The nature of reality and its relationship to information has emerged as one of the most profound questions in contemporary physics and philosophy. John Archibald Wheeler’s revolutionary proposition that “it from bit”—that all physical entities derive their existence from binary information—has fundamentally challenged our understanding of the material world. ¹ More recently, Federico Faggin, inventor of the microprocessor, has reformulated this concept as “it from qubit,” arguing that quantum information, rather than classical information, provides the foundational substrate of reality.² This paper examines both formulations, their philosophical implications, and their relevance to consciousness studies, offering a comprehensive analysis of how these information-theoretic approaches reshape our understanding of existence itself.
Wheeler’s “It from Bit”: Origins and Meaning
John Wheeler first introduced his “it from bit” concept at a Santa Fe Institute conference in spring 1989, later formalizing it in his landmark paper “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links.” ³ Wheeler’s most definitive statement appears in this work:
It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe. ⁴
This radical reconceptualization proposed that “every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.” ⁵ Wheeler’s vision extended beyond mere metaphor, asserting that information constitutes the fundamental substrate from which physical reality emerges.
The philosophical implications of Wheeler’s framework were profound. He outlined four “inescapable conclusions” that challenged the foundations of physics: first, that “the world cannot be a giant machine, ruled by any preestablished continuum physical law”; second, that “there is no such thing at the microscopic level as space or time or spacetime continuum”; third, that quantum wave functions “provide mere continuum idealizations” that “conceal the information-theoretic source from which they derive”; and fourth, that nothing is “closer to primordial than the elementary quantum phenomenon.”⁶
Central to Wheeler’s conception was the notion of a “participatory universe” in which observer-participancy plays an active role in bringing reality into being. As he famously stated, “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” ⁷ This led to his development of the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP), which suggested that “we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.” ⁸
Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment provided empirical support for these ideas, demonstrating that decisions about measurement made after a particle has passed through an experimental apparatus can retroactively determine whether it behaved as a wave or particle. ⁹ This suggested that observation doesn’t merely reveal pre-existing properties but actively participates in creating them.
Faggin’s “It from Qubit” Reformulation
Federico Faggin has explicitly reformulated Wheeler’s concept for the quantum age. In discussing Wheeler’s contribution, Faggin stated:
So you remember probably about John Wheeler, you know, it from bit. Yeah, he had the original intuition that information had to be more profound, more deeper than matter. It from bit. So the bit was deeper, but he should have said it from qubit, but never mind, because the deeper information is quantum information. And D’Ariano and his collaborators prove that you can derive quantum physics from quantum information. ¹⁰
This reformulation is grounded in rigorous mathematical physics. Faggin’s collaboration with physicist Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano has produced a formal framework demonstrating that quantum mechanics can be derived entirely from quantum information principles. ¹¹ Their 2020 paper “Hard Problem and Free Will: an information-theoretical approach” proposes that “quantum-information-based panpsychism, with classical physics supervening on quantum physics, quantum physics supervening on quantum information, and quantum information supervening on consciousness.” ¹²
Faggin’s Quantum Information Panpsychism (QIP) theory makes several bold claims. First, it proposes that consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent from brain activity. Second, it suggests that quantum fields themselves are conscious at an elementary level. Third, it argues that free will manifests through quantum indeterminacy. Fourth, it conceives of the body as a “quantum-classical machine” operated “top-down” by consciousness. ¹³
The theoretical foundation rests on two key quantum theorems: the no-cloning theorem, which states that pure quantum states cannot be reproduced, and Holevo’s theorem, which limits measurable information to one classical bit per qubit. ¹⁴ From these, Faggin concludes that “no classical machine can ever be conscious given that classical information is reproducible (program and data can be copied perfectly), while the quantum state is private.” ¹⁵
Classical Bits versus Quantum Bits: Fundamental Differences
The transition from Wheeler’s classical bits to Faggin’s quantum bits represents more than a technical update—it fundamentally alters the ontological implications of information-based reality. Classical bits exist in definite states of 0 or 1, are deterministic, can be perfectly copied, and scale linearly (n bits represent one of 2ⁿ states).¹⁶ Their measurement does not disturb their state, and they process information locally and sequentially.
