CONVERGENCE

IΔF
THE INFORMATION FIELD

Philosophy, and Theology in Convergence

S C SAYLES

3
Author: S C SAYLES
Cover design: S C SAYLES
ISBN: 9798299115482
Publisher: Evolsiay Tulip
© S C SAYLES
4
5
This is a sample of the book (chapters 2 &3 )

This book can be purchased from Amazon

6
 Contents

Title Page

Introduction 9
Chapte Historical 17
r1 Foundations of the
Scientific Worldview
Section 2: The Relativity Revolution 22
Section 3: The Quantum Revolution 26
Section 4: From Particles to Fields 32
Section 5: The Information Turn in Science 37
Section 6: Entanglement, Nonlocality, and Quantum 43
Information
Chapte Defining Information 63
r2 – Between Physics
and Philosophy
Section 2: Philosophical Genealogies of Information 70
(From Plato to Kant)
Section 3: Contemporary Philosophies of Information 78
(From Wiener to Floridi)
Section 4: The Limits of Reductionism (Why 84
Information Cannot Be Merely Material)
Section 5: Information and Ontology (Does 89
Information also have Being?)
Section 6: Knowing Through the Field (Epistemology 94
and the Human Mind)
Section 7: The Problem of Distortion (False 99
Information and the Antithesis)
Chapte The Logos as the 118
r3 Ground of Meaning

Section 2: The Logos as Ontological Anchor 123

Section 3: Light as the Metaphor of Revelation 129
Section 4: Meaning as Given, not Constructed 134
Section 5: Creation as Teleological Instruction 138
Section 6: Creation as Speech 143

7
Section 7: The Field Oriented Toward Fulfillment 147
Section 8 :The Trinity and the Field of Glory 153

Chapte The Necessity of 172

r4 Convergence

Section 2: Logos as the Center of Convergence 178

Section 3: Logos as the Center of Convergence 186
Section 4:The Method of Convergence 193
Section 4: The Triune Shape of Convergence 199
Section 5: The Word and the Architecture of Reality 205
Section 6: The Word and the Temple of the Cosmos 211
Section 7: The Word and Covenant 217
Section 8: The Word and Eschatological Fulfillment 224
Section 9: The Word and the Beatific Vision 231
Section 10: The Word and the New Creation 239
Section 11: The Word and Time Transfigured 244
Section 12: The Word and the Final Unity of Science, 249
Philosophy, and Theology
Section 13: The Logos and the Final Judgment of 256
Knowledge
Section 14: The Word and the Restoration of All 262
Things
Section 15: The Logos and the Consummation of 268
Covenant
Section 16: The Logos as Judge and Bridegroom 274
Section 17: The Logos and the New Jerusalem 279
Section 18: The Logos and Final Judgment 285
Section 19: The Logos and Consummation 290
Closing Summary and Conclusion 296

Bibliography 302

8
Introduction: The Hidden Code of Reality

For most of human history, reality was thought

to be made of STUFF. The earliest natural
philosophers of Greece sought a single
substance underlying all things. Thales of
Miletus proposed that everything was, in its
essence, water. Heraclitus argued that fire,
ever-changing, was the true arche. Democritus
and Leucippus speculated that indivisible
particles—ATOMOI—formed the fabric of the
cosmos. Though their answers differed, their
assumption was the same: reality is composed
of matter arranged in space.
This assumption carried Western science for
millennia. Isaac Newton described the world as
a vast, clockwork machine, governed by
universal laws of motion and gravitation. The
Newtonian cosmos was deterministic: if one
could know the position and velocity of every
particle, one could predict the future with
absolute certainty. Pierre-Simon Laplace
envisioned a perfect intellect—later called
“Laplace’s demon”—that could foresee all
events, given complete information about the
present state of the universe. Matter was
primary; energy and motion were its
properties.
The Industrial Age crowned this vision. Physics
explained the heavens with precision,
chemistry unraveled elements into predictable
reactions, and biology was thought to be little
more than complex mechanics. The cosmos was
9
orderly, rational, and comprehensible—but also
impersonal, a machine indifferent to meaning
or purpose.
But the twentieth century overturned this
picture. Einstein’s theories of relativity
revealed that space and time were not absolute
containers but flexible, interwoven dimensions.
Quantum mechanics shattered determinism,
showing that at the subatomic level, particles
behaved unpredictably, their properties only
probabilistically defined until observed. The
“solid” atom dissolved into a web of energy
fields, probabilities, and mathematical
descriptions. Matter, once thought
foundational, gave way to deeper structures.
Then came another revolution, quieter but no
less profound. Scientists began to realize that
beneath energy and matter lies something
more fundamental: information.
John Archibald Wheeler, a leading physicist
who worked alongside Einstein and mentored
Richard Feynman, crystallized this idea in a
simple phrase: “It from Bit.” By this he meant
that every particle, every field of force, every
element of the physical world derives its very
existence from immaterial information—binary
choices, yes/no distinctions, the fundamental
units of order. “It from Bit” was not a casual
metaphor; Wheeler argued that the universe is
participatory, dependent on information-
bearing acts of measurement and observation.

10
Reality, at its most basic, is not matter but
information.

The Rise of the Information Paradigm

This recognition has reshaped physics, biology,

neuroscience, and cosmology.
In physics, information plays a central role in
the most perplexing puzzles. Quantum
entanglement demonstrates that particles can
share states instantaneously across vast
distances, suggesting that their informational
connection transcends space-time. The black
hole information paradox—posed by Stephen
Hawking—raised the question of whether
information is lost forever when matter falls
into a singularity. Leonard Susskind and
others responded with the holographic
principle: information is not destroyed, but
encoded on the event horizon. This principle,
now widely studied, implies that the three-
dimensional universe itself may be holographic,
an emergent projection of information encoded
on a two-dimensional surface.
In biology, the discovery of DNA revealed that
life is organized not merely by chemistry but by
code. Francis Crick famously called it the
“sequence hypothesis”: that the arrangement of
nucleotides carries instructions for building
proteins. Genes are transcribed, edited, and
translated in processes analogous to language
and computation. Epigenetics has shown that
11
even beyond the gene sequence, cells carry
layers of informational regulation that govern
expression. Life is not just matter in motion; it
is matter structured by information.
In neuroscience, the brain is often described as
an information-processing system, with
neurons transmitting signals much like circuits.
Yet consciousness itself eludes reduction to
mere computation. Integrated Information
Theory (IIT), proposed by Giulio Tononi,
suggests that consciousness is identical with
the integration of information across a system.
Others, like Roger Penrose and Stuart
Hameroff, argue for quantum processes in
microtubules as the basis for consciousness—
processes inherently informational in
character. However the details are worked
out, it is increasingly difficult to think of
consciousness apart from information.
In cosmology, the fine-tuning of the universe
points in the same direction. The constants of
physics—gravitational strength, the
cosmological constant, the ratio of fundamental
forces—are calibrated with extraordinary
precision, as if “coded” to allow for life. The
cosmic microwave background, the oldest light
in the universe, is an informational imprint of
the early cosmos, carrying data about its
structure and origins. Entropy, the measure of
disorder, is also a measure of information,
linking thermodynamics to the arrow of time.

12
The pattern is unmistakable: wherever science
presses to the foundations, it finds information.

But What Is Information?

Here we confront the central problem. Science

can measure information, transmit it, and
calculate its entropy. Shannon’s mathematical
theory of communication revolutionized
technology by quantifying information as the
reduction of uncertainty. In Shannon’s
model, a string of random bits has maximal
information content. Yet such a string conveys
no meaning.
This exposes a limitation: information in the
physical or statistical sense is not the same as
meaning. Noise and nonsense may carry high
informational content, but without
interpretation they signify nothing. Human
beings, however, do not live by noise. We live
by words, truths, messages that can be
understood and trusted.
Thus the scientific revolution raises questions
that science alone cannot answer:
 What is the nature of information itself?
 Can information exist apart from a mind to
interpret it?
 Is information merely symbolic, or is it
ontological—part of the very fabric of
being?
13
These questions lead inevitably into philosophy.

Philosophy’s Long Struggle with the

Invisible

Philosophers, long before Shannon or Wheeler,

wrestled with the reality behind appearances.
Plato envisioned a world of Forms—perfect,
immaterial patterns that give shape to visible
things. Aristotle distinguished between matter
(HYLE) and form (MORPHE), where form is the
organizing principle that makes matter
intelligible.
In the modern era, George Berkeley argued
that to be is to be perceived (ESSE EST
PERCIPI). Reality is not inert matter but a web
of perceptions in the mind of God.
Immanuel Kant, though rejecting Berkeley’s
immaterialism, insisted that reality as we know
it is structured by categories of understanding,
again pointing to an informational scaffolding.
Martin Heidegger later reframed Being itself as
a kind of disclosure or revealing, an opening in
which beings become intelligible.
Though they lacked the vocabulary of “bits”
and “codes,” these thinkers intuited what
science now reveals: that reality is not
exhausted by material description. It is
ordered, structured, intelligible. It bears the
marks of information.

14
Theology’s Claim: The Word at the
Beginning

Theology offers the boldest claim. It declares

that at the root of the universe is not matter,
nor energy, nor even abstract law, but a Word.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth… And God said, ‘Let there be light.’”
(Gen. 1:1,3). Creation is a speech-act. The
cosmos begins not with silent forces, but with
divine utterance.
The New Testament sharpens the point: “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God… All things
were made through him, and without him was
not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1–
3). The Greek term is LOGOS—meaning reason,
discourse, meaning, pattern, word. The Logos
is not an abstraction but a Person: the eternal
Son, Jesus Christ.
Where physics speaks of information, theology
speaks of Logos. Where science finds code,
theology finds Word. The convergence is
profound. The hidden code of reality is not
impersonal, but personal; not meaningless, but
meaningful; not blind, but intelligent.

15
A Journey in Four Acts

This book unfolds as a narrative in four parts:

1. Science – We will explore how physics,
biology, neuroscience, and cosmology all
point toward information as the
fundamental constituent of reality.
2. Philosophy – We will examine what
information is, and how the history of
thought has prepared the way for its
recognition as an ontological category.
3. Theology – We will discover how the
Logos is the ground of the Information
Field, how sin is its distortion, and how
redemption in Christ restores truth and
coherence.
4. Convergence – The claim that science,
philosophy, and theology must be
integrated is not an artificial
harmonization imposed from outside; it is
a necessity inscribed into the very fabric
of reality by the Logos.

Why This Matters

We live in an age drowning in information but

starving for meaning. Data flows endlessly, yet
truth is contested. We have the technology to
transmit messages at light speed, but little
clarity about what is true or good. If reality
16
itself is informational, then truth is not an
optional construct—it is woven into the fabric
of being. To align with truth is to live in
harmony with the Logos; to distort truth is to
fall into entropy and disintegration.
The question, then, is not academic. It is
existential. For if the Information Field is real,
and if it is the self-expression of the Logos,
then every life is already entangled in it. Every
thought, every act, every word participates in a
field that is ultimately personal. To live well is
to live in truth. To live falsely is to unravel.
This is the claim of the book you now hold: that
science, philosophy, and theology converge on
the same reality; that the universe is not a
meaningless machine but a meaningful field;
and that at the heart of that field is the Word
who was in the beginning, and who even now
speaks.

17
Chapter 2 – Philosophy

Chapter 2 Section 1: Defining Information

– Between Physics and Philosophy

The first chapter of this book surveyed the

mounting evidence in physics, cosmology, and
biology that INFORMATION IS
FUNDAMENTAL. But that conclusion, however
striking, leaves a deeper question untouched:
what exactly is meant by “information”?
When scientists assert that black holes
conserve information, or that DNA encodes the
structure of life, or that the quantum state is
essentially informational, they are speaking
with a high degree of technical precision in one
sense, and yet, in another, with profound
ambiguity. For “information” has never meant a
single thing. It shifts its meaning depending on
the discipline, the context, and the level of
analysis.
The danger is clear: if “information” is left
undefined, the claim that the world is made of
information risks collapsing into a slogan. To
carry weight, the assertion requires
philosophical depth. If information is to be the
foundation of reality itself, then its ontological
character — its status as a mode of being —
must be established.

18
The Problem of Definition

Claude Shannon’s 1948 paper, “A

Mathematical Theory of Communication,”
provided what remains the most influential
definition of information. He defined
information in terms of probability
distributions: the information content of a
message is measured by the degree of
uncertainty it resolves. If a coin toss is
perfectly random, the result carries one bit of
information. If a message is predictable, it
carries none.
This definition is mathematically elegant, and
its practical applications have been
revolutionary: every modern communication
system, from smartphones to satellites, rests
upon Shannon’s theory. But the very precision
that makes Shannon’s definition useful also
narrows its scope. It says nothing about
meaning. The word LOVE carries the same
Shannon information as the word HATE if the
statistical structure is identical.
Nor does Shannon’s framework address
ontology. Information, for Shannon, is an
abstract measure of uncertainty, not a
metaphysical ground. This is no criticism —
Shannon himself disclaimed any such ambition.
His theory was intentionally about syntax, not
semantics, and certainly not metaphysics.
But if science now invokes “information” as the
deepest layer of reality, then it is forced,

19
whether it wishes to or not, into questions of
meaning and ontology. What kind of thing is
information? Can it exist apart from
interpreters? Does it require mind?

2. Competing Contemporary
Conceptions

Contemporary discourse offers several

competing definitions of information, each
illuminating yet incomplete.
 Information as Physical State. In
physics, information is often defined as
the arrangement of physical systems: the
spin of an electron, the alignment of
magnetic domains on a hard drive, the
state of a neuron firing. This treats
information as a property of matter. Yet
the problem is that information appears to
transcend matter. The same message can
be instantiated in ink, pixels, or
soundwaves. The medium changes; the
information does not.
 Information as Formal Structure.
Another approach identifies information
with form or structure. A melody, for
example, is informational order that can
be preserved across instruments, scores,
or performances. Here information is not
tied to substance but to pattern. This view
echoes Plato’s theory of Forms and
Aristotle’s hylomorphism. But it raises the
20
 question: what is the ontological status of
form? If information is formal, then it must
exist independently of its instances.
 Information as Relation. A third
definition emphasizes correlation.
Information exists when one system
reduces uncertainty about another. For
example, a weather vane conveys
information because its orientation is
correlated with the wind. This relational
view fits well with quantum mechanics,
where entangled particles embody pure
informational correlations. Yet this model
depends on a context of interpretation:
information is about something. Without
an interpreter, the correlation itself seems
mute.
Each approach captures something essential,
but each leaves gaps. If information is physical,
it cannot explain semantic universality. If it is
formal, it risks becoming a disembodied
abstraction. If it is relational, it depends upon
context that itself requires explanation.

From Physics to Philosophy

It is here that philosophy becomes unavoidable.

For physics can describe how information
behaves, but not why it exists. It can model
correlations, but not account for meaning. It
can measure entropy, but not explain
intelligibility.
21
When John Wheeler famously proposed “It from
Bit” — the notion that every physical entity
derives its existence from informational
distinctions — he raised a metaphysical
question without answering it: what is a “bit” in
the absence of mind? Is a bit simply a yes/no
distinction, or does it require an observer to
interpret it?
Philosophically, this question cuts to the root of
ontology. If the universe is built upon
information, then the very definition of
information determines the definition of reality.

Ontological Turn

This is precisely the move that S. C. Sayles

undertakes in his work. While many physicists
and philosophers stop at the edge of the
problem, Sayles presses into it, arguing that
information cannot be understood apart from
its Logos-ground.
 In BEING AND NOTHINGNESS: THE
LOGOS-CENTRED ONTOLOGY, Sayles
contends that being itself is informational
participation in the divine Word. Existence
is not inert but intelligible, because it is
spoken into being. Information is not an
accidental property of matter; it is the
very texture of creation.
 In THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIND,
he expands this to anthropology.
22
 Consciousness is not reducible to neurons;
it is the creaturely capacity to interface
with the Information Field. Human
thought is an act of participation in divine
intelligibility.
 In ENTROPY OF THE SOUL, Sayles
interprets evil as informational distortion.
Just as thermodynamic entropy measures
disorder, so sin is the disintegration of
God’s informational order — a parasite
upon being itself.
 In THE SECOND SHAMAY, he develops a
metaphysical cosmology, locating the
“second heaven” as the domain of mind
and spirit: the informational field of
perception and thought, which may be
illumined by God or darkened by sin.
In each of these works, Sayles’ central claim
remains consistent: information is ontological
and theological. It is not merely a pattern,
relation, or statistical measure. It is
participation in the Logos.

