What amuses me is the apparent lack of explanation of whether any saved “bits” of information can ever contain or be reconstituted to contain any useful information — as the bits appear to at least get badly scrambled. Consider a book — if all the letters get scrambled what useful information remains? It seems the physicists are satisfied with mere conservation of scrambled bits rather than any conservation of any actually useful recognizable informational
Content. Maybe just saving the individual letters suffices for their theories but at least to my limited way of thinking a big pile or stream of emitted scrambled letters is not genuinely informative ( and thus no longer really information). I don’t see this as mere semantical quibbling but rather as a serious distinction. ( ps: the physicists
just this last month proposed a complex new path for their conservation at black holes, albeit they don’t appear to say how it can actually happen)
“Consider a book — if all the letters get scrambled what useful information remains?”
Maybe it would take a room full of monkeys sitting at computers to eventually come up with the correct configuration, but there just wouldn’t be enough time for that. However, as the monkeys evolved, the timeline could shrink if they were to stay on-task and without too much clowning around. You’d definitely want to keep them away from any windows.
Ah, but those scrambled letters would be information to an infinite number of monkeys sitting at typewriters. Just like the shredded documents at the US Embassy in Tehran became information when a large number of Iranian monkeys with glue sticks did their thing.
The real information is if the gibberish theory dry up so do the government grants.