Quantum bits (qubits) exhibit radically different properties. They can exist in superposition states, mathematically represented as |ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩, where α and β are complex probability amplitudes. ¹⁷ This allows qubits to represent multiple states simultaneously until measured. They exhibit entanglement—quantum correlations that defy classical explanation—and their measurement necessarily disturbs their state, causing wavefunction collapse. ¹⁸ Crucially, n qubits can represent superpositions of all 2ⁿ classical states simultaneously, enabling exponential information processing capabilities. ¹⁹
These differences have profound philosophical implications. Classical information is public and reproducible, while quantum information is inherently private and unique to each system. ²⁰ As Faggin emphasizes, this privacy of quantum states may be essential for subjective experience: “Quantum information can represent qualia (subjective experiences), while classical information is purely symbolic, without intrinsic meaning.”²¹
Consciousness and Quantum Information
The relationship between quantum information and consciousness has generated significant theoretical development and controversy. Faggin’s theory proposes that consciousness requires the unique properties of quantum information—particularly its privacy and non-reproducibility—to generate meaning from information. ²² He argues that “physics, the information in physics has no meaning. And the problem with the current world view is that if you start with this type of information, there is no meaning, then you cannot conclude that the universe is without meaning and purpose just because you have started that way.”²³
Other quantum theories of consciousness have emerged alongside Faggin’s work. The Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory of Penrose and Hameroff proposes that consciousness arises from quantum processes in neuronal microtubules. ²⁴ Henry Stapp’s quantum interactive dualism suggests that conscious mental acts correspond to quantum state reductions. ²⁵ These theories, while different in specifics, share the intuition that classical physics cannot adequately explain consciousness.
Critics, however, point to significant challenges. Max Tegmark’s influential calculation suggested that quantum coherence in the brain would last only about 10⁻¹² seconds—far too brief to influence neural processes occurring on millisecond timescales. ²⁶ This “warm, wet, and noisy” argument remains a central objection to quantum consciousness theories.
Academic Reception and Critical Analysis
Wheeler’s “it from bit” has achieved significant influence in physics and philosophy. Anton Zeilinger, a leading quantum physicist, interprets it as emphasizing information’s role in defining reality rather than claiming reality is information: “My interpretation [of ‘it from bit’] is that in order to define reality, one has to take into account the role of information: mainly the fact that whatever we do in science is based on information which we receive by whatever means.”²⁷
Critical responses have highlighted several philosophical challenges. William Dembski argues that Wheeler conflates measurement requiring information with observers creating reality through measurement. ²⁸ Bruce Gordon questions how observers who make measurements could have come to exist within Wheeler’s framework—a circularity problem that plagues many information-based ontologies. ²⁹
Faggin’s quantum information approach has received mixed academic reception. While his collaboration with D’Ariano provides mathematical rigor, mainstream physics remains largely skeptical of consciousness-based interpretations of quantum mechanics. ³⁰ The theory has found more receptive audiences in interdisciplinary consciousness studies and philosophy of mind rather than core physics journals.³¹
Jennifer Nielsen’s recent analysis suggests that Wheeler’s classical information approach may be insufficient post-Aspect experiment, arguing that the universe may arise from quantum entanglement (“quanglement”) rather than classical yes/no coding. ³² This critique aligns with Faggin’s reformulation, suggesting a convergence toward quantum rather than classical information as fundamental.
Conclusion
The evolution from Wheeler’s “it from bit” to Faggin’s “it from qubit” represents a profound shift in our understanding of reality’s information-theoretic foundations. Wheeler’s revolutionary insight that information, not matter, constitutes the fundamental substrate of existence opened new avenues for understanding the relationship between observer and observed, measurement and reality. His participatory universe concept challenged the notion of a pre-existing, observer-independent reality.
Faggin’s reformulation advances this framework into the quantum realm, arguing that the unique properties of quantum information—superposition, entanglement, and the privacy of quantum states—are essential for understanding both physical reality and consciousness. By grounding his theory in established quantum information principles while extending them to consciousness, Faggin offers a scientifically rigorous yet philosophically radical vision.
The implications extend beyond academic philosophy. If consciousness and quantum information are as intimately connected as Faggin suggests, this could reshape our approach to artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and fundamental physics. While significant challenges remain—particularly the decoherence problem and the need for empirical validation—these information-theoretic approaches continue to generate productive research programs.
As we advance into an era where quantum technologies become practical realities, the distinction between classical and quantum information takes on new significance. Whether reality ultimately derives from bit or qubit, Wheeler and Faggin have fundamentally transformed how we conceive the relationship between information, consciousness, and existence. Their work reminds us that at the deepest level, the universe may be not a collection of things but a web of information—classical or quantum—from which all things emerge.
Notes
- John A. Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links,” in Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Tokyo: Physical Society of Japan, 1990), 354.
- Federico Faggin, interview transcript, Essentia Foundation, accessed via Coconote.app, 2024.
- Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum,” 354-368.
- Ibid., 355.
- Ibid., 356.
- Ibid., 358-359.
- John A. Wheeler, “Genesis and Observership,” in Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, ed. Robert E. Butts and Jaakko Hintikka (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1977), 27.
- John A. Wheeler and Kenneth Ford, Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998), 234.
- John A. Wheeler, “The ‘Past’ and the ‘Delayed-Choice’ Double-Slit Experiment,” in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, ed. A. R. Marlow (New York: Academic Press, 1978), 9-48.
