DEV Community

Cover image for The Universe as an Index: Why Information Might Not Be Stored but Reconstructable
Michael Kraft
Michael Kraft

Posted on • Originally published at Medium

The Universe as an Index: Why Information Might Not Be Stored but Reconstructable

The Universe as an Index

Why Information Might Not Be Stored — But Reconstructable

A speculative reflection on invariance, reconstructability, noise, and structure — from a developer's perspective


I'm not a physicist.

I'm not a cosmologist.

I'm a developer.

And like many ideas in software, this one started with a small shift in perspective that kept unfolding:

What if information in the universe is not stored —

but reconstructable?

The more I followed that thought, the more it began to challenge not just how we think about information — but where we expect to find it at all.


The Default Assumption: Information = Storage

We are deeply conditioned to think of information as something that exists somewhere.

We store it in databases.

Move it across networks.

Back it up.

Compress it.

Duplicate it.

Even when we abstract it, we still imagine a location:

a disk, a memory block, a signal in transit.

This creates a quiet but powerful assumption:

Information must exist as an object, located in space and time.

And once that assumption is in place, it shapes everything else.


A Different Model: Reconstructability

In software engineering, there is another way to think about information.

We don't always store data explicitly.

Sometimes we store:

  • rules
  • constraints
  • seeds
  • minimal descriptions

Procedural generation creates entire worlds from compact inputs.

Compression reduces large datasets into small representations that can be expanded again.

In all these cases:

The information is not present — but it is still fully recoverable.

A subtle shift follows:

Information does not need to be stored,

as long as it can be reconstructed from structure and rules.


Extending This to the Universe

If that principle holds in engineered systems, it raises a broader question:

What if the universe does not store information,

but instead enables its reconstruction?


Physics Has Been Circling This Question

Modern physics has wrestled with the nature of information for decades.

The Black Hole Information Paradox asks whether information is lost in black holes:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/black-holes/

Current thinking suggests it is not.

Closely related is the Holographic Principle, which proposes that information about a volume may be encoded on its boundary:

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9901079

As Leonard Susskind famously put it:

"The world can be viewed as a hologram."

If information is preserved but not directly accessible, the question shifts.

Not:

Where is the information?

But:

Under what conditions can it be reconstructed?


Information as Invariance

In physics, stability emerges from invariants.

Noether’s Theorem shows that symmetries lead to conservation laws:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/

What persists is not necessarily an object.

It is a relationship.

A constraint.

A symmetry.

Perhaps information is closer to invariance than to storage.


Turning “It from Bit” Inside Out

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler introduced the idea:

“It from bit.”

Source:

https://cqi.inf.usi.ch/qic/wheeler.pdf

Meaning: reality arises from information.

But from a systems perspective, one might invert this:

Information arises from structure.

Not as stored bits —

but as reconstructable patterns within constraint networks.


Self-Verifying Structures

In software systems, resilience often comes from:

  • redundancy
  • checksums
  • error correction
  • distributed consensus

Structures that verify themselves remain stable despite noise.

Applied cosmically:

Some patterns may persist not because they are stored,

but because the universe’s laws continuously regenerate them.


Noise, Filtering, and What We Might Be Missing

Engineers filter noise aggressively.

Signal processing removes drift, irregularity, statistical anomalies.

But what if meaningful structure hides within long-term stability?

What if information is embedded in what does not change?

Then:

The most meaningful patterns may not look like signals at all.

They may appear as:

  • noise
  • drift
  • irregularity

Which introduces a subtle risk:

We might be filtering out the very thing we are trying to understand.


Stability Instead of Visibility

We search for what stands out.

But maybe we should search for what refuses to change.

In a dynamic universe, extreme stability is not trivial.

The better question might be:

What is too stable to be accidental?


Orientation Instead of Storage

If information is reconstructable, its value depends on discoverability — not location.

This reframes the entire paradigm.

Information may not be stored.

It may be made findable through structure.


The Universe as an Index

Which leads to the central idea:

The universe may function less like storage

and more like an index system.

Where information is:

  • not locally stored
  • structurally embedded
  • relationally encoded
  • reconstructable under the right constraints

An index does not contain the full data.

It allows it to be found.


Anchors and Structural References

We already use stable cosmic objects as reference systems.

NASA has explored navigation using pulsars:

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/space-communications/navigation-using-pulsars/

Research into technosignatures suggests expanding our search beyond explicit signals toward persistent structures:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.08681

Stable patterns may act as anchors within a larger informational fabric.


What This Idea Does Not Claim

To stay grounded:

  • no artificial black holes
  • no hidden civilizations
  • no deliberate encoding

This is not a conspiracy model.

It is a structural reframing.


Conclusion

Perhaps the limitation is conceptual.

We are looking for information as an object.

But it may be a property of structure.


Final Thought

As developers, we often ask:

Do we store something — or compute it?

The more advanced the system, the more the answer becomes:

Don’t store it. Make it reconstructable.

Maybe the same applies to the universe.

Maybe information is not what sits somewhere —

but what can always be reconstructed from structure.

And maybe understanding begins there:

Not with receiving.

But with reconstructing.

Top comments (0)