The Semantic Problem

One of the greatest philosophical challenges for

a purely scientific account of information is
what is often called the “semantic problem.” If
information is simply a measure of correlations,
how does meaning arise?

23
A string of ones and zeros has no intrinsic
significance. It becomes meaningful only when
interpreted. But who, or what, is the
interpreter at the foundational level of reality?
Here reductionist materialism falters. To say
that meaning “emerges” from complexity does
not resolve the issue. Emergence presupposes
that meaning is latent in matter, waiting to
appear. But if matter is blind, how can it carry
meaning at all?
Sayles addresses this problem directly. For
him, information is meaningful from the start,
because it is grounded in the Logos. Creation is
not a meaningless sequence of symbols that
later acquires meaning through human
cognition. It is intelligible because it is spoken.
The semantic dimension is primordial. The
interpreter is God Himself, the eternal Word.

The Triadic Structure of Information

A helpful way to frame this is to note that

information has a triadic structure:
1. Syntax – the arrangement of symbols or
patterns (Shannon’s level).
2. Semantics – the meaning conveyed by the
patterns.
3. Pragmatics – the effect or action
produced by the meaning.

24
Science excels at describing syntax:
probabilities, entropy, and coding efficiency.
But without semantics, syntax is inert. And
without pragmatics, semantics is idle.
Theologically, Sayles argues, this triad mirrors
the Trinitarian structure of reality. Syntax
corresponds to the Spirit’s ordering work,
semantics to the Logos’ intelligibility, and
pragmatics to the Father’s purpose and will.
Information is triune in its very essence,
because it flows from the Triune God.

Why Philosophy is Necessary

The consequence of this analysis is clear: if we

stop at Shannon’s definition, the claim that “the
universe is information” becomes a hollow
tautology. But if we extend information into the
philosophical and theological domains, it
becomes a profound ontology.
Information is not mere probability, not mere
form, not mere relation. It is meaning, relation,
and purpose grounded in Being itself. And
Being, as Sayles insists, is not abstract, but
personal — the Logos through whom all things
were made.

25
This raises the central question for Part II: how
have philosophers throughout history
understood the nature of form, order, and
intelligibility — realities that modern science
now describes as “information”? From Plato’s
Forms to Aristotle’s hylomorphism, from
Augustine’s divine ideas to Kant’s categories,
the history of philosophy can be read as a
prologue to the information turn.
The next section therefore traces this
genealogy. To understand information, we must
understand its precursors. To interpret the
scientific revolution, we must recover the
philosophical inheritance.

Chapter 2 Section 2: Philosophical

Genealogies of Information (From Plato to
Kant)

If science today speaks of the universe as

information, this is not an entirely novel idea.
While the language is modern, the underlying
intuition—that reality is fundamentally
structured, ordered, and intelligible—has deep
roots in philosophy. From Plato’s vision of
eternal Forms to Kant’s categories of the
understanding, Western thought has wrestled
with the question: what makes the world
intelligible?

26
To trace the genealogy of “information,” we
must attend not to the terminology but to the
substance: ideas of form, order, meaning,
and relational structure. These were the
seeds that, under the pressure of modern
science, would grow into the contemporary
notion of an INFORMATION FIELD.

Plato: The Realm of Forms as Archetypal

Information

Plato (427–347 BC) stands at the fountainhead

of this tradition. In dialogues such as the
REPUBLIC, the PHAEDO, and the TIMAEUS,
he describes a reality that is twofold: the world
of appearances, fleeting and changing, and the
realm of Forms, eternal and unchanging.
For Plato, the Forms are the true reality. They
are perfect patterns or archetypes—justice
itself, beauty itself, the circle itself. Sensible
things participate in these Forms imperfectly,
like shadows cast upon a wall. The Form of the
Circle, for example, is perfect and eternal;
every drawn circle is a deficient copy.
What are Forms if not a kind of information?
They are not material, but they structure the
material. They are not temporal, but they give
time-bound things their intelligibility. The
realm of Forms is, in effect, an informational
realm: an eternal order from which the sensible
world derives its structure.
27
In this sense, Plato anticipates the claim that
information underlies matter. His cosmology in
the TIMAEUS portrays a Demiurge (craftsman)
who shapes the world by looking to the Forms
as a template. Matter by itself is chaotic; it
becomes cosmos (ordered world) only through
the imprint of intelligible structure.
S. C. Sayles has argued that this Platonic vision
contains a proto-theological truth: creation is
patterned on the eternal Logos. While Plato
lacked the revelation of Christ, his intuition
that the visible world is informed by an
intelligible archetype gestures toward the same
reality that later theology would identify with
the divine Word. In BEING AND
NOTHINGNESS, Sayles interprets Plato’s
Forms as an imperfect anticipation of the
informational ontology that reaches its
fulfillment in Christ, the Logos in whom all
patterns subsist.

Aristotle: Form and Hylomorphism

Aristotle (384–322 BC), Plato’s student,

rejected the separate existence of the Forms,
but he did not abandon the notion of form
itself. Instead, he developed the doctrine of
hylomorphism: every physical object is a
compound of matter (HYLE) and form
(MORPHE).

28
For Aristotle, form is the organizing principle
that makes matter intelligible. A block of
marble is matter; the statue within it is form.
Matter without form is indeterminate; form
without matter is abstract. Together they
constitute reality.
Crucially, Aristotle’s notion of form is not a
material property but a principle of
organization. This makes him a pivotal figure in
the genealogy of information. To say that a
thing’s essence is its form is to say that it is
defined by structure and intelligibility rather
than by raw substance.
In modern terms, Aristotle can be read as
saying that information (form) is not secondary
but constitutive. His METAPHYSICS insists that
“form is actuality”—the dynamic realization of
potential. Matter is mere possibility; form is the
principle that brings it into being.
Sayles draws upon this Aristotelian insight in
THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIND, where
he argues that the soul is not a material object
but a higher-dimensional form—informational
order that gives shape to the body’s matter.
Aristotle’s hylomorphism thus foreshadows the
claim that consciousness is irreducible to
matter because it is rooted in form, or what
Sayles identifies as informational structure
within the divine Field.

29
Augustine: Divine Ideas and the Logos

In the Christian tradition, Augustine of Hippo

(354–430 AD) transformed Platonic and
Aristotelian insights into a theological key. For
Augustine, the eternal Forms of Plato are not
independent abstractions but the ideas of God.
In DE IDEIS and DE TRINITATE, he argues
that all created things exist according to
patterns in the divine mind. These patterns are
the archetypes through which God created the
world.
Here the genealogy of information takes a
decisive turn. The Forms are no longer
impersonal abstractions; they are thoughts of
the divine Logos. The structure of the world is
informational precisely because it is intelligible
to God and through God.
Augustine also emphasized the illumination
of the human mind. Knowledge, for
Augustine, is possible because the mind
participates in divine light. Just as the eye sees
objects by the light of the sun, so the intellect
grasps truth by the light of God. Information is
not merely “out there”; it is accessible because
the human mind is itself patterned after the
Logos.
Sayles has explicitly identified Augustine as a
precursor to the Information Field model. In
BEYOND THE VEIL OF FLESH, he cites
Augustine’s doctrine of illumination as a
theological anticipation of the soul’s interface
30
with the Field: human perception is possible
because consciousness is already aligned with
divine informational order.

Aquinas: Analogia Entis and Form in

Creation

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) synthesized

Aristotelian hylomorphism with Christian
theology. In his SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, he
affirms that all creatures are composed of
matter and form, but their forms ultimately
derive from the creative act of God. Unlike
Aristotle’s autonomous cosmos, Aquinas insists
that form is given and sustained by God’s act of
creation.
For Aquinas, intelligibility pervades the cosmos
because creation participates analogically in
the being of God. This doctrine of the
ANALOGIA ENTIS (analogy of being) is crucial:
the reason information can bridge God and
creation is that created forms are genuine
reflections—though finite—of the divine
intelligibility.
In modern terms, we could say that the world is
informational because it is structured
analogically after the Word. Aquinas’ insistence
on the real participation of creatures in divine
intelligibility grounds the notion that the
Information Field is not an autonomous system
but a continual act of divine sustenance.
31
Sayles resonates with this Thomistic vision in
BEING AND NOTHINGNESS, though he
critiques Aquinas for not pressing the
informational dimension far enough. For
Sayles, the analogy of being is best understood
not as a vague metaphysical likeness but as an
informational participation: creation shares in
the Logos’ intelligibility because it is literally
spoken into informational existence.

Descartes and the Turn to Mind

With René Descartes (1596–1650), philosophy

shifted dramatically. His famous dictum,
COGITO ERGO SUM (“I think, therefore I am”),
placed consciousness at the foundation of
certainty. Reality, for Descartes, could be
doubted in every respect except for the
existence of the thinking subject.
This move foregrounded the problem of
representation: how can the mind’s ideas
correspond to the external world? The very
notion of information as a relation between
representation and reality emerges in
Cartesian epistemology. Ideas are
informational links between the subject and the
object.
Descartes also distinguished between res
extensa (extended substance, matter) and res
cogitans (thinking substance, mind). Though
dualistic, this framework opened the door to
32
understanding information as the bridge
between mental and material realms.
Sayles engages critically with Descartes in THE
ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIND, arguing that
while Descartes was right to elevate the mind,
he failed to grasp its ontological basis in the
Logos. Consciousness is not a separate
substance but a participation in the Information
Field, mediating between matter and divine
intelligibility.

Leibniz: Monads and the Pre-Established

Harmony

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716)

advanced a vision of reality that is deeply
informational. For him, the fundamental units
of existence were not particles of matter but
monads—simple, immaterial substances that
reflect the entire universe from their own
perspectives. Each monad is like a point of
information, a window on reality, pre-
programmed by God in a “pre-established
harmony.”
This is, in effect, a metaphysical information
theory. Monads do not interact causally, yet
each contains information about the whole,
coordinated by divine order. Reality, for
Leibniz, is an informational network
orchestrated by God.

33
Sayles has noted the resonance between
Leibniz’s monads and the modern concept of
consciousness as nodes within the Information
Field. In THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIND,
he interprets monads as metaphysical
precursors of the idea that each soul
participates in the Field, reflecting reality from
its own finite perspective, harmonized by the
Logos.

Kant: Categories and the Constitution of

Experience

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) brought this

genealogy to a critical turning point. In his
CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON, Kant argued
that the mind does not passively receive
information from the world but actively
structures it. Space, time, and the twelve
categories of the understanding (such as
causality and substance) are not derived from
experience but imposed by the mind to make
experience possible.
Kant thus shifted the conversation decisively:
information is not merely “out there” but also
“in here.” Reality as we experience it is shaped
by the categories of human cognition. The
world of appearances (phenomena) is
informationally constituted by the mind’s
activity, while the noumenal world (things-in-
themselves) remains unknowable.

34
Kant’s framework raises profound questions for
the philosophy of information. If the structures
of intelligibility are products of the mind, then
what grounds their universality? Why should
the categories imposed by finite human reason
correspond to the actual order of reality?
Sayles addresses this tension directly in BEING
AND NOTHINGNESS. He affirms Kant’s insight
that the mind actively structures experience,
but he insists that the categories of thought are
not arbitrary impositions. They are reliable
because they are patterned on the Logos.
Human cognition participates in divine
intelligibility, and thus its categories
correspond to reality. Information is not
confined within the subjective realm but is
anchored in the eternal Word.

Synthesis: From Forms to Fields

From Plato to Kant, the trajectory is clear.

Western philosophy has consistently
recognized that reality is structured,
intelligible, and form-based. Plato saw eternal
Forms; Aristotle identified form as actuality;
Augustine grounded forms in the mind of God;
Aquinas articulated analogy; Descartes and
Leibniz developed epistemological and
metaphysical accounts of representation and
order; Kant identified the constitutive role of
the mind.

35
In each case, the language differs, but the
intuition is constant: the world is not brute fact
but ordered meaning. It is, in a word,
informational.
Sayles interprets this entire genealogy as the
philosophical preparation for the doctrine of
the Information Field. What the ancients
intuited and the moderns analyzed,
contemporary science now confirms: reality is
structured by information. And yet, as Sayles
insists, the genealogy also shows that
information cannot be explained apart from the
Logos. The history of philosophy, like the
history of science, points beyond itself to the
divine Word who grounds intelligibility.

If this section has traced the genealogy of

information from Plato to Kant, the next task is
to examine contemporary philosophy of
information. Thinkers such as Norbert
Wiener, Gregory Bateson, and Luciano Floridi
have attempted to define information in
explicitly philosophical terms. How do their
accounts compare to the classical tradition? Do
they succeed in grounding information, or do
they fall into reductionism? And how does
Sayles’ Logos-centred ontology engage and
critique these modern theories?
It is to this contemporary debate that we now
turn.

36
Chapter 2 Section 3: Contemporary
Philosophies of Information (From Wiener
to Floridi)

The twentieth and twenty-first centuries saw

the rise of information not merely as a
technical concept in engineering, but as a
philosophical category. If Plato and Aristotle
prepared the groundwork by thinking in terms
of FORMS, and if Augustine and Aquinas
grounded those forms in God, the
contemporary era has sought to analyze
“information” itself as a central metaphysical
principle.
The story of this transition begins with
Norbert Wiener, passes through the
cybernetics revolution, expands with Gregory
Bateson’s anthropology of information, and
reaches a refined philosophical stage in the
work of Luciano Floridi, who has attempted to
construct an entire “Philosophy of
Information.” Each of these thinkers, in
different ways, raises the same question: can
information be understood as the fundamental
unit of reality, rather than simply as a measure
of communication or probability?

37
Norbert Wiener and the Birth of
Cybernetics

In 1948—the very same year Claude Shannon

published his MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF
COMMUNICATION—Norbert Wiener
introduced a different but complementary
revolution with his book CYBERNETICS:
CONTROL AND COMMUNICATION IN THE
ANIMAL AND THE MACHINE.
For Wiener, information was not only about the
transmission of signals but about the regulation
of systems. He emphasized feedback loops: the
way information guides behavior, corrects
errors, and sustains equilibrium. A thermostat,
for example, regulates temperature by
receiving information from its environment and
adjusting its behavior accordingly.
Wiener’s insight was that living systems and
mechanical systems alike could be
described in informational terms. The
distinction between biology and engineering
blurred: both were systems processing
information. This opened the door to treating
life itself as an informational process.
Philosophically, Wiener’s cybernetics
suggested that the essence of reality is neither
matter nor energy, but information and its
organization. As he put it:
“Information is information, not matter or
energy. No materialism which does not admit
this can survive at the present day.”
38
This bold declaration marked a turning point.
The language of information escaped the
laboratory and entered ontology.

Gregory Bateson and the Ecology of Mind

Gregory Bateson, an anthropologist and

systems theorist, extended Wiener’s ideas in
more holistic directions. In his 1972 collection
STEPS TO AN ECOLOGY OF MIND, Bateson
famously defined information as:
“a difference that makes a difference.”
This deceptively simple phrase has become one
of the most cited definitions of information in
philosophy. For Bateson, information is not
merely a signal but an effect—it is the
relational difference that generates meaning
within a system.
By treating information as difference-within-
context, Bateson linked the concept to
perception, communication, and ecology. A
pattern in a leaf is information to the insect
that reads it. A gesture is information to the
human who interprets it. Information always
requires a system in which differences matter.
Philosophically, Bateson’s approach highlights
the relational nature of information. Unlike
Shannon, who dealt with probabilities in
isolation, Bateson saw information as
embedded in networks of meaning. It
39
anticipates contemporary discussions of
emergence and complexity, where information
is not a thing but a relational property of
systems.

John Wheeler and the “It from Bit”

Hypothesis

In physics, John Archibald Wheeler—the same

theorist who coined the term “black hole”—
pushed the informational ontology further. His
provocative slogan, “It from Bit,” captured the
claim that all physical entities ultimately derive
from binary informational distinctions.
Wheeler suggested that the universe is
participatory: reality crystallizes into
determinate states when informational yes/no
questions are asked. Quantum measurement,
for Wheeler, exemplifies this principle. The
“bit” is more fundamental than the “it.”
Wheeler did not fully systematize this view, but
his influence has been immense. In cosmology
and quantum gravity, the suggestion that
spacetime itself is emergent from informational
relations is now widely explored.

40
Luciano Floridi and the Philosophy of
Information

In recent decades, the most systematic attempt

to construct a philosophical framework for
information has come from Luciano Floridi. In
THE PHILOSOPHY OF INFORMATION (2011)
and related works, Floridi argues that
information is not simply a tool for science, but
a genuine philosophical category. He proposes
an Informational Ontology (IO): the idea
that reality can be understood as informational
structures and processes.
For Floridi, to exist is to be an informational
entity—what he calls an INFORG (informational
organism). He extends this framework into
ethics, arguing for an “Information Ethics”
where moral value is grounded in the
flourishing of informational structures. For
example, to damage an ecosystem is to corrupt
its informational integrity.
Floridi’s system is rigorous, technical, and
highly influential. Yet critics have noted that it
risks abstraction. By treating information as
the ultimate category, Floridi faces the
question: why is information itself intelligible?
What grounds its coherence and meaning?

41
Philosophical Strengths and Weaknesses

Taken together, Wiener, Bateson, Wheeler, and

Floridi represent the contemporary
philosophical trajectory of information. Each
adds a critical piece:
 Wiener: information as regulation and
feedback.
 Bateson: information as meaningful
difference.
 Wheeler: information as the foundation of
physics.
 Floridi: information as ontology and
ethics.
The strength of this tradition is its integrative
power: information bridges physics, biology,
technology, and philosophy. It provides a
common language across disciplines.
The weakness, however, is its lack of
metaphysical grounding. Information is treated
as ultimate, but without explanation of why it
exists, why it is intelligible, or why it produces
meaning. If information is simply “there,” then
it risks becoming a brute fact—an unexplained
given.
This is the point at which philosophy must
either embrace metaphysical speculation or
remain suspended in abstraction.

42
Theological Implications (A Light Touch)

At this juncture, the theological dimension

naturally reappears. If information is real,
intelligible, and universal, then it invites the
question of its source. Historically, thinkers like
Augustine located intelligibility in the mind of
God. Contemporary philosophy, by stopping
short of this move, leaves information hanging
in mid-air.
It is here that Sayles’ Logos-centered ontology
offers a distinct contribution, though we
mention it only briefly: information does not
float free, but is grounded in the eternal Word
who is intelligibility itself. This position avoids
the abstraction of Floridi and the reductionism
of Wiener by placing information within a
personal, relational foundation.

Having surveyed contemporary philosophical

accounts of information, we are now prepared
to engage the scientific validation in greater
depth. How does quantum physics, cosmology,
and biology corroborate—or complicate—the
claim that information is fundamental?
The next chapter turns to science once again,
now with philosophical lenses in place, to
explore whether modern physics really does
confirm the ontology of information, or whether
it demands something deeper still.

43
Chapter 2 Section 4: The Limits of
Reductionism (Why Information Cannot Be
Merely Material)

To speak of “information” as fundamental

requires us to face a pressing challenge: can
information be reduced to matter, or is it
something irreducible? Much of twentieth-
century science and philosophy assumed that
all phenomena, including information, could
eventually be explained in materialist terms.
But the very success of information theory and
quantum physics has undermined that
assumption.
Reductionism—whether in physics, biology, or
philosophy—attempts to dissolve higher-order
realities into lower-level mechanisms. Minds
are reduced to neurons, life to chemistry,
meaning to statistical probabilities. But
information resists this reduction. It is not
SOMETHING in the way matter is something;
rather, it is the FORM and STRUCTURE that
matter assumes. To collapse information into
matter is to confuse the message with the
medium.

44
The Materialist Impulse

Materialist reductionism has deep roots. In the

Enlightenment, Pierre-Simon Laplace imagined
that if a “demon” knew the position and
momentum of every particle in the universe,
the entire future could be predicted. This vision
of a clockwork cosmos treated matter as the
only real substance, and all patterns—including
life and thought—as secondary illusions.
In such a framework, information is an
emergent byproduct, not a fundamental reality.
A sequence of DNA, for instance, is viewed as
mere arrangement of molecules, no different in
kind than the pattern of pebbles on a beach.
Information is “in the eye of the beholder,” not
in reality itself.
This reductionist view has remained pervasive.
Many biologists still treat genes as physical
molecules first, carriers of information only by
metaphor. Many neuroscientists describe
consciousness as nothing more than the
“output” of electrochemical processes. And
many physicists describe information as a
convenient abstraction layered atop matter and
energy.
Yet this approach fails in at least three decisive
ways.

45
The Problem of Intelligibility

First, if information is merely material, then

how is it intelligible? A stone has mass and
extension, but it does not “mean” anything. For
information to exist, there must be an order
that can be recognized as such. The very
possibility of science depends on intelligibility
—that equations map onto reality, that patterns
can be discerned and trusted.
Reductionism struggles to explain why matter
alone should be structured in a way that
corresponds to rational understanding. Why
should mathematics describe the cosmos? Why
should bits of matter encode genetic
instructions? Why should the quantum world
obey laws that can be written down as
equations?
Einstein himself marveled that “the most
incomprehensible thing about the universe is
that it is comprehensible.” This mystery points
to the fact that information is not accidental
but intrinsic: reality is not merely stuff, but
ordered, intelligible structure.

The Problem of Meaning

Second, information is not just structure—it is

MEANINGFUL structure. A DNA strand carries
instructions for protein synthesis. A sentence

46
conveys an idea. A signal informs because it
makes a difference to someone or something.
If information were merely material, then a
strand of nucleotides would be no different
from random molecular noise. But the
difference is that one encodes, the other does
not. Matter alone does not distinguish between
noise and message. The distinction is
informational, not material.
Gregory Bateson captured this insight in his
famous definition: information is “a difference
that makes a difference.” Meaning emerges
only when differences are recognized and
interpreted within a system. This points beyond
mere material arrangements to relational and
semantic structures.

The Problem of Causality

Third, information appears to be causally

efficacious. In biology, the information in DNA
directs the synthesis of proteins. In technology,
digital code controls the behavior of machines.
In human life, ideas—forms of information—
shape history, politics, and culture.
If information were nothing but matter, then
causality would flow only from physics. But in
practice, it is informational content that drives
outcomes. A genetic mutation changes function
not because the atoms are different in mass,

47
but because the code is altered. A sentence
inspires action not because of ink on paper, but
because of the information carried by its form.
Thus, information is not epiphenomenal. It
shapes reality. It directs processes. It acts as a
cause in its own right.

Quantum Challenges to Reductionism

Quantum mechanics has sharpened these

problems. In the quantum world, information is
not only real but CONSERVED. According to
the principle of unitarity, information cannot be
destroyed, even if particles are annihilated or
black holes evaporate. In fact, much of
modern physics—from quantum computing to
holographic cosmology—rests on the conviction
that information is more fundamental than
particles themselves.
This reverses the reductionist impulse. Matter
seems to emerge from informational relations,
not the other way around. Wheeler’s “It from
Bit” expresses this reversal: physical reality
derives from binary distinctions, from the
answering of yes/no questions at the quantum
level.
If this is correct, then materialism has
collapsed. What we call “matter” is already the
surface manifestation of deeper informational
processes.

48
Philosophical Implications

The implications are profound. If information is

irreducible, then:
 Reality is structured not from the bottom-
up (matter producing order), but top-down
(information shaping matter).
 Consciousness is not a byproduct of
neurons, but a higher-level expression of
informational participation.
 Meaning and intelligibility are not human
projections but woven into the fabric of
reality itself.
Reductionism cannot account for these. It
treats the universe as a blind mechanism. But
the evidence suggests otherwise: the universe
is a meaningful, intelligible field of information.

If information is irreducible, then the

philosophical question becomes unavoidable:
what is its ultimate source? Can we explain
intelligibility, meaning, and causality in purely
naturalistic terms? Or must we recognize a
transcendent ground for information itself?
The next section will probe this question,
asking whether the Information Field can be
understood adequately without theology—or
whether, as the philosophical genealogy

49
suggests, it must ultimately be anchored in the
Logos.

Chapter 2 Section 5: Information and

Ontology (Does Information also have
Being?)

Having traced the genealogy of information and

examined the limits of reductionism, we now
confront the central ontological question: is
information merely a property of reality, or is it
reality itself?
This question is not academic hair-splitting. It
determines whether the Information Field is an
explanatory tool or an ontological ground. If
information is fundamental, then the age-old
philosophical question—WHAT DOES IT MEAN
TO BE?—demands a new answer: TO BE IS TO
BE INFORMATIONAL.

Ontology and the Nature of Being

Ontology, the study of being, asks the most

basic of questions: what is real? What is the
nature of existence itself? Philosophers from
Parmenides to Heidegger have wrestled with
this question, each offering different accounts
of being’s essence—unity, permanence,
process, temporality.

50
In modern science, ontology has often been
displaced by epistemology: the question of
what we can know rather than what exists. Yet
information forces ontology back onto the
table. For if reality is described as
informational, then information must be
understood not merely as a concept in human
minds but as a constituent of being itself.

The Ontological Status of Information

Three main possibilities present themselves:

 Information as Accidental. One might
claim that information is merely an
accidental feature of matter, a way of
describing certain arrangements but not
essential to being. This reduces
information to metaphor—useful, but not
real.
 Information as Structural. Another
view treats information as a structural
property of matter: the patterns that
matter assumes. Here information is real
but derivative. Matter is primary;
information is its arrangement.
 Information as Ontological. The
strongest claim is that information is not
derivative but constitutive: that reality
itself is informational at its root. Matter
and energy emerge from informational
distinctions. To exist is to instantiate
information.
51
It is this third view that increasingly commands
attention—not only in philosophy but in
physics.

Physics and the Ontology of Information

Modern physics has supplied startling support

for the ontological status of information. In
black hole thermodynamics, the entropy of a
black hole (a measure of its information
content) is proportional not to its volume but to
its surface area. This “holographic principle”
suggests that the universe itself may be
describable as an informational boundary—a
cosmic hologram.
Quantum mechanics, likewise, has shifted
emphasis from particles to wavefunctions,
which encode probabilities of outcomes. The
wavefunction is informational; the particle is its
manifestation. Quantum entanglement reveals
that correlations—pure information—can be
more fundamental than spacetime separation.
In short, physics is increasingly suggesting that
matter and energy are emergent phenomena,
while information is conserved, fundamental,
and universal.

52
Philosophical Parallels

Philosophical traditions provide striking

precedents for this view.
 Plato saw ultimate reality in the Forms:
abstract, intelligible structures that give
order to the material world. In modern
terms, the Forms function much like
information.
 Aristotle introduced the concept of
FORM (MORPHE) as inseparable from
matter (HYLE). Being was always a union
of matter and form—a balance of
substance and information.
 Augustine and later Aquinas located
intelligible forms in the mind of God.
Created things participate in divine ideas,
which function as informational
blueprints.
 Heidegger, though often obscure,
reminded modern thought that being is
always about disclosure—about
intelligibility. To exist is to “show up” as
meaningful, which again echoes the
informational dimension of reality.
Thus, the idea that information is ontological is
not a radical departure but a return to deep
philosophical intuitions.

53
Does Information have Being?

But can we go so far as to equate information

with being itself? The case for doing so rests on
three points:
1. Universality. Information is present in
every domain—physical, biological,
mental. Nothing escapes its scope.
2. Irreducibility. Information cannot be
collapsed into matter or energy without
remainder.
3. Causality. Information is not
epiphenomenal but causally efficacious: it
directs processes and structures
outcomes.
If something is universal, irreducible, and
causally foundational, then it deserves
ontological status. In this sense, information is
not simply within being; it is the very condition
of created being.

The Question of Ground

Yet here lies a danger. To say “information is

being” risks reifying abstraction. Information,
as such, is always about something. It is
relational, semantic, meaningful. If we elevate
information to ultimate reality without further
grounding, we risk positing a tautology:
information simply is.

54
This would leave us with an ontology as hollow
as materialism. Information would become a
brute fact, unexplained and inexplicable.
Here philosophy presses us further: if
information is real, intelligible, and meaningful,
then it points beyond itself to a ground of
intelligibility and meaning. Ontology cannot
stop at information alone.

The Informational Ontology

In this context, S. C. Sayles’ contributions,

particularly in BEING AND NOTHINGNESS:
THE LOGOS-CENTRED ONTOLOGY and THE
ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIND, argue that
information is indeed ontological, but only
insofar as it participates in the Logos. Being is
informational, but information itself is
grounded in the eternal Word.
Sayles avoids the pitfalls of reductionism and
abstraction by insisting that intelligibility is not
free-floating but personal. Information is not an
impersonal principle; it is the self-expression of
the Triune God. To be is to be spoken, to exist
as worded reality.

If information is ontological, then the next

question becomes epistemological: how do we
access and interpret it? Is human knowledge
itself a participation in the Information Field?
Can science, philosophy, and theology together
55
provide a coherent hermeneutic of being-as-
information?
These are the questions that will drive the next
chapter, where the discussion turns from
ontology to epistemology, from being to
knowing.

Chapter 2 Section 6: Knowing Through the

Field (Epistemology and the Human Mind)

If information is ontological, then the human

act of knowing is not incidental but
participatory. To know is to engage the field; to
think is to resonate with the patterns of being
itself. Epistemology—the theory of knowledge—
thus becomes inseparable from ontology.
Where modern philosophy often sundered the
two, treating being as mute substance and
knowing as subjective construction, the
informational paradigm restores their unity.
Information is the bridge: it is both the
structure of reality and the medium of
knowledge.

Knowledge as Participation

Plato described knowledge as ANAMNESIS, a

kind of remembering of the eternal Forms.
Augustine saw knowing as illumination by the
56
divine Logos. Both shared the intuition that
human knowledge is not merely an internal
construction but a participation in a higher
order of reality.
The informational ontology makes sense of this.
To know is to align one’s own informational
processes—the firing of neurons, the
structuring of concepts—with the deeper
informational field that sustains the cosmos.
The mind is not cut off from reality; it is of a
piece with it.
This stands against the Cartesian dualism that
cast mind and matter as two incompatible
substances. Instead, both mind and matter can
be understood as informational: one structured
materially, the other consciously. Knowledge is
thus not a bridge between disparate realms but
a resonance within the same field.

Intelligibility and the Human Mind

If the universe is intelligible, the human mind is

specifically designed to receive that
intelligibility. Mathematics describes physical
laws not by accident but because both mind
and world share the same informational
ground.
Einstein’s astonishment at the
comprehensibility of reality reflects this
mystery. Why should abstract equations in the

57
human mind so perfectly describe the behavior
of galaxies or subatomic particles? The answer,
under an informational ontology, is that both
are expressions of the same field. Human
cognition is tuned to reality because both are
patterned by the Logos.

The Limits of Constructivism

Modern epistemology has often reduced

knowledge to social construction.
Postmodernists in particular have argued that
truth is nothing more than a function of
language games or cultural power structures.
While this critique rightly highlights the
interpretive element of knowledge, it fails to
explain why interpretation works—why, for
example, technological predictions based on
scientific models succeed so reliably.
If truth were merely constructed, airplanes
would not fly. The success of applied
knowledge testifies that our interpretations
latch onto real informational structures in the
world. Constructivism captures part of the
story but neglects the grounding in reality.

Consciousness as Informational Resonance

From neuroscience, we know that the brain

operates as an information-processing system
58
of staggering complexity. Neurons fire in
patterns, encoding sensory input, memory, and
thought. But the mystery of consciousness is
that it is not merely processing—it is awareness
of processing.
If we adopt an informational ontology,
consciousness can be described as the self-
reflexive resonance of the informational field
within itself. The mind is not separate from the
field but a localized, embodied participation in
it. To be conscious is to know, and to know is to
partake in the universal order of information.
This explains both the objectivity of knowledge
(we are in contact with reality) and its
subjectivity (each consciousness interprets
from a particular standpoint). Consciousness is
a mode of the field.

Theology of Knowledge

Here theology provides decisive clarity.

Scripture declares that all things were created
through the Word (John 1:3), and that in His
light we see light (Psalm 36:9). Human knowing
is possible because the Logos is both the
ontological ground and the epistemological
light.
Augustine expressed this as illumination: our
minds are lit from above, not self-sufficient but
dependent on the divine Word. Calvin echoed

59
this in the SENSUS DIVINITATIS, the innate
capacity for knowledge of God that arises
because we are creatures of His Word.
Within this theological frame, epistemology is
not autonomous. To know truth is to receive
revelation, whether natural (through creation)
or special (through Scripture). The Information
Field is not neutral but divine self-disclosure.

Informational Epistemology

S. C. Sayles, in THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE

MIND, develops this synthesis by arguing that
the human mind is structured to interpret the
field because it is itself informational in nature.
For Sayles, knowing is not passive
representation but active alignment: the soul
resonates with the patterns of the Logos.
Knowledge, then, is covenantal—it participates
in God’s order and is accountable to His truth.
This account resists both the skepticism of
postmodernism and the reductionism of
naturalism. Knowledge is real because reality is
informational, and it is accountable because
information is personal in the Logos. (Romans
1:19)

60
Epistemological Implications

The informational view of knowledge carries

profound implications:
 Truth is correspondence to reality, not
as brute matter, but as informational
structure.
 Knowledge is participatory, arising
from the resonance of mind with the field.
 Error is distortion, the misalignment of
interpretation with the underlying field.
 Wisdom is alignment with the Logos,
the ground of truth and order.
Thus epistemology is not merely about methods
of justification but about ontological
participation in the Word.

If knowledge is grounded in the field, the next

question arises: what happens when
interpretation diverges? How do we explain
falsehood, deception, and the distortion of
information? This leads directly to the problem
of antithesis: the clash between true and false
readings of the field.
The next section will therefore explore the
limits of human knowing, the role of distortion,
and the necessity of revelation in securing
truth.

61
Chapter 2 Section 7: The Problem of
Distortion (False Information and the
Antithesis)

If truth is alignment with the informational

structure of reality, then falsehood is distortion.
But this raises a deeper question: how can
information, which is the order of being itself,
be distorted? What does it mean to speak of
“false information” in a universe sustained by
the Logos?
This problem cuts across disciplines. In
science, it appears in the form of error, bias,
and noise. In philosophy, it appears as
skepticism and relativism. In theology, it is the
antithesis: the clash between truth and
falsehood, light and darkness, Logos and Satan.
To understand the full scope of the Information
Field, we must grapple with this shadow side.

Information, Noise, and Error in Science

In information theory, noise is anything that

disrupts the faithful transmission of a signal.
Shannon’s mathematical framework was
designed to quantify and minimize this noise.
Error-correcting codes in digital
communications, for example, ensure that even
when signals are corrupted, the original
message can still be reconstructed.

62
Biology provides a parallel. DNA encodes
instructions for life, but mutations can disrupt
this coding. Some are neutral, some beneficial,
but many are harmful. Cancer, for instance,
can be understood as the corruption of cellular
information: the genetic program for growth is
distorted, leading to uncontrolled replication.
In both physics and biology, then, distortion
does not erase information—it warps it. Noise
does not abolish the signal but obscures it.
Error is parasitic on truth.

Falsehood in Philosophy

Philosophically, distortion manifests as

relativism and skepticism. If truth is denied,
then every interpretation becomes equally valid
—or equally invalid. Postmodern thinkers such
as Lyotard and Derrida emphasized the
instability of meaning, the endless deferral of
reference.
Yet even here, distortion reveals its parasitic
nature. To deny truth is still to make a claim
about truth. To declare “there is no absolute
meaning” is itself an absolute claim about
meaning. Falsehood feeds on truth while
denying it.
This recalls Augustine’s argument against the
skeptics: even to doubt is to know that one
doubts. Knowledge of error presupposes

63
knowledge of truth. Distortion is not a self-
sustaining reality but a corruption of the real.

Theological Antithesis

The most profound account of distortion arises

in theology. Scripture consistently depicts
reality as a battlefield between truth and
falsehood, light and darkness, the Word of God
and the lies of the serpent.
From Genesis 3 onward, deception is at the
heart of sin. The serpent does not create a new
reality; he twists God’s word: “Hath God
said…?” (Gen. 3:1). Deception is informational
corruption: truth inverted, misaligned,
distorted.
The Apostle Paul speaks of the “strong
delusion” (2 Thess. 2:11) and of those who
“hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom.
1:18). The problem is not absence of
information but its distortion through rebellion.
The antithesis runs deep: the Logos speaks
order and life; sin and Satan introduce chaos
and death.

Distortion as Ontological Parasite

Here we confront a profound insight: falsehood

has no independent existence. Just as darkness
64
is the absence of light, and evil the privation of
good, so distortion is the corruption of
information. It does not create; it twists. It is
parasitic on the real.
This explains why deception can be so
persuasive: it borrows the form of truth while
altering its content. Counterfeit currency works
only because it resembles the genuine. In the
same way, falsehood mimics truth in order to
subvert it.
Philosophically, this means that error cannot be
ultimate. Ontologically, it means that distortion
cannot define reality. The Information Field is
sustained by the Logos; distortion is temporary
misalignment, not eternal principle.

Sayles and the Antithesis

In BEING AND NOTHINGNESS, Sayles

develops this insight by framing evil as an
“ontological parasite.” He argues that evil and
deception cannot generate being; they corrupt
what already exists. Information, as grounded
in the Logos, is indestructible. But it can be
warped. Thus, the field contains not only truth
but the possibility of distortion—a battlefield of
interpretation.
This aligns with Van Til’s notion of the
antithesis: all human thought is either in
submission to Christ or in rebellion against

65
Him. There is no neutral territory. Every
interpretation of the field is either aligned with
Logos or distorted by sin.

Implications for Human Knowing

This has practical implications for

epistemology. Human knowledge is never
neutral. Our interpretations of the field are
shaped by orientation—whether toward truth
or distortion. Sin blinds the mind (2 Cor. 4:4),
while the Spirit illumines it (1 Cor. 2:12–14).
Thus, while knowledge is possible, it is also
fragile. We require not only reason but
revelation, not only information but
illumination. To truly know, we must be aligned
with the Logos who grounds all information.

The problem of distortion, then, is not

peripheral but central. It explains why
information can be corrupted, why knowledge
can go astray, why history is marked by both
progress and deception.
The next section will deepen this by asking:
what is the relationship between information
and meaning? Can semantics be grounded in
the field itself, or does distortion reveal the
necessity of a personal Logos as the guarantor
of truth?

66
Chapter 2 Section 8: Information and
Meaning (From Syntax to Semantics)

The central question that now confronts us is

deceptively simple: DOES INFORMATION, IN
ITSELF, MEAN ANYTHING?
To put it differently: is the universe’s
informational fabric intrinsically semantic, or is
meaning something layered upon raw data by
conscious agents? If information is merely
syntactical—formal arrangements of difference
without inherent content—then the field,
however elegant, would remain mute. But if
information is inherently meaningful, then the
very structure of reality is communicative,
designed to be interpreted, and expressive of
mind.
This is no marginal issue. It cuts to the heart of
the philosophy of information, the philosophy of
language, and the theology of creation.
Information, after all, is everywhere—in DNA,
in quantum states, in human speech, in digital
networks. Yet the difference between a coded
sequence and a MESSAGE is precisely the
difference between syntax and semantics,
between order and meaning. If the field is to be
understood as ultimate, then we must
determine whether it carries meaning within
itself, or whether semantics requires a
transcendent anchor.

67
Shannon’s Legacy: The Triumph and
Limits of Syntax

Claude Shannon’s 1948 paper, “A

Mathematical Theory of Communication,”
remains a watershed moment. His model
revolutionized engineering by reducing
communication to the transmission of signals
between sender and receiver through a
channel, all quantifiable in bits. But Shannon
was explicit: his theory deliberately bracketed
meaning. The system measured information as
the reduction of uncertainty, not as content.
This was a brilliant simplification, but it left
philosophers with a pressing problem. In
Shannon’s system, a signal carrying profound
poetry and a signal carrying random static are
informationally equivalent so long as they
contain the same number of bits. Information,
in this sense, is blind to meaning.
This “triumph of syntax” has shaped much of
modern computational science. Algorithms can
process enormous quantities of data without
any grasp of semantics. Large language models
(ironically, even the one drafting these words)
manipulate symbols according to statistical
rules but without inherent understanding.
Shannon gave us powerful tools for measuring
and transmitting information, but he did not
tell us what makes that information
meaningful.

68
The Semantic Gap: Why Syntax Cannot
Become Semantics

The distinction between syntax and semantics

was already familiar to linguists and
philosophers, but Shannon’s model sharpened
it. Syntax concerns the formal structure of
expressions: the arrangement of letters,
sounds, or signals. Semantics concerns
meaning: what those arrangements signify.
The two cannot be conflated. Consider:
 A dictionary defines words by other words,
but if meaning were only syntactical,
definitions would circle endlessly without
ever grounding.
 A computer can store and output a
Shakespearean sonnet, but unless it
“understands,” the poem is mere symbols.
 A DNA strand carries coded instructions,
but the sequence alone does nothing
without cellular machinery that interprets
and executes it.
The philosopher John Searle dramatized this
gap in his “Chinese Room” thought experiment.
A person who speaks no Chinese sits in a room
with a set of rules for manipulating Chinese
characters. Outsiders feed in Chinese
sentences; the person consults the rules and
produces correct responses. To the outsiders, it
looks like the room “understands” Chinese. But
inside, the person has no semantic grasp—only
syntactic manipulation.

69
This shows why syntax alone cannot produce
semantics. Rules can shuffle symbols, but
meaning requires interpretation.

The Biological Analogy: DNA and the

Interpreter Problem

Biology furnishes a powerful analogy. DNA is

routinely described as the “code of life,” but
code, by definition, is symbolic. The sequence
of nucleotides means nothing on its own. It
becomes meaningful only in the context of a
cell equipped with ribosomes, tRNAs, and
enzymes that can interpret and execute the
code.
This “interpreter problem” is profound:
information requires a system capable of
assigning and actualizing meaning. DNA
outside of a cell is inert. Inside a living cell, it is
alive with semantics.
Thus, biological information supports a key
conclusion: information is relational. It does not
bear meaning in isolation but only in context,
with reference to an interpreter.

70
Philosophical Attempts to Ground Meaning

Philosophers of language and mind have

proposed various accounts of how semantics
arises:
 Naturalistic Evolutionism: Meaning
emerges from survival. Words, signals, or
behaviors “mean” what helps organisms
thrive. While this has explanatory power,
it reduces truth to utility. If semantics is
survival-driven, “truth” becomes what
works, not what is. This collapses meaning
into pragmatics.
 Social Constructivism: Meaning is a
product of shared convention. Words
mean what a community agrees they
mean. While this explains linguistic
variation, it renders semantics radically
unstable. If all meaning is social, nothing
guarantees cross-cultural or scientific
universality.
 Formal Idealism: Meaning resides in
timeless abstractions—Plato’s Forms or
eternal logical structures. This grants
objectivity but at the cost of detachment.
How do these forms connect to the lived
world of communication and embodiment?
Each of these theories captures part of the
truth but fails to account for the universality,
normativity, and relationality of meaning.

71
Modern Science and the Semantic Puzzle

Modern physics and computer science have

only deepened the semantic puzzle.
 Quantum Information: In quantum
mechanics, information is encoded in
wavefunctions, entanglements, and states.
But interpretation always requires an
observer or measurement context. The
system itself is not self-interpreting.
 Artificial Intelligence: Machine learning
systems can generate impressively
coherent outputs, yet philosophers debate
whether they “understand” anything. Do
they truly grasp meaning, or are they
simply elaborating Shannonian syntax at a
higher scale?
 Neuroscience: Brain studies reveal
complex patterns of information
processing, but the “hard problem of
consciousness” remains: why do these
processes yield subjective meaning, rather
than mere syntax?
Each field points to the same conclusion:
semantics cannot be reduced to syntax.
Meaning demands grounding.

72
Theological Perspectives: Logos as the
Ground of Meaning

Here theology provides clarity where

philosophy stalls. Meaning is not emergent
from matter or social contract but grounded in
the Logos—the eternal Word through whom all
things were made.
The Christian tradition has consistently
affirmed this:
 Augustine argued that all intelligible
forms exist as ideas in the divine mind.
Created meaning is a participation in
divine meaning.
 Aquinas developed the concept of
VERITAS as the adequation of intellect
and thing, possible only because both
intellect and reality share origin in God’s
rationality.
 Calvin emphasized that truth is never
autonomous; human knowledge is
covenantal, dependent on divine
illumination through the Spirit.
This is precisely what the prologue of John’s
Gospel proclaims: “In the beginning was the
Word (Logos) … In Him was life, and the life
was the light of men” (John 1:1,4). Reality is
worded, and human beings can know because
the Word shines into them.
Meaning, therefore, is not secondary but
primary. The field is not silent; it speaks
because it is the expression of the Logos.
73
Informational Semantics

S. C. Sayles has sharpened this distinction in

THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIND, where
he insists on differentiating between the
SYNTAX OF THE FIELD and the SEMANTICS
OF THE LOGOS. Information, he argues,
provides the structural patterns of reality. But
meaning arises only when those patterns are
related to the Logos, the personal source of
intelligibility.
Sayles emphasizes that this prevents
information from becoming an abstraction.
Without semantics, information collapses into
raw data. With semantics, information becomes
worded reality. In this view, every bit of
information is both syntactic (structured) and
semantic (meaningful) because it originates
from, and is interpreted by, the Logos.

Meaning and Distortion: Semantics and

the Antithesis

This theological grounding also clarifies the

problem of distortion discussed in the previous
section. Falsehood does not occur at the level
of syntax—the signals still transmit—but at the
level of semantics. The serpent’s “Hath God

74
said?” (Gen. 3:1) was syntactically correct, but
semantically inverted.
Deception, then, is semantic corruption: the
twisting of meaning away from its source. It
cannot generate new meaning but parasitically
corrupts existing meaning. This is why
falsehood is persuasive: it borrows syntax from
truth while corrupting semantics.
Thus, the antithesis—the clash between truth
and error, Logos and lie—is fundamentally
about interpretation of meaning.

Cultural Implications: Information in the

Age of Misinformation

In our digital age, the problem of meaning is

more urgent than ever. We are awash in
information—data, signals, texts, posts—yet
often starved of meaning. The “infodemic” of
misinformation illustrates how syntax without
semantics produces chaos. Algorithms transmit
information flawlessly, but interpretation is
contested, fragmented, and distorted.
This cultural moment illustrates the timeless
truth: information alone cannot save us.
Meaning requires grounding, and without the
Logos, interpretation collapses into relativism,
manipulation, or nihilism.

75
We have now seen that information, though
ontological, is not self-sufficient. Syntax is not
semantics. Meaning requires grounding in the
Logos, the eternal interpreter of the field.
This conclusion sets the stage for the transition
to theology. If semantics is personal, then the
Information Field is not merely structural but
revelatory. The Logos is not only the source of
being but the guarantor of meaning.
The next section, therefore, will serve as a
bridge, drawing together science, philosophy,
and theology, and preparing us to explore how
the Logos grounds not only ontology and
epistemology but also salvation, history, and
destiny.

Chapter 2 Section 9 : The Medieval

Problem of Universals: Realism,
Nominalism, and Conceptualism

The semantic problem of whether information

inherently “means” something finds a
precursor in the medieval debate on universals.
The central question: DO GENERAL TERMS,
SUCH AS “TREE,” “JUSTICE,” OR “MAN,”
CORRESPOND TO REAL ENTITIES, OR ARE
THEY MERE LINGUISTIC CONVENTIONS?
 Realists (such as Anselm and Aquinas,
drawing on Augustine and ultimately
Plato) argued that universals are real

76
 because they participate in eternal Forms
or divine ideas. For Aquinas, the mind
grasps universals because they are
grounded in God’s intellect. Semantics, on
this view, is not arbitrary: words
correspond to intelligible forms sustained
by the Logos.
 Nominalists (such as William of Ockham)
rejected this. Universals, they claimed, are
nothing more than names (NOMINA) we
assign for convenience. “Tree” does not
correspond to a real essence of “treeness”
but is a label imposed upon particular
instances. Semantics, then, is pragmatic
and socially constructed.
 Conceptualists sought a middle ground:
universals exist, but only in the mind, not
in external reality. Meaning is conceptual
but not transcendent.
This debate anticipated the very tension in
modern philosophy of information. Is
information inherently meaningful (realist),
merely conventional (nominalist), or mind-
dependent (conceptualist)? The medieval
struggle shows that the semantic question is
not new but perennial.
From the perspective of the Information Field,
realism provides the more coherent account. If
information is grounded in the Logos, then
universals are not arbitrary but reflections of
divine order. As Augustine said, the eternal
Word holds the forms of all things.

77
Wittgenstein and the Turn to Language-
Games

Fast-forward to the twentieth century, and we

encounter Ludwig Wittgenstein, whose
philosophy of language reshaped modern
debates about semantics. In his TRACTATUS
LOGICO-PHILOSOPHICUS (1921),
Wittgenstein proposed the “picture theory” of
meaning: propositions are meaningful insofar
as they map reality, like pictures mirroring the
world. This resonates with the idea of
information as structural mapping.
But Wittgenstein later abandoned this view. In
his PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS
(1953), he introduced the concept of
“language-games.” Meaning, he argued,
arises not from abstract correspondence but
from use within a social practice. Words mean
what they do in the “game” of life. Semantics,
therefore, is irreducibly pragmatic and
communal.
This anticipates both the strengths and the
weaknesses of modern constructivism. On the
one hand, Wittgenstein highlighted the
contextual, relational nature of meaning—an
insight consistent with the relational dynamics
of information. On the other hand, his model
leaves meaning without transcendental anchor.
If semantics is entirely game-relative, then it
cannot yield universal truth.

78
The Information Field framework both affirms
and critiques Wittgenstein. It affirms his insight
that meaning arises in relation, context, and
practice. But it rejects his denial of
transcendent ground. Language-games are not
arbitrary; they are possible because reality
itself is already worded by the Logos.

The Enlightenment and the Crisis of

Meaning

The semantic problem intensified in the

Enlightenment, when thinkers such as Locke,
Hume, and Kant shifted attention to the
structures of the human mind. Locke
distinguished between PRIMARY QUALITIES
(objective) and SECONDARY QUALITIES
(subjective), already raising doubts about how
language maps reality. Hume’s skepticism
further undermined the idea of necessary
connections, reducing meaning to habit and
association.
Kant tried to rescue meaning by positing
transcendental categories—structural features
of the mind that organize experience.
Language, for Kant, reflects these categories.
But this solution rendered meaning
anthropocentric: the mind imposes order,
rather than discovering it.
This left modern philosophy with a rift: is
semantics grounded in reality (realism), in
79
society (constructivism), or in the mind
(idealism)? The debates continue today in
analytic philosophy of language, in debates
about reference, intentionality, and semantics.

Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, and the

Death of Stable Meaning

In the twentieth century, structuralists such as

Ferdinand de Saussure insisted that meaning
arises from difference within a system. Words
have no inherent connection to things; they
gain meaning only in contrast to other words.
This “differential semantics” influenced
anthropology, linguistics, and philosophy.
But post-structuralists, such as Derrida,
radicalized this insight into DIFFÉRANCE:
meaning is endlessly deferred, never fixed,
always sliding. For Derrida, semantics
dissolves into perpetual instability.
Here we find the logical endpoint of
nominalism: semantics without Logos collapses
into flux. If words only mean in relation to other
words, without anchor in reality or mind, then
information cannot finally bear meaning.
The Information Field rejects this collapse.
While recognizing the relational and systemic
aspects of meaning, it insists that these
relations are grounded in the Logos. Semantics

80
is stable not because of human agreement but
because of divine speech.

Bringing the Genealogy into the Field

From medieval realism vs. nominalism, to

Enlightenment subjectivism, to Wittgenstein’s
pragmatic language-games, to postmodern
instability, the same question recurs: what
makes meaning possible?
The Information Field perspective provides a
synthesis:
 Against nominalism: meaning is not
arbitrary. Information is not mere
convention. It reflects real order.
 Against pure conceptualism: meaning
is not solely mind-dependent. The mind
can interpret because reality itself is
already intelligible.
 Against postmodern instability:
meaning is not endlessly deferred.
Semantics has an anchor in the Logos.
 In continuity with realism and
Augustine: meaning exists because all
creation participates in divine ideas and
communicates through the Word.
Thus, the long semantic struggle finds
resolution when placed within the framework of
the Logos as the ground of both syntax and
semantics.

81
The genealogy of semantics reveals a clear
lesson: without transcendental grounding,
meaning collapses—into relativism, convention,
or skepticism. But if information is spoken by
the Logos, then semantics is not arbitrary but
revelatory.
Chapter 2 has shown that information, while
ontological, requires interpretation; that
meaning, while relational, requires grounding;
and that distortion, while parasitic, points back
to the real.
Chapter 3 will therefore move explicitly into
theology, asking: if information and meaning
converge in the Logos, what does this reveal
about creation, redemption, and the destiny of
all things?

As we draw Chapter 2 to a close, the contours

of the debate are clear. From the sciences, we
have seen that information is irreducible: it
pervades physics, biology, and neuroscience as
the hidden code beneath the material world.
Yet science, when confined to Shannon’s
measure, cannot tell us what information
MEANS. It can quantify transmission but not
interpretation, syntax but not semantics.
From philosophy, we have traced the restless
search for grounding. Plato spoke of eternal
Forms, Aristotle of essences, Augustine of
divine ideas, Aquinas of truth as adequation.
The medievals wrestled with universals, the
82
Enlightenment turned inward to the categories
of the mind, and modern thinkers like
Wittgenstein and Derrida exposed the fragility
of meaning when severed from transcendence.
The story is the same: without a higher anchor,
semantics collapses into either convention,
utility, or perpetual instability.
From history, we have seen the same tension
repeat itself in every era. Nominalism’s
insistence on names without essences;
idealism’s elevation of mind at the expense of
reality; structuralism’s networks of difference;
post-structuralism’s endless deferral. Each
movement has glimpsed a piece of the truth,
but none has been able to hold meaning
securely. For in the end, all are haunted by the
same gap: information is not yet meaning,
syntax is not yet semantics, order is not yet
truth.
Yet this very gap points us forward. The
persistence of the question across centuries
suggests that meaning cannot be derived from
within the system alone. If information is to be
more than structure—if it is to be truth—it
must be interpreted. And if interpretation is to
avoid arbitrariness, it must be grounded in
something beyond human minds, beyond
cultural games, beyond evolutionary utility. It
must be grounded in the very Source of
intelligibility itself.
This brings us to the threshold of theology. For
theology declares what philosophy can only
83
surmise: that meaning is not emergent but
eternal, not accidental but personal. The
prologue of John’s Gospel states it with
breathtaking simplicity: “In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God” (John 1:1). Here, at last, the
gap closes. Information is not mute. The field is
not blind. The universe is spoken, and its
meaning is secured in the Logos.
Thus the path ahead is clear. Having examined
the scientific foundations of the Information
Field, and having traced the philosophical
struggles to define and secure meaning, we
now turn to theology. For only theology can
reveal the field’s true depth: that it is not
merely the grammar of reality but the speech
of God; not merely a system of differences but
the revelation of the Logos.
In Chapter 3 , we will therefore explore the
theological dimension of the Information Field.
We will ask: how does the Logos ground the
intelligibility of creation? How does the field
illuminate the nature of sin as distortion, and
redemption as re-interpretation? How does it
disclose the ultimate destiny of meaning in the
consummation of all things?
The sciences have given us the syntax.
Philosophy has shown us the search for
semantics. But only theology can give us the
Logos, in whom syntax and semantics are one,
and in whom the information of the cosmos is
revealed as truth.
84
85
Chapter 3 Theology

Chapter 3 Section 1: The Logos as the

Ground of Meaning

The Word Before Words

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word

was with God, and the Word was God. The
same was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by Him; and without Him was not
any thing made that was made” (John 1:1–3,
KJV).
These words of the apostle John stand as the
cornerstone of a theological philosophy of
information. Before the universe pulsed with
light, before energy coalesced into matter,
before space and time stretched forth their
dimensions—there was the Word. Here lies the
radical claim of Christianity: that meaning
precedes matter. Syntax, structure, and order
do not emerge from chaos but flow from a
Person: the eternal Logos.

The Primacy of the Logos

John’s phrase “IN THE BEGINNING”

deliberately echoes Genesis 1:1: “IN THE
BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN
AND THE EARTH.” Both passages point to the
86
same ontological foundation: before all things,
God is. But John adds something crucial: before
all created words, before human speech and
before even angelic praise, there is the Word
(LOGOS). This is not mere sound or symbol but
the eternal Son of God.
Augustine, in DE TRINITATE, stressed that
John did not say “In the beginning was the
sound” or “In the beginning was the letter,” but
“In the beginning was the Word”—signifying an
eternal intelligibility in God Himself. Calvin
agrees, remarking in his COMMENTARY ON
JOHN that John’s purpose was to “declare
Christ’s eternal divinity and His essential unity
with the Father, that we might rest secure that
the One through whom the world was made is
none other than the eternal God Himself.”
Thus, the Logos is not an emergent property of
the cosmos but its precondition. Meaning is not
a latecomer but the very ground upon which all
being stands.

The Logos and Creation by the Word

The doctrine that creation itself is brought

forth by divine speech reverberates throughout
Scripture:
 “AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT:
AND THERE WAS LIGHT” (Gen. 1:3).
 “BY THE WORD OF THE LORD WERE
THE HEAVENS MADE; AND ALL THE
87
 HOST OF THEM BY THE BREATH OF HIS
MOUTH” (Ps. 33:6).
 “THROUGH FAITH WE UNDERSTAND
THAT THE WORLDS WERE FRAMED BY
THE WORD OF GOD, SO THAT THINGS
WHICH ARE SEEN WERE NOT MADE OF
THINGS WHICH DO APPEAR” (Heb.
11:3).
Each of these passages shows that creation is
informational before it is material. God speaks,
and reality comes into being. Herman Bavinck
put it this way: “The world is not an
autonomous product but the outflow of divine
wisdom and will, worded into existence by Him
who is the eternal Word.”
The act of divine speech means that the very
structure of the cosmos is linguistic and
intelligible. It is not brute fact but meaningful
word. Van Til rightly insisted that “there are no
brute facts, only interpreted facts, because
every fact is what it is by virtue of God’s plan
and interpretation.” In other words, every bit
of information in creation is already the
utterance of God.

Meaning Before Syntax

Modern physics might suggest that order

emerges from chaos: that quantum fluctuations
give rise to structure, that entropy and chance
somehow yield coherence. But Scripture
88
reverses this narrative. Meaning does not come
AFTER disorder; it is there BEFORE.
Proverbs 8 personifies divine wisdom, declaring
that before the mountains were formed, before
the oceans surged, Wisdom was “set up from
everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the
earth was” (Prov. 8:23). The Logos is eternal
Wisdom, the architect through whom all things
were made.
Cornelius Van Til observed that the non-
Christian mind assumes “chance and abstract
law” as the twin poles of reality, hoping that
meaning will somehow emerge between them.
But the Christian confession insists that
meaning is original, not derived: “The
coherence of all things rests not in chance, nor
in law abstractly considered, but in the plan of
God interpreted by His eternal Word.”
Thus, the Information Field cannot be self-
originating. Information does not “bubble up”
from nothingness; it is grounded in the eternal
Logos who speaks meaning into existence.

The Self-Disclosure of God

The Word is not merely a tool of creation but

also the medium of divine self-disclosure. As
John Calvin memorably said, creation is “the
theater of God’s glory,” intelligible to us
only because the Logos shines through it. The
apostle Paul makes the same point in Romans
89
1:20: “FOR THE INVISIBLE THINGS OF HIM
FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD ARE
CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD BY
THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE, EVEN HIS
ETERNAL POWER AND GODHEAD.”
Francis Schaeffer, echoing Calvin, insisted that
“the universe is not silent.” To exist is
already to be addressed, to stand within the
Word’s communication. Information is not
neutral data; it is God speaking. To
misinterpret creation is not to be uninformed
but to suppress the truth in unrighteousness
(Rom. 1:18).
Thus, the cosmos is both ontologically and
epistemologically grounded in the Logos.
Ontologically, it exists by His Word.
Epistemologically, it is intelligible only because
He interprets it for us.

The Eternality of the Word

John further insists: “THE WORD WAS WITH

GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD” (John 1:1).
Here we are drawn into Trinitarian depth. The
Logos is not external to God, not a created
speech act, but God Himself in personal
distinction from the Father. Calvin emphasizes
that John’s wording excludes both
subordinationism and modalism: the Word is
eternal, equal, and distinct.

90
John Owen comments that in this mystery lies
the foundation of our salvation: “That He who
is one with the Father should take our nature is
the wonder of wonders, for in Him meaning and
mercy meet.”
What this shows is that meaning is eternal
because the Logos is eternal. If God were mute,
without Word, He would be a solitary monad.
But God is eternally communicative, eternally
expressive. Meaning is not something God
creates alongside the world; it is what God is in
Himself. As Carl F. H. Henry put it: “Revelation
is not an afterthought of God but the eternal
self-disclosure of the Logos.”

Implications for the Information Field

From these reflections we may draw several

crucial implications for our theology of
information:
1. Meaning precedes matter: the cosmos
is meaningful not because humans
interpret it, but because God has spoken
it.
2. The field is worded: information is not
brute but ordered, relational,
communicative.
3. Semantics is eternal: truth does not
emerge from syntax but flows from the
eternal Logos.

91
 4. Creation is communicative: the field is
not silent; it is the address of God to His
creatures.
5. Distortion is parasitic: to twist meaning
is to rebel against the eternal Word who
guarantees truth.
Therefore, when science describes the universe
as structured by information, it is echoing what
John declared two millennia ago: that the Logos
is both the architect and the interpreter of
reality.

Having seen that the Logos is “the Word before

words,” we are prepared to address the next
great theme: how the Logos serves as the
ontological anchor of meaning itself. The
philosophical anxieties of universals, realism
vs. nominalism, and semantic collapse are all
resolved when we confess with John that the
Word was with God and was God. In Him,
meaning is not borrowed but original, not
unstable but eternal.

Chapter 3 Section 2: The Logos as

Ontological Anchor

The history of philosophy has wrestled

endlessly with the question of meaning: are
universals real or imagined, is order inherent
or imposed, is information discovered or
constructed? The Christian answer is
92
unequivocal: meaning is real, eternal, and
unshakable because it is grounded in the
Logos.
The Information Field is not an impersonal
matrix but the living foundation of all created
order. It is the instruction of the Logos that
undergirds the quantum domain, sustains the
laws of physics, structures dimensionality, and
orders the three heavens—including the inner
heaven of the human mind.

Universals and the Eternal Word

The medieval debate over universals—whether

categories such as JUSTICE, BEAUTY, or
HUMANITY truly exist or are merely names—
finds its resolution in the Logos. Universals are
neither autonomous Platonic forms nor
arbitrary mental constructs; they exist eternally
in the divine mind.
Augustine taught: “THE ETERNAL IDEAS ARE
NOT OUTSIDE GOD BUT ARE HIS VERY
ESSENCE, HIS WISDOM, BY WHICH HE
MADE ALL THINGS” (DE DIVERSIS
QUAESTIONIBUS, 46). What the Greeks
glimpsed dimly as “forms,” Scripture reveals as
the thoughts of God, made manifest through
His Word.
Calvin likewise affirmed that “our minds are
lamps lit by the light of the Logos”

93
(INSTITUTES, I.v.14). When philosophers
discern truth or scientists perceive
mathematical elegance, they are tracing the
universals as grounded in the eternal Logos.

The Logos and Quantum Foundations

Modern physics reveals that beneath the visible

world lies the quantum domain, indeterminate
and probabilistic, yet governed by exquisite
mathematical order. Wavefunctions evolve by
strict equations; probabilities are bound by
symmetry; quantum behavior is intelligible and
lawful.
This is no accident. The Christian confession
declares that the Logos is the ontological
anchor of the quantum field. Creation is not
birthed from chaos but from divine speech. As
Psalm 147:4 proclaims: “HE TELLETH THE
NUMBER OF THE STARS; HE CALLETH
THEM ALL BY THEIR NAMES.”
Each particle, each quantum state, exists
because it is “worded” into being by Christ. The
Information Field structures even the hidden
subatomic domain, demonstrating that order is
written into the foundations of matter by the
eternal Word.

94
The Logos and the Laws of Physics

The laws of nature are not brute facts but the

speech-acts of God. “FOREVER, O LORD, THY
WORD IS SETTLED IN HEAVEN” (Ps. 119:89).
This eternal Word grounds the constancy of
gravity, the invariance of light, and the
coherence of space-time.
John Owen declared that God’s Word is “the
bond of the universe, without which all things
would dissolve into confusion” (THE GLORY OF
CHRIST). Herman Bavinck affirmed that “the
regularity of the cosmos is nothing other than
the faithfulness of God, the constancy of His
speech” (REFORMED DOGMATICS, II).
To study physics, then, is to study the reliability
of divine speech. The Information Field is the
Logos’ ongoing instruction, ensuring the
intelligibility and permanence of natural law.

The Logos and Dimensionality

Creation is not limited to three spatial

dimensions and one temporal. Scripture
testifies to realities both visible and invisible, to
angelic realms, to the “heaven of heavens”
(Deut. 10:14). The Logos is Lord of all
dimensions.
Colossians 1:16 confirms: “FOR BY HIM WERE
ALL THINGS CREATED, THAT ARE IN
HEAVEN, AND THAT ARE IN EARTH, VISIBLE
95
AND INVISIBLE… ALL THINGS WERE
CREATED BY HIM, AND FOR HIM.” Whether
physical, spiritual, or metaphysical, every
dimension is structured by the Word.
Cornelius Van Til rightly observed: “Every fact
is a God-created fact, every law a God-ordained
law, every dimension a God-structured
dimension” (DEFENSE OF THE FAITH).
Dimensionality itself is therefore not self-
existent but an expression of the Logos’
architecture through the Information Field.

The Logos and the Three Heavens

Paul speaks of being caught up to the “third

heaven” (2 Cor. 12:2), indicating layered
realms within creation. Scripture presents this
plurality through the word SHAMAYIM
(heavens), affirming that reality is ordered in
levels:
1. First heaven – the atmosphere and
cosmic expanse of stars and planets.
These are the visible heavens that declare
God’s glory (Ps. 19:1), governed by the
“ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jer.
31:35).
2. Second heaven (SECOND SHAMAY) –
as articulated by S. C. Sayles, this is not
astronomical but noetic. It is the realm of
the mind and soul, where thought,
imagination, memory, and will are
96
 structured. Here, the battle for truth
and deception is waged. Scripture
exhorts believers to “bring every thought
into captivity to the obedience of Christ”
(2 Cor. 10:5), to be “transformed by the
renewing of the mind” (Rom. 12:2), and
warns that unbelievers’ “understanding
[is] darkened” (Eph. 4:18). The second
heaven is therefore the battlefield of the
soul, sustained and instructed by the
Information Field of the Logos.
3. Third heaven – the throne of God, the
heaven of heavens (1 Kings 8:27), the
sanctuary of eternal glory (Isa. 66:1). Here
the Logos dwells in fullness, the eternal
fountain from which all instruction flows.
The unity of these heavens is secured in the
Logos: “BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST” (Col.
1:17). The Information Field binds the visible
sky, the noetic mind, and the eternal throne
into one semantic whole, ordered and sustained
by Christ.

97
The Logos as Interpretive Key

Philosophers have long struggled to explain the

relation between information and meaning.
Nominalists reduced meaning to convention,
empiricists to sense-data, postmodernists to
endless play. The Logos closes this gap.
Carl F. H. Henry noted: “Divine revelation is
the Logos’ interpretation of creation, history,
and redemption” (GOD, REVELATION, AND
AUTHORITY, II). The Information Field is not
raw data but covenantal communication,
interpreted by the Logos Himself.
Francis Schaeffer described this as “true truth”
(HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT):
reality is neither illusion nor projection but
intelligible, because the Logos is both Author
and Interpreter.

The Logos as Anchor of the Field

We may now state with clarity:

 The Information Field is ontological
instruction: grounding quantum
foundations, sustaining physical law, and
structuring dimensionality.
 The Information Field is semantic
foundation: universals exist eternally in
the Logos.
98
  The Information Field is theological
reality: the three heavens, including the
noetic realm of the soul, are unified by one
Word.
 The Information Field is interpretive
key: meaning is secured in the Logos, who
both authors and illumines creation.
As John Owen declared, “In Christ all things
consist, else all things fall.” The Logos is the
eternal anchor of being, truth, and meaning,
and the Information Field is His ongoing
speech.

The prologue of John’s Gospel opens not only

with an ontological declaration but with an
epistemological one: “IN HIM WAS LIFE; AND
THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN” (John
1:4). The Logos is not merely the foundation of
all being but the illumination of all knowing.
Without Him, reality would collapse into chaos,
and human thought into darkness.
The Scriptures testify that truth is not
autonomous or self-generating; it is a radiance
that flows from the Word of God. Psalm 36:9
declares: “FOR WITH THEE IS THE
FOUNTAIN OF LIFE: IN THY LIGHT SHALL
WE SEE LIGHT.” Here epistemology is
grounded in ontology: life in the Logos
produces light, and light enables knowledge.

99
 Chapter 3 Section 3: Light as the
Metaphor of Revelation

From Genesis onward, light is the primary

metaphor for divine revelation. On the first day
of creation, God said, “LET THERE BE LIGHT”
(Gen. 1:3), inaugurating the cosmos not with
substance but with illumination. This is no
mere natural phenomenon but the archetype of
knowledge itself. The physical creation begins
with the act that makes knowing possible: the
giving of light.
In the Psalms, God’s Word is a lamp (Ps.
119:105), His statutes are radiant (Ps. 19:8),
His presence shines as light in the darkness
(Ps. 112:4). The prophets echo this theme:
“ARISE, SHINE; FOR THY LIGHT IS COME,
AND THE GLORY OF THE LORD IS RISEN
UPON THEE” (Isa. 60:1). Christ, the Logos
incarnate, fulfills these promises when He
declares: “I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD:
HE THAT FOLLOWETH ME SHALL NOT WALK
IN DARKNESS, BUT SHALL HAVE THE LIGHT
OF LIFE” (John 8:12).
The Information Field, understood
theologically, is therefore luminous—it is not
only structured but radiant, not only orderly
but revealing. The Logos speaks not only to
establish reality but to disclose it.

100
Knowledge as Covenant, not Autonomy

Reformed theology emphasizes that all

knowledge is covenantal. Man cannot know
autonomously, as if reason were an
independent light. Cornelius Van Til insisted:
“THERE IS NO AREA OF NEUTRALITY. ALL
KNOWLEDGE IS COVENANTAL, EITHER IN
OBEDIENCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO THE
LOGOS” (THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH).
The fall was epistemological as well as moral:
Adam and Eve grasped for knowledge apart
from God (Gen. 3:6). The serpent’s temptation
—“ye shall be as gods, knowing good and
evil”—was the offer of autonomous
epistemology. The consequence was darkness
of understanding, alienation from truth, and
the eclipse of light.
Redemption, by contrast, restores knowledge
as covenantal light. Paul speaks of conversion
as illumination: “FOR GOD, WHO
COMMANDED THE LIGHT TO SHINE OUT OF
DARKNESS, HATH SHINED IN OUR HEARTS,
TO GIVE THE LIGHT OF THE KNOWLEDGE
OF THE GLORY OF GOD IN THE FACE OF
JESUS CHRIST” (2 Cor. 4:6). The epistemic
light of the Logos restores what was lost in the
fall: not bare information, but covenantal
wisdom.

101
The Logos and the Noetic Heaven

This epistemic role of the Logos is particularly

evident in the second heaven—the noetic
realm of the mind and soul. As S. C. Sayles
has argued, the second SHAMAY is the
battlefield of the mind. It is here that light and
darkness contend, truth and falsehood struggle
for dominion.
The apostle Paul describes this conflict in vivid
terms: “BUT IF OUR GOSPEL BE HID, IT IS
HID TO THEM THAT ARE LOST: IN WHOM
THE GOD OF THIS WORLD HATH BLINDED
THE MINDS OF THEM WHICH BELIEVE NOT”
(2 Cor. 4:3–4). Blindness of mind is contrasted
with the illuminating power of Christ, who
shines light into the heart (v. 6). Likewise,
Romans 1 portrays the unbeliever as one who
“became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:21).
The Information Field, as the Logos’ living
instruction, is therefore not merely structural
but cognitive. It is the medium by which the
soul perceives, interprets, and either embraces
or resists truth. To resist the Logos is to warp
the field of perception itself, leading to futility
of thought. To receive the Logos is to be
renewed in knowledge after the image of Him
that created us (Col. 3:10).

102
Epistemology and Illumination in
Reformed Thought

John Calvin emphasized that without the Logos,

the human mind is darkened and prone to
error: “THE HUMAN MIND, HOWEVER MUCH
FALLEN AND PERVERTED FROM ITS
INTEGRITY, IS NEVERTHELESS CLOTHED
AND ORNAMENTED WITH GOD’S
EXCELLENT GIFTS. IF WE REGARD THE
SPIRIT OF GOD AS THE SOLE FOUNTAIN OF
TRUTH, WE SHALL NEITHER REJECT THE
TRUTH ITSELF, NOR DESPISE IT WHEREVER
IT SHALL APPEAR, UNLESS WE WISH TO
DISHONOR THE SPIRIT OF GOD”
(INSTITUTES, II.ii.15).
Calvin here affirms that all truth, even in pagan
philosophy or secular science, is light refracted
from the Logos. It may be distorted, but it
remains a testimony to the divine fountain of
truth.
John Owen, reflecting on illumination, taught
that “the work of the Spirit is to give light unto
the mind… to make us see, discern, and
apprehend the things of God in a due manner”
(THE GRACE AND DUTY OF BEING
SPIRITUALLY MINDED). The Logos, through
the Spirit, makes knowledge true knowledge by
orienting it covenantally.
Francis Schaeffer pressed the same point in
modern apologetics: “Christianity is not merely
true in the upper story of faith but is total

103
truth. The Logos illumines every area of life
and thought” (THE GOD WHO IS THERE). The
Information Field, if rightly understood, is
therefore not simply scientific order but
theological light.

The Logos as Epistemic Light

The Logos is the ontological anchor of being

and the epistemological light of knowing. To
confess Christ as Logos is to confess that:
 All knowledge is covenantal, rooted in the
light of divine revelation.
 The fall darkened the noetic heaven,
blinding the mind to truth.
 Redemption is illumination: the Logos
shines in the heart, restoring knowledge
of God.
 The Information Field is luminous,
disclosing reality as meaningful and
knowable only in Christ.
Thus, epistemology is not neutral. To think is to
participate in the Information Field of the
Logos. To know truly is to know covenantally.
In His light we see light.

104
The Logos and the Architecture of
Meaning

The crisis of modern thought is not merely

ontological or epistemological but semantic.
Since the Enlightenment, philosophers have
wrestled with whether words truly connect to
reality, or whether they are merely arbitrary
signs floating above an indifferent world.
Structuralism, post-structuralism, and
postmodern linguistics have often concluded
that meaning is never stable, but always
deferred, fractured, or imposed.
The Christian confession, however, is radically
different. It proclaims that the Logos Himself is
the architecture of meaning. The
Information Field is not raw data waiting for
human interpretation; it is semantic
instruction, already ordered and imbued with
significance by the eternal Word.

Chapter 3 Section 4: Meaning as Given,

not Constructed

Scripture insists that meaning is given rather

than constructed. When Adam names the
animals (Gen. 2:19–20), he does not invent
meaning ex nihilo but discerns it in accordance
with God’s intention. Language is a covenantal
gift, a participation in the Logos’ own act of
naming.

105
The psalmist declares: “HE TELLETH THE
NUMBER OF THE STARS; HE CALLETH
THEM ALL BY THEIR NAMES” (Ps. 147:4).
Divine speech grounds human speech. Our
words are not arbitrary noises but echoes of
God’s prior Word. The Information Field is
therefore not mute; it is an intelligible order
into which language fits because both arise
from the same Logos.

Semantics and Universals

The medieval debate over universals was not

simply about metaphysics but about language:
do words like JUSTICE or BEAUTY correspond
to anything real, or are they empty labels? The
nominalists claimed words are mere names
(FLATUS VOCIS). The realists, following
Augustine, insisted they correspond to eternal
ideas in the mind of God.
The Reformed tradition aligns with Augustine:
universals are not empty but real, existing
eternally in the Logos. Thus when we say
“justice,” we are not speaking of a human
convention but of a divine attribute refracted in
creation. John Calvin stressed that human
language has “a natural relation to reality
because it is ordered by the Logos, the eternal
speech of God” (INSTITUTES, I.v.14).
Meaning, therefore, is not imposed from below
but given from above. The Information Field
106
embeds semantic order into creation, and
human language participates in that order.

The Battle for Meaning in the Noetic

Heaven

If the second heaven is the realm of the mind

and soul, then it is also the arena where
meaning is contested. The fall not only
darkened knowledge but fractured meaning.
Paul describes fallen humanity as those who
“became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:21). The
consequence is semantic futility: words
detached from truth, language unmoored from
reality.
Isaiah warned of a world where meaning is
inverted: “WOE UNTO THEM THAT CALL EVIL
GOOD, AND GOOD EVIL; THAT PUT
DARKNESS FOR LIGHT, AND LIGHT FOR
DARKNESS” (Isa. 5:20). This is not merely
moral confusion but semantic rebellion. Fallen
man corrupts the very architecture of
language.
In contrast, the redeemed mind is restored to
true meaning by the Logos: “LET THE WORD
OF CHRIST DWELL IN YOU RICHLY IN ALL
WISDOM” (Col. 3:16). The second heaven is
illumined when words are once again anchored
in the Word. The Information Field is the

107
battlefield of semantics, where every claim is
tested against the Logos.

The Logos as Grammar of Creation

Wittgenstein famously argued that meaning is

use, embedded in language-games. While he
was right to observe that words function within
practices, he failed to see the deeper ground:
the Logos is the grammar of creation itself.
Francis Schaeffer noted: “Because the world is
made by the Logos, it has a true grammar.
Words have meaning, and reality has structure.
Man, in rebellion, twists grammar and denies
meaning, but the Logos restores coherence”
(HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT).
In this sense, the Information Field is a divine
grammar: every atom, every law, every moral
principle, every sentence is inscribed with
covenantal syntax. To live truthfully is to speak
and act in accordance with this grammar. To
live falsely is to break it, producing
incoherence and contradiction.

108
Christ the Word and Scripture the Word

The Logos incarnate and the Logos

inscripturated are inseparable. Christ is the
eternal Word, and Scripture is the written
Word. Both testify that meaning is stable,
covenantal, and true.
Carl F. H. Henry emphasized that “divine
revelation is not a projection of human
language but the ground of language itself.
Scripture speaks with objective truth because it
is God’s Logos mediated through human
words” (GOD, REVELATION, AND
AUTHORITY).
Thus, the architecture of meaning is double:
cosmic (embedded in creation through the
Information Field) and canonical (embedded in
Scripture through divine inspiration). Both
converge in the Logos, who upholds creation
and reveals redemption.

The Logos as Architecture of Meaning

We may therefore conclude:

 Meaning is given, not constructed;
grounded in the Logos’ eternal Word.
 Universals are real, existing in the divine
mind and refracted in creation.

109
  The fall fractured meaning, leading to
inversion and semantic rebellion.
 The second heaven (mind) is the
battlefield where meaning is contested
and restored.
 The Logos is the grammar of creation; the
Information Field is His covenantal syntax.
 Scripture and Christ together secure
meaning against chaos and nihilism.
The Logos is therefore not merely the light of
knowledge but the architecture of meaning
itself. To deny Him is to dissolve language into
emptiness; to embrace Him is to inhabit truth.

The Logos and the Teleology of the Cosmos

Every worldview must answer the question of

destiny: is the cosmos moving toward a
purpose, or is it merely drifting in endless
cycles or blind chance? The biblical answer is
emphatic: the cosmos is teleological. It has a
goal, a telos, and that telos is found in Christ,
the Logos.
The Information Field is not only the foundation
and grammar of reality but also its
INSTRUCTION TOWARD AN END. Every law
of physics, every quantum interaction, every
thought of man, every movement of history is
drawn toward consummation in the Logos. As
Paul declares: “FOR OF HIM, AND THROUGH
HIM, AND TO HIM, ARE ALL THINGS: TO
110
WHOM BE GLORY FOREVER. AMEN” (Rom.
11:36).

Chapter 3 Section 5: Creation as

Teleological Instruction

Genesis does not present creation as a static

artifact but as a dynamic unfolding. God does
not merely call the world into being; He orders
it toward fruitfulness: “BE FRUITFUL, AND
MULTIPLY, AND REPLENISH THE EARTH,
AND SUBDUE IT” (Gen. 1:28). The act of
creation carries within it an intrinsic
orientation toward growth, development, and
fulfillment.
This is the logic of the Information Field: it is
not mere data but divine command. The laws of
the cosmos are covenantal ordinances (Jer.
33:25). They direct creation toward its
ordained goal.
John Owen rightly observed: “All things, in
their continuance and order, have respect unto
the end of God’s glory, for which they were
made” (THE GLORY OF CHRIST). The cosmos
is therefore not only sustained but propelled
toward its end in the Logos.

111
History as Teleological Drama

History is not circular repetition but linear

movement toward consummation. The prophets
testify that history is guided by divine counsel:
“DECLARING THE END FROM THE
BEGINNING, AND FROM ANCIENT TIMES
THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT YET DONE” (Isa.
46:10).
This means that the Information Field is not
only scientific or metaphysical but providential.
It orders the rise and fall of empires (Dan.
2:21), directs the steps of kings and
commoners alike (Prov. 21:1), and ensures that
all things work together for the good of God’s
elect (Rom. 8:28).
As Herman Bavinck declared: “History is the
execution of God’s eternal counsel, the
outworking of His plan, the path along which
creation moves to its final destiny”
(REFORMED DOGMATICS, II). The teleology of
history is not an optional perspective but the
very structure of the Information Field.

The Cosmos Oriented Toward Christ

The New Testament makes this teleology

explicit: Christ is not only the beginning of
creation but its end. “FOR BY HIM WERE ALL
THINGS CREATED… AND HE IS BEFORE ALL
THINGS, AND BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST.
112
AND HE IS THE HEAD OF THE BODY, THE
CHURCH… THAT IN ALL THINGS HE MIGHT
HAVE THE PREEMINENCE” (Col. 1:16–18).
The Information Field finds its completion in
Christ. Quantum laws, cosmic expansion, the
drama of history, the renewal of the mind — all
converge in Him. Ephesians 1:10 describes the
divine plan as the “GATHERING TOGETHER IN
ONE ALL THINGS IN CHRIST, BOTH WHICH
ARE IN HEAVEN, AND WHICH ARE ON
EARTH.”
Francis Schaeffer described this as the “final
coherence”: the Logos unifies all of creation in
Himself, so that nothing remains fragmented
(THE GOD WHO IS THERE). Without Christ,
the field would collapse into noise. With Christ,
it is ordered toward eternal glory.

The Second Heaven and the Battle for

Teleology

Because the second heaven (the noetic realm of

the mind/soul) is the battleground of meaning,
it is also the battleground of teleology. The
ultimate question of the soul is not merely
“What is true?” but “What is my end?”
Satanic deception blinds minds to this
teleology: “WHOSE END IS DESTRUCTION,
WHOSE GOD IS THEIR BELLY, AND WHOSE
GLORY IS IN THEIR SHAME, WHO MIND

113
EARTHLY THINGS” (Phil. 3:19). In contrast,
those renewed in Christ set their affections on
things above (Col. 3:2), knowing that their
citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20).
Thus, the Information Field is not neutral; it
presses every mind toward its telos. Either
one’s noetic life is drawn toward futility or
toward Christ. As S. C. Sayles has argued, the
second shamay is where destiny is decided, for
it is the realm where covenantal choices are
made and where the Logos illumines or is
resisted (THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE
MIND).

The Consummation of All Things

The final chapter of Scripture depicts the

consummation of teleology: a new heaven and
new earth, radiant with divine light (Rev. 21:1–
5). Here the Information Field reaches its goal:
not only structuring and sustaining creation but
transforming it into glory.
John Calvin spoke of this as “THE
RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS, WHEN
CHRIST SHALL RETURN TO MAKE THE
WORLD, HEAVEN AND EARTH, NEW AGAIN”
(COMMENTARY ON 2 PETER 3:13). The Logos
is both Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22:13). He is
not merely the starting point but the final end,
the telos of the cosmos.

114
The Logos as Teleological Center

We may summarize:
 The cosmos is not static but teleological,
moving toward Christ.
 Creation is ordered by divine instruction
to bear fruit and fulfill its purpose.
 History is linear, covenantal, and
providential, moving toward
consummation.
 The Information Field is not neutral but
directional, pressing all toward a telos.
 The second heaven (mind) is the arena
where destiny is embraced or rejected.
 The Logos is Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and end of all creation.
Thus the Logos is not only the ontological
anchor, epistemic light, and grammar of
meaning, but also the teleological center of
the cosmos. The Information Field is His
foundation, His light, His language, and His
instruction toward consummation.

The Logos and the Covenant of

Communication

At the heart of the Christian worldview is the

confession that God speaks. He is not silent,
nor does He communicate in riddles that
obscure His intent. From Genesis to Revelation,

115
Scripture presents reality itself as a divine
dialogue, a covenant of communication.
The Information Field, therefore, is not a
neutral matrix but a covenantal Word. It is
God’s speech structured into creation,
sustained by the Logos, and illuminated by the
Spirit. Every law of nature, every act of
providence, every line of Scripture is
covenantal utterance.

Chapter 3 Section 6: Creation as

Speech

The opening of Scripture is not a description of

mechanics but of communication: “AND GOD
SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT: AND THERE
WAS LIGHT” (Gen. 1:3). The cosmos begins not
with force but with speech. Creation is the echo
of God’s command.
Psalm 33:6 confirms this: “BY THE WORD OF
THE LORD WERE THE HEAVENS MADE; AND
ALL THE HOST OF THEM BY THE BREATH OF
HIS MOUTH.” Creation is a covenantal act, for
God does not merely produce matter but
speaks into being a reality that is intelligible,
relational, and responsive.
John Calvin noted that “the Word of God is the
instrument by which the world was created and
is still sustained, for the Word is not transient
sound but eternal power” (INSTITUTES,

116
I.vii.5). The Information Field, then, is the
enduring resonance of that Word.

Providence as Communication

God’s governance of creation is likewise

presented as speech. The psalmist declares:
“HE SENDETH FORTH HIS COMMANDMENT
UPON EARTH: HIS WORD RUNNETH VERY
SWIFTLY” (Ps. 147:15). Providence is not silent
determinism but ongoing utterance.
For this reason, the laws of physics may be
described as covenantal ordinances (Jer.
33:25). They are not blind mechanisms but
divine instructions that creation unfailingly
obeys. As John Owen wrote: “The law, order,
and harmony of all things depend on the word
of God’s power, whereby all are preserved and
directed unto their ends” (WORKS, Vol. 18).
This means that to study nature is to listen to
God’s ongoing address — a theme echoed by
modern thinkers like Francis Bacon, who saw
science as “reading the book of God’s works,”
parallel to Scripture as “the book of God’s
words.”

117
Scripture as Covenant Word

If creation and providence are divine speech,

then Scripture is the covenant Word par
excellence. Carl F. H. Henry stressed:
“Revelation is not mere data but the
communication of the living God, intelligible
and true, designed to be understood and
obeyed” (GOD, REVELATION, AND
AUTHORITY).
The inscripturated Word is the covenant
document of the divine-human relationship. It
does not simply inform but binds, commands,
and promises. The Bible is not static
information but covenantal communication,
where the Logos addresses His people.
Thus, the Information Field converges with
Scripture. Both are covenantal speech acts:
creation declaring God’s glory (Ps. 19:1–4),
Scripture revealing His saving Word (2 Tim.
3:16). Together they testify that meaning is not
humanly constructed but divinely spoken.

Humanity as Covenant Respondent

Communication presupposes a listener, and

humanity is created as the covenantal
respondent. Made in the image of God, man is
the being addressed by the Word, the creature
summoned to hear, believe, and obey.

118
Deuteronomy 6:4 begins the Shema with a
command of hearing: “HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE
LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD.” Faith itself is
defined as hearing: “SO THEN FAITH
COMETH BY HEARING, AND HEARING BY
THE WORD OF GOD” (Rom. 10:17).
Cornelius Van Til emphasized that neutrality is
impossible in this covenant of communication:
“Man is either a covenant keeper or a covenant
breaker in his every thought and word” (THE
DEFENSE OF THE FAITH). The noetic realm —
the second heaven — is where this response is
made. Either the Word is received in light, or it
is resisted in darkness.

Christ as Mediator of the Covenant Word

The fullness of covenantal communication is

revealed in the Logos incarnate. Hebrews 1:1–2
declares: “GOD, WHO AT SUNDRY TIMES AND
IN DIVERS MANNERS SPAKE IN TIME PAST
UNTO THE FATHERS BY THE PROPHETS,
HATH IN THESE LAST DAYS SPOKEN UNTO
US BY HIS SON.”
Christ is the covenant Word in person. In Him
the Information Field is no longer abstract
order but incarnate fellowship. As John Owen
wrote: “In Christ, God speaks to us by Himself,
and not by any other” (EXPOSITION OF
HEBREWS).

119
Thus the covenant of communication is
consummated in the Logos who speaks, lives,
and redeems. The Information Field is revealed
to be Christocentric speech — the Father
addressing creation in the Son by the Spirit.

Summary: The Covenant of

Communication

We may summarize:
 Creation begins with speech: the divine
Word is the source of being.
 Providence continues as speech: God’s
ongoing Word sustains and directs.
 Scripture is covenantal Word: binding,
revealing, and saving.
 Humanity is the respondent: created to
hear and obey the Logos.
 Christ is the fullness: the covenant Word
incarnate, mediator of communication.
The Information Field is therefore not a neutral
system but a covenantal dialogue. It is God’s
ongoing address, summoning all creation into
order, and summoning humanity into covenant.
To know the cosmos truly is to know it as Word
— and to know Christ as the Word made flesh.

120
The Logos and the Eschatology of the Field

If the Information Field is the foundation of

reality, the grammar of meaning, and the
covenantal communication of God, then it is
also eschatological. It not only sustains
creation but draws it toward consummation.
The end of created reality is not dissolution into
silence but transformation into glory, where the
Logos is all in all.

Chapter 3 Section 7: The Field Oriented

Toward Fulfillment

The apostle Paul describes the entire cosmos as

groaning in expectation: “FOR THE EARNEST
EXPECTATION OF THE CREATURE WAITETH
FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF THE SONS OF
GOD… BECAUSE THE CREATURE ITSELF
ALSO SHALL BE DELIVERED FROM THE
BONDAGE OF CORRUPTION INTO THE
GLORIOUS LIBERTY OF THE CHILDREN OF
GOD” (Rom. 8:19, 21).
This groaning is not noise but anticipation. The
Information Field itself strains toward its telos:
the revelation of Christ in glory. Creation is not
only held together by the Logos but propelled
toward Him.
As Jonathan Edwards noted, “All the
revolutions which there have been in the world,
are but the turning of the wheels of Providence
121
to bring about the glorious kingdom of Christ”
(A HISTORY OF THE WORK OF
REDEMPTION).

The Noetic Heaven Transfigured

If the second heaven is the realm of the mind

and soul, then it too participates in this
eschatological consummation. The darkened
noetic structures of fallen man — deceitful
imaginations, futile philosophies, corrupted
desires — will either be judged or renewed.
Paul declares: “WE HAVE THE MIND OF
CHRIST” (1 Cor. 2:16). This anticipates the
final renewal, when the noetic heaven itself will
be illumined perfectly by the Logos. “NOW WE
SEE THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY; BUT THEN
FACE TO FACE” (1 Cor. 13:12). The battle for
meaning will give way to perfect vision, as the
field of the mind is purified by glory.
S. C. Sayles emphasizes that the second
shamay is the arena of antithesis in the present
age but will be transformed into the arena of
perfect communion in the age to come (THE
ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIND).

122
Christ as Eschatological Logos

The book of Revelation portrays Christ not only

as Alpha but as Omega (Rev. 22:13). He is the
beginning of the field and its end. “THE
KINGDOMS OF THIS WORLD ARE BECOME
THE KINGDOMS OF OUR LORD, AND OF HIS
CHRIST; AND HE SHALL REIGN FOR EVER
AND EVER” (Rev. 11:15).
Carl F. H. Henry observes: “The eschaton is not
a rupture of meaning but its consummation, not
a denial of the Logos but His final disclosure”
(GOD, REVELATION, AND AUTHORITY).
Thus, the Information Field is revealed as a
drama with a final act: the enthronement of the
Logos in unveiled glory.

Resurrection and the Field of Glory

The resurrection of Christ is the firstfruits of

this eschatological renewal. Paul insists that
Christ’s rising is not an isolated miracle but the
prototype of cosmic transformation: “BUT NOW
IS CHRIST RISEN FROM THE DEAD, AND
BECOME THE FIRSTFRUITS OF THEM THAT
SLEPT” (1 Cor. 15:20).
The Information Field, once distorted by sin
and entropy, is now restructured in
resurrection power. The laws of decay (Rom.
8:21) will give way to incorruptibility. As
Bavinck notes: “Grace restores nature, not by
123
annulling it, but by bringing it to its highest
fulfillment” (REFORMED DOGMATICS, IV).
The field will not be discarded but glorified —
not a new order replacing the old but the old
transfigured into its intended radiance.

The New Heavens and New Earth

The eschaton culminates in the vision of a new

heaven and new earth, where God dwells with
His people (Rev. 21:1–3). This is the ultimate
state of the Information Field: pure
communication, unbroken meaning, and
eternal covenant.
Isaiah foresaw this: “FOR, BEHOLD, I CREATE
NEW HEAVENS AND A NEW EARTH: AND
THE FORMER SHALL NOT BE REMEMBERED,
NOR COME INTO MIND” (Isa. 65:17). Calvin
comments: “The renovation of the world will be
no less than the restoration of the church, for
in Christ all things are made new”
(COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH 65:17).
The final destiny of the field is not chaos but
communion: the Logos dwelling with creation
in unmediated glory.

Eschatology of the Field

We may summarize:
124
  The Information Field is teleological,
oriented toward consummation.
 Creation itself groans in anticipation of
renewal in Christ.
 The noetic heaven (mind) will be purified
and illumined perfectly.
 The Logos is Omega: the final revelation
and fulfillment of the field.
 The resurrection is the firstfruits of cosmic
renewal.
 The new heavens and new earth are the
perfected state of the field in eternal
communion.
The Information Field is therefore not a static
lattice but a covenantal drama moving from
creation to consummation. Its eschatology is
Christ: the Logos who makes all things new.

From Logos to Trinity

We have now traced the contours of the Logos

as the foundation and anchor of reality:
 Ontologically, the Logos is the ground of
being.
 Epistemologically, He is the light of
knowledge.
 Semantically, He is the grammar of
meaning.
 Teleologically, He is the end toward which
all things move.

125
  Covenantally, He is the Word who binds
God and creation in communication.
 Eschatologically, He is the consummation
of the field in eternal glory.
The Information Field, then, is not a neutral
concept borrowed from physics and imposed
upon theology. It is the very structure of reality
as revealed in Christ. To speak of “information”
at its deepest level is to speak of the Word of
God, the Logos through whom all things are
made, sustained, and redeemed.
Yet we must now go deeper still. For the Logos
does not exist in isolation. He is eternally the
Son of the Father, proceeding in the Spirit.
Meaning, truth, and life are not abstract
principles but the communion of the Triune
God.
The next stage of our journey will therefore
unfold the Trinitarian depth of the
Information Field:
 How the Father, as fons divinitatis, is the
source of the Word.
 How the Son, the Logos, is the articulation
of divine meaning.
 How the Spirit, the breath of God, is the
illumination and communication of that
Word.
It is here, in the doctrine of the Trinity, that the
Information Field will be revealed not as an
impersonal web of laws but as the eternal life
of God shared with creation.
126
Thus Part II has brought us to the threshold of
the greatest mystery: the recognition that the
architecture of information, from quantum
entanglement to human thought, from the laws
of physics to the drama of history, is finally a
reflection of the Triune God Himself. To enter
Part III is to enter theology proper — to behold
the Word who was with God, who was God, and
who became flesh, full of grace and truth.

127
Chapter 3 Section 8 :The Trinity and the
Field of Glory

The claim that the Information Field is the

foundation and instruction for all of created
reality can never be reduced to impersonal
mechanics, mathematical laws, or quantum
structures alone. Such conceptions, though
valuable in describing physical regularities, fall
short of explaining why there is intelligibility at
all, why the world is coherent, and why reality
is not silent but saturated with meaning.
The ultimate reason, Scripture tells us, is that
reality is not grounded in impersonal principles
but in the living God — more specifically, the
Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The
eternal life of God Himself is communication,
relation, and love. This divine communion is the
source and explanation of why the cosmos is
itself communicative and ordered, why creation
resonates with intelligibility, and why human
beings are capable of hearing, interpreting, and
responding to truth.
To confess the Trinity, then, is not an abstract
doctrinal exercise. It is to confess that the very
possibility of an Information Field arises
because ultimate reality is not dumb matter,
blind force, or static energy, but speech and
communion within the Godhead.

128
John 1:1–3 provides the decisive foundation:
“IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD
(LOGOS), AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD,
AND THE WORD WAS GOD. THE SAME WAS
IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD. ALL THINGS
WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM
WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS
MADE.” This text does not only affirm the deity
of Christ; it describes the entire structure of
reality as grounded in the Word. The cosmos
itself is a spoken order, a web of divine
communication.
The Information Field, therefore, is nothing less
than the imprint of the Triune life in creation.
To explore this, we must consider the eternal
relations: the Father as Source, the Son as
Word, and the Spirit as Breath.

The Father as Source (Fons Divinitatis)

The Reformed tradition, following the Church

Fathers, has long recognized the Father as the
FONS DIVINITATIS — the fountain of divinity.
He is the unbegotten, the eternal origin of Son
and Spirit.
John Calvin remarks: “The name of Father is
not used without relation to the Son. And
indeed, wherever the name of God is simply
used without particularization, the Son and
Spirit are also understood. But when the Father
is compared with the Son, the peculiar property

129
of each is to be considered” (INSTITUTES,
I.xiii.19).
Here we see that origin itself is personal. The
Father does not originate by generating
impersonal forces or abstract structures but by
eternally begetting the Son and eternally
spirating the Spirit. This personal
communication within the Godhead is the
eternal ground of all created communication.
Augustine, in DE TRINITATE, clarifies: “The
Father is not wise by a wisdom which is not
Himself, but by the Wisdom which He begat,
who is His power and His wisdom” (VII.1). The
Wisdom of God is not something external to
Him but is eternally generated in the Son.
Thus, when we confess that the Information
Field is the structure of creation, we are
confessing that the Father is its Source — not
as an impersonal principle but as the fountain
of personal Wisdom and Breath. The very fact
that reality has intelligibility is because its
source is not blind chaos but the personal
Father who eternally communicates His being
to Son and Spirit.
Psalm 36:9 captures this beautifully: “FOR
WITH THEE IS THE FOUNTAIN OF LIFE: IN
THY LIGHT SHALL WE SEE LIGHT.” The
Father is the fountain; the light of intelligibility
flows from Him.

130
The Son as Word (Logos)

If the Father is Source, the Son is the eternal

Word, the divine self-expression. He is “the
image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), “the
brightness of His glory, and the express image
of His person” (Heb. 1:3).
The Son is called Logos not merely in the
sense of rational principle but as the eternal
articulation of God’s own being. Herman
Bavinck writes: “The Son is the Word, the
Logos, the speech of God turned toward us, the
living revelation of God himself” (REFORMED
DOGMATICS, II.276).
This means that the Information Field — the
structure of all meaning, coherence, and
intelligibility — is nothing less than the Son’s
eternal role as Logos expressed into creation.
The laws of logic, the patterns of mathematics,
the symmetries of physics, the coherence of
language, the structures of consciousness — all
are reflections of the eternal Logos.
John 1:4 declares: “IN HIM WAS LIFE; AND
THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN.” Here we
see that information, in its truest sense, is not
inert data but life-bearing light. To live is to be
illumined by the Logos. To think, to perceive, to
know — these are all participations in the Word
who is life.
This is why Colossians 2:3 says of Christ: “IN
WHOM ARE HID ALL THE TREASURES OF
WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE.” Not some, but
131
all treasures of intelligibility reside in Him. To
separate knowledge from Christ is to dislocate
it from its source.
Cornelius Van Til drove this point home: “The
only alternative to thinking God’s thoughts
after Him is to think the thoughts of man in
terms of chance” (THE DEFENSE OF THE
FAITH). The Logos is not one explanatory
principle among others; He is the necessary
condition of all intelligibility.
Thus, to speak of the Information Field is to
speak of the Son — the Logos, the eternal
articulation of God, the grammar of reality.

The Spirit as Breath (Pneuma)

If the Father is Source and the Son is Word,

then the Spirit is Breath — the divine wind that
communicates, applies, and animates. Genesis
1:2 declares: “AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD
MOVED UPON THE FACE OF THE WATERS.”
This is the first movement of communication in
creation: the Breath preparing the cosmos to
receive the Word.
The Hebrew term RUACH and the Greek
PNEUMA both signify breath, wind, and spirit.
This rich metaphor reveals that the Spirit is the
dynamic energy of communication, the one who
carries the Word into creation and into human
hearts.
132
John Owen observed: “The Spirit is the
immediate efficient cause of all vital operations
in the new creation, as he was in the old”
(WORKS, Vol. 3, p. 160). Just as He hovered
over the formless waters, bringing order
through the Word, so He now hovers over the
human heart, bringing regeneration through
the Word of Christ.
If the Son is the Word, the Spirit is the breath
that makes the Word heard. He is the
resonance, the illumination, the application.
Without the Spirit, the Word is not absent, but
it remains unreceived. The Spirit is the
difference between objective meaning and
subjective reception.
Psalm 104:30 declares: “THOU SENDEST
FORTH THY SPIRIT, THEY ARE CREATED:
AND THOU RENEWEST THE FACE OF THE
EARTH.” The Spirit is both Creator and Re-
creator, both the one who brings order from
chaos and the one who renews creation in
anticipation of glory.
In the framework of the Information Field, the
Spirit is the dynamic principle of communion.
He ensures that the Word does not remain
abstract but is always living, active,
penetrating — “sharper than any twoedged
sword” (Heb. 4:12).

133
Trinitarian Unity of the Field

When we bring these strands together, we see

that the Information Field is irreducibly
Trinitarian.
 From the Father: the Source, the
fountain of personal life and intelligibility.
 In the Son: the Word, the eternal Logos
who is the grammar of reality.
 Through the Spirit: the Breath, who
applies and illumines the Word, making
communion possible.
This is why Van Til could say: “The ontological
Trinity is the presupposition of all human
predication” (THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH,
p. 17). If ultimate reality were not triune, then
meaning itself would collapse. Either there
would be bare unity with no differentiation (a
monolithic silence), or bare plurality with no
coherence (chaos). Only the Trinity, where
unity and distinction are equally ultimate,
grounds the possibility of a coherent and
communicative reality.
Francis Schaeffer echoed this insight: “It is
only the personal-infinite God who is there who
provides a place for man to live. The God who
is Trinity is the only answer to the problem of
unity and diversity” (THE GOD WHO IS
THERE).
Thus, to speak of the Information Field is to
confess the Trinity. Reality is not an impersonal

134
web but the theater of God’s eternal Word,
breathed by the Spirit, flowing from the Father.

135
Implications for the Cosmos and the Mind

This Trinitarian grounding of the field has two

major implications:
1. The Cosmos: The physical universe is not
simply an ordered system but a covenantal
communication of the Triune God. The
laws of physics are not brute facts but
divine ordinances. The quantum field,
spacetime, energy, and matter are all
sustained by the Word of Christ (Heb.
1:3).
2. The Mind: The human soul (second
SHAMAY) is not an autonomous realm but
a created heaven structured by the
Information Field. Every act of reasoning,
imagining, and remembering is either
covenantally aligned with the Logos or
distorted in rebellion. Romans 12:2 calls
for the renewal of the mind, which is the
Spirit’s work of reordering the noetic
heaven according to the Word.
Thus, the cosmos and the soul alike bear the
imprint of the Trinity. Both exist because the
Father is Source, the Son is Word, and the
Spirit is Breath.

The Information Field is not a neutral system,

not an abstract matrix of laws, not a faceless
structure of communication. It is the self-
expression of the Triune God:
136
  The Father as eternal Source, fountain of
life and meaning.
 The Son as Logos, the eternal Word, the
grammar of all reality.
 The Spirit as Breath, the living dynamic of
communion and application.
Here we glimpse the deepest truth: the reason
creation is intelligible is because God Himself
is eternally intelligible, eternally
communicative, eternally relational. The field of
information is the reflection of the eternal
Word in time and space.
To understand information at its root, then, is
to worship: to bow before the Father, through
the Son, in the Spirit.

The Logos and Creation: Word as Act

The movement from eternity to creation, from

God’s inner life to the existence of the cosmos,
is mediated through the Word. John 1:3
declares: “ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM;
AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING
MADE THAT WAS MADE.” Creation is not the
product of blind force, random fluctuation, or
eternal matter. It is the spoken act of the
Logos.
Genesis 1 emphasizes this rhythm: “AND GOD
SAID… AND IT WAS SO.” Each moment of
creation is a speech-act. God does not shape
pre-existent matter; He calls reality into
being through His Word. This is what
137
Reformed theology calls creatio ex nihilo —
creation out of nothing, not as a spontaneous
accident but as the free, purposeful act of
divine speech.

The Speech-Act of God

Modern philosophy of language distinguishes

between three aspects of speech: locution (the
words spoken), illocution (the intention behind
them), and perlocution (the effect they
achieve). In God’s creative Word, these three
coincide perfectly:
 The locution is “Let there be.”
 The illocution is God’s intention to
create.
 The perlocution is the immediate coming-
into-being of what is spoken.
Unlike human speech, which may fail or
misfire, divine speech is effectual. Isaiah 55:11
declares: “SO SHALL MY WORD BE THAT
GOETH FORTH OUT OF MY MOUTH: IT
SHALL NOT RETURN UNTO ME VOID, BUT IT
SHALL ACCOMPLISH THAT WHICH I PLEASE,
AND IT SHALL PROSPER IN THE THING
WHERETO I SENT IT.”
This means that creation itself is not passive
stuff but Word-shaped reality. Every law of
physics, every quantum fluctuation, every

138
dimension of space and time is a crystallized
command of God.

The Information Field as Creative

Instruction

The Information Field, in this theological light,

is the instruction of God encoded in
creation. As Psalm 33:6 affirms: “BY THE
WORD OF THE LORD WERE THE HEAVENS
MADE; AND ALL THE HOST OF THEM BY THE
BREATH OF HIS MOUTH.”
We might say that creation is structured
information — not as mere abstract data but as
divine command crystallized into being.
The physical laws that scientists discover are
not autonomous “rules” of nature; they are the
ongoing faithfulness of God’s Word. As
Hebrews 1:3 puts it: “HE UPHOLDS ALL
THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER.”
Thus, when physics speaks of the quantum
field, or mathematics uncovers symmetry, or
cosmology traces the laws of expansion,
theology recognizes these as reflections of the
eternal Word active in time. The cosmos is
Word-made-structure, a living instruction set
spoken into existence.

139
Creation as Covenant Communication

Reformed theology insists that creation is not

neutral but covenantal. The Word not only calls
the world into being but also establishes a
relationship between God and creation.
Hosea 2:21–22 describes creation in covenantal
terms: “I WILL HEAR THE HEAVENS, AND
THEY SHALL HEAR THE EARTH; AND THE
EARTH SHALL HEAR THE CORN, AND THE
WINE, AND THE OIL.” Creation itself is
dialogical, designed for communication
between God and His creatures.
Francis Schaeffer emphasizes this: “He is
there, and He is not silent” (HE IS THERE AND
HE IS NOT SILENT). Creation is intelligible
because it is Word-shaped, designed for
communication. The Information Field is
therefore not merely a physical lattice but a
covenant dialogue, God addressing His
creatures through the very structures of
existence.

The Logos and the Dimensions of Creation

The act of creation by the Logos is not limited

to the visible, material order. Scripture testifies
to multiple heavens (SHAMAYIM), each
structured by the Word:

140
 1. First Heaven – the visible cosmos of stars
and planets (Gen. 1:14–18).
2. Second Heaven – the noetic realm of the
mind and soul, where thought and will are
structured (2 Cor. 10:5; Rom. 12:2).
3. Third Heaven – the throne-room of God,
the place of His unveiled presence (2 Cor.
12:2–4).
As S. C. Sayles has argued in THE
ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIND, the second
SHAMAY (second heaven) is the realm of
human consciousness, memory, and
imagination — the mind as a heaven structured
by the Information Field. This insight reframes
creation itself: it is not only spatial and
material but also psychological and spiritual.
The Word structures both galaxies and
thoughts, both atoms and intentions.
Thus, the Logos as act of creation bridges
physical, noetic, and spiritual dimensions,
anchoring them all in His command.

Reformed Theological Witness

Reformed theology has always confessed

creation by the Word as central.
 John Calvin: “The world was made out of
nothing, so that all things which we see
have been created by God” (INSTITUTES,
I.xiv.20).
141
  Herman Bavinck: “The Word is the
principle of order, the archetype of all
ideas, the light of every mind”
(REFORMED DOGMATICS, II. 320).
 Cornelius Van Til: “The creation is a
revelation of God. It is God speaking. To
be a creature is to be addressed”
(CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS).
Thus, creation itself is not only the effect of
divine speech but its ongoing medium. The
cosmos is a text, a Word, a field of information
that reveals the Speaker.

The Word that Creates and Redeems

Finally, we must see that the Logos as creative

Word is also the Logos as redeeming Word. The
One who said “Let there be light” is the same
who declared, “I am the light of the world”
(John 8:12). Creation and redemption are acts
of the same Logos.
Paul affirms this in 2 Corinthians 4:6: “FOR
GOD, WHO COMMANDED THE LIGHT TO
SHINE OUT OF DARKNESS, HATH SHINED IN
OUR HEARTS, TO GIVE THE LIGHT OF THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE GLORY OF GOD IN THE
FACE OF JESUS CHRIST.” The creative Word
that brought forth the sun is the same
redemptive Word that enlightens the human
heart.

142
This reveals that the Information Field is not
static but teleological: ordered from the
beginning toward the end of communion with
God in Christ.

Creation is the speech-act of God:

 The Word is spoken by the Father.
 The Breath carries it by the Spirit.
 Reality itself comes into being and
remains structured by this Word.
The Information Field is therefore the divine
instruction set of reality, sustaining both the
cosmos and the human soul. It is covenantal
communication, the ongoing dialogue of God
with creation. To understand it is to recognize
that all things, visible and invisible, are the acts
of the Logos — the eternal Word made
manifest.
The Spirit and Illumination: The Breath of
Meaning

If the Father is the Source and the Son the

Word, then the Spirit is the Breath who gives
that Word life, clarity, and power. Without the
Spirit, the Word would remain distant to us;
with the Spirit, the Word becomes the
illumination of the heart, the flame of meaning
within the soul.
Genesis 1:2 introduces the Spirit as the
animating presence in creation: “AND THE
SPIRIT OF GOD MOVED UPON THE FACE OF
THE WATERS.” Before light was spoken, the
143
Spirit hovered, preparing, quickening,
sustaining. The Spirit is not ancillary to the
Word but its immediate companion and
energizer. Where the Son gives structure, the
Spirit gives vitality.

The Spirit as the Interpreter of the Word

Throughout Scripture, the Spirit is portrayed as

the one who interprets the divine Word to
human hearts. Jesus promised His disciples:
“HE SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, AND
BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR
REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID
UNTO YOU” (John 14:26). The Spirit takes the
objective speech of the Logos and translates it
into subjective understanding.
This is illumination — the Spirit enabling finite
minds to grasp the infinite wisdom of God. Paul
declares: “THE NATURAL MAN RECEIVETH
NOT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD:
FOR THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM…
BUT HE THAT IS SPIRITUAL JUDGETH ALL
THINGS” (1 Cor. 2:14–15). The Spirit turns the
Word from bare data into living truth. Without
Him, the Information Field is unreadable; with
Him, it is radiant with intelligibility.

144
The Spirit as Life-Giver

The Spirit not only illuminates but also vivifies.

He is the breath of life in both creation and
redemption. Job confesses: “THE SPIRIT OF
GOD HATH MADE ME, AND THE BREATH OF
THE ALMIGHTY HATH GIVEN ME LIFE” (Job
33:4). Similarly, Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones
(Ezek. 37) testifies that the Word spoken must
be accompanied by the Spirit’s breath to bring
resurrection.
John Owen emphasized this role: “The Holy
Spirit is the immediate author of all divine life
in the souls of men” (THE WORKS OF JOHN
OWEN). Just as no body lives without breath,
no soul lives without the Spirit. He is the
animating force of the Information Field, the
one who transforms ordered structure into
pulsing life.

The Spirit and the Mind (The Second

Shamay)

In Sayles’ framework of the SECOND SHAMAY

as the realm of the mind and soul, the Spirit’s
role is decisive. The second heaven is the
battlefield of thought, memory, imagination,
and will. The Spirit is the one who renews this
realm: “BE YE TRANSFORMED BY THE
RENEWING OF YOUR MIND” (Rom. 12:2).

145
Without the Spirit, the noetic heaven is
darkened, enslaved by sin and hostile to God
(Eph. 4:18; Rom. 8:7). With the Spirit, it
becomes luminous, receptive, and free: “FOR
GOD HATH NOT GIVEN US THE SPIRIT OF
FEAR; BUT OF POWER, AND OF LOVE, AND
OF A SOUND MIND” (2 Tim. 1:7). The Spirit
therefore not only applies the Word but also
reorders the entire consciousness of man in
alignment with the Information Field.

The Spirit as Communal Presence

The Spirit does not work only in individuals but

in the church as a corporate field of
meaning. At Pentecost (Acts 2), the Spirit
descended in tongues of fire, uniting diverse
nations into one body by the Word. The Spirit
transforms human language itself, turning
fragmentation into communion.
As Calvin observed: “The Spirit is the bond by
which Christ effectually unites us to himself”
(INSTITUTES, III.i.1). The Information Field is
not only cosmic and personal but also ecclesial:
the Spirit builds the body of Christ as a living
temple, in which the Word dwells richly.

146
The Spirit and Eschatological Fulfillment

Finally, the Spirit points beyond creation to

consummation. Romans 