- Faggin, interview transcript.
- Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano and Federico Faggin, “Hard Problem and Free Will: an information-theoretical approach,” arXiv:2012.06580 (2020): 1.
- Ibid., 2.
- Federico Faggin, Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature (Carlsbad, CA: Essentia Books, 2024), 137.
- D’Ariano and Faggin, “Hard Problem and Free Will,” 5.
- Faggin, Irreducible, 142.
- Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 13.
- Ibid., 13-14.
- Ibid., 94-97.
- Ibid., 15.
- Faggin, Irreducible, 145.
- Faggin, interview transcript.
- D’Ariano and Faggin, “Hard Problem and Free Will,” 8.
- Faggin, interview transcript.
- Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory,” Physics of Life Reviews 11, no. 1 (2014): 39-78.
- Henry P. Stapp, Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer (Berlin: Springer, 2007), 23-45.
- Max Tegmark, “Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes,” Physical Review E 61, no. 4 (2000): 4194.
- Anton Zeilinger, “Why the quantum? ‘It’ from ‘bit’? A participatory universe?” in Science and Ultimate Reality, ed. John D. Barrow, Paul C. W. Davies, and Charles L. Harper Jr. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 216.
- William A. Dembski, “How Informational Realism Dissolves the Mind–Body Problem,” Religions 12, no. 1 (2021): 34.
- Bruce Gordon, commentary quoted in Robert Thomas, “It from Bit?” Plus Magazine, FQXi Foundational Questions Institute, 2015.
- Harald Atmanspacher, “Quantum Approaches to Consciousness,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2020 Edition, ed. Edward N. Zalta.
- Ali Barzegar et al., “The Quantum Mechanics of ‘It from Bit,'” Foundations of Science 24 (2019): 387-403.
- Jennifer Nielsen, “Is Bit It? On the Theme of Wheeler’s It From Bit,” arXiv:1903.11406 (2019): 12.
Bibliography
Aguirre, Anthony, Brendan Foster, and Zeeya Merali, eds. It From Bit or Bit From It?: On Physics and Information. Cham: Springer, 2015.
Atmanspacher, Harald. “Quantum Approaches to Consciousness.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2020 Edition. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/qt-consciousness/.
Barzegar, Ali, et al. “The Quantum Mechanics of ‘It from Bit.'” Foundations of Science 24 (2019): 387-403.
D’Ariano, Giacomo Mauro, and Federico Faggin. “Hard Problem and Free Will: an information-theoretical approach.” arXiv:2012.06580 (2020).
D’Ariano, Giacomo Mauro, and Federico Faggin. “Hard Problem and Free Will: an information-theoretical approach.” In Artificial Intelligence Versus Natural Intelligence, 145-192. Cham: Springer, 2022.
Dembski, William A. “How Informational Realism Dissolves the Mind–Body Problem.” Religions 12, no. 1 (2021): 34.
Faggin, Federico. Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature. Carlsbad, CA: Essentia Books, 2024.
Faggin, Federico. Silicon: From the Invention of the Microprocessor to the New Science of Consciousness. Cardiff, CA: Waterside Productions, 2021.
Faggin, Federico. “Possibilities are quantum.” Possibility Studies & Society 1, no. 1-2 (2023): 111-113.
Faggin, Federico. Interview transcript. Essentia Foundation. Accessed via Coconote.app, 2024.
Nielsen, Jennifer. “Is Bit It? On the Theme of Wheeler’s It From Bit.” arXiv:1903.11406 (2019).
Nielsen, Michael A., and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Penrose, Roger. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Penrose, Roger. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Penrose, Roger, and Stuart Hameroff. “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.” Physics of Life Reviews 11, no. 1 (2014): 39-78.
Stapp, Henry P. Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer. Berlin: Springer, 2007.
Tegmark, Max. “Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes.” Physical Review E 61, no. 4 (2000): 4194-4206.
Thomas, Robert. “It from Bit?” Plus Magazine. FQXi Foundational Questions Institute, 2015.
Wheeler, John A. “Genesis and Observership.” In Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, edited by Robert E. Butts and Jaakko Hintikka, 3-33. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1977.
Wheeler, John A. “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links.” In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 354-368. Tokyo: Physical Society of Japan, 1990.
Wheeler, John A. “Recent Thinking about the Nature of the Physical World: It from Bit.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 655 (1992): 349-364.
Wheeler, John A. “The ‘Past’ and the ‘Delayed-Choice’ Double-Slit Experiment.” In Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, edited by A. R. Marlow, 9-48. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Wheeler, John A., and Kenneth Ford. Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998.
Zeilinger, Anton. “Why the quantum? ‘It’ from ‘bit’? A participatory universe?” In Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology, and Complexity, edited by John D. Barrow, Paul C. W. Davies, and Charles L. Harper Jr., 201-220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.