not absorbed locally. The farther and longer it travels, the more energy it loses due to redshift. In that sense, it does not maintain a fixed, discrete amount of energy.

Jacobsen: From an informational cosmology perspective, could there be quantum error correction codes, or something intrinsic to spacetime itself that acts as an emergent error-correcting code, maintaining the apparent consistency we observe in the universe over deep time?

Rosner: Not exactly, I guess. In information theory, there are methods to verify transmitted information by introducing redundancy. Right? Some optimal schemes ensure message accuracy while minimizing wasted bandwidth. For example, if you send the same message twice or three times to confirm its accuracy, you’re sacrificing transmission efficiency—using only a fraction of the potential data capacity for new information.

There are probably various schemes that maximize information transmission while minimizing error. But your question is: does the universe have any self-checking mechanisms? And to that, I’d say yes.

But I’d also say that every quantum event is not an event in the information picture being painted by the universe for itself. It takes a multitude of events for the picture to be formed in the aggregate. The universe isn’t aware of its individual quantum events; rather, the overall picture it has is the product of a quintillion, quintillion, quintillion events.

And that, in a way, serves as a self-checking mechanism. Take, for instance, the whole red-light scenario that always comes up in philosophy—right? Or whatever the fancy term is for sensory information entering the brain.

Jacobsen: Modalities and qualia?

Rosner: Qualia, yeah. So, your experience of seeing a red light and not stepping into the street to get run over isn’t based on your eye receiving just one photon of red light. It receives a vast number of photons.

I don’t know how many in a normal circumstance, but the sheer number of photons received occurs within a very specific context—a context constructed out of a whole history of knowing the world. That context has its own redundancies, or surplus of information, so that you don’t make a fatal error when dealing with red lights.

So, yeah, there are redundancies that function as checks on information by ensuring you gather enough data about a situation to reduce the probability of making a fatal mistake. That way, you don’t get killed by a misjudgment. But there are situations—like in sports—where you have to make snap judgments based on limited information and within a constrained time frame.

And that’s part of the game. People make errors in sports all the time. But sports errors don’t kill you; they just help the other team win. We’ve set up a structured play environment where you can hone your ability to make rapid judgments based on limited information without facing severe consequences.

And that makes sense—developing and refining the ability to make judgments is one of the purposes of play. You get better at decision-making so that when it truly matters, you don’t mess up.

So, there is redundancy in self-checks. I mean, also, the “ghost” phenomenon—where everyone occasionally experiences seeing something that isn’t there in a doorway, just momentarily, and gets startled.

That’s generally your brain preparing you to make the fastest possible judgment about potential threats. It’s better to be startled for no reason than to miss a fast-moving threat and get killed by it. 

Jacobsen: Is the fundamental proposal that information itself is fundamental, or that the processes that are fundamental can be calculated informationally, or both?

Rosner: I don’t know.

But if the entire universe isn’t visible—if it’s hidden behind a spacetime curtain—does that allow for alternative frameworks of the universe? I’d say yes. Obviously, the universe has Big Bang-like characteristics. But as we’ve discussed extensively, that does not necessarily mean that a single, precise Big Bang occurred, collapsing all matter and space into a tiny, sub-pinpoint-sized expanse. I don’t buy that at all.

Jacobsen: So that idea comes from John Wheeler and his Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP). 

Rosner: Also, it appears even earlier than that in the Copenhagen interpretation, right? So, no—you can have universes that exist without conscious beings within them. A universe could be so small or so sterile that events within it unfold without conscious beings on planets observing or experiencing them.

You could have a sterile universe where events simply play out. And you could even argue that—though I’m not sure that every universe begins from a t=0t=0 state of zero information—any universe that does will, in its early history, be small enough and contain few enough particles that there is no possibility of conscious life. A universe consisting of just 100 particles does not have living beings within it. So, no, I don’t think the universe needs to be consciously observed by beings within it to exist.

That universe could still be described quantum mechanically. In elementary quantum physics, the first thing you’re taught is a single particle in a potential well. While that isn’t an entire universe, you could conceptualize it in that way. There is no way a single particle could contain a planet with a Petit Prince standing on it, looking out at the cosmos.

So, no, I reject the idea that the universe requires conscious observation to exist.

Jacobsen: Would informational cosmology propose that the universe is fundamentally discrete or continuous?

Rosner: We talk about the set of all possible moments in all possible universes as if they can be described discretely. Calling something a moment labels it, which inherently gives it a certain amount of discreteness. But at the same time, defining that set is problematic—it may be incredibly difficult to formally describe as a complete set of all moments.

One core issue is whether a moment in the universe is truly discrete. Can we mathematically or quantum mechanically characterize a single moment of the universe? Or does such a characterization necessarily involve far more than expected, because when we talk about a point in quantum mechanics, a point particle is never just a point?

For example, an electron has no physical diameter, but it has a probability cloud that extends across all space. I assume that moments in time also experience a form of smearing, just as quantum particles do in space.

So, I would say that moments are discrete only to the extent that quantum mechanics allows them to be. In a universe with 10851085 particles, with information arriving at every point from sources distributed relativistically, those moments are deeply entangled.

I’d say: not discrete—every moment is linked to an enormous number of other moments.

You could conceptualize a sequence of moments lined up in an IC framework, but those moments are fundamentally interwoven. So, I’d say they are not truly discrete, but for practical purposes, we talk about them as discrete units.

Jacobsen: Are the computational properties of the universe emergent, inherent, or both?

Rosner: Again, that’s something I’d have to think about. I don’t know. The terms involved—at first glance, I’d have to say, I dunno.

You sent me that three-part framework a few days ago—the triangle representing different ways things can exist. One leg was the universe of macroscopic things, another was the universe of mathematical entities, and there was a third leg—what was it?

Jacobsen: Yes. That seemed more like a Roger Penrose–style, Neo-Platonic view, where mathematical objects and Platonic entities have some form of real existence. 

Rosner: So, what you’re asking is kinda similar. You’re asking whether the principle of twoness—the idea that “two” exists as a fundamental concept—is inherent to the universe.

Is the principle that there can be two things something fundamental? Among all the macroscopic objects that can exist, can you always take one object, then take another, and say you have two? If you hold them up together, you now have a pair.

Is twoness inherent or emergent?

Is it part of some metaphysical fabric of the universe? And I still have to say, I dunno.

In any universe big enough and well-defined enough to contain entities within it, you can have two of something. You can have various numbers of things. And arithmetic—the ability to count, group, and manipulate numbers—is internally self-consistent.

For example, the number of apples you have does not depend on how they are clustered or grouped or where they are placed. The concept that whole numbers correspond to groupings of things emerges naturally in any sufficiently large universe that contains clearly defined macroscopic objects.

Every sufficiently large universe will contain mathematically characterizable objects—objects that can be counted, multiplied, and divided. If you arrange eight rows of five apples, that’s 8 × 5 = 40 apples. That holds true in any sufficiently large universe.

This suggests an underlying mathematical structure, arguing for inherence—that arithmetic is not just convenient, but that it non-contradictorily characterizes the structure of the universe.

At the same time, arithmetic arises because of something you could characterize as emergent. If non-contradiction is a basic characteristic of existence, then arithmetic naturally emerges because it is an internally consistent system that does not contradict itself.

Which is to say: maybe you can’t separate emergence from inherence.

At the very least, we’d have to hash it out more before drawing a conclusion.

Photo by Giulia May on Unsplash

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, The Humanist, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332-9416), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Free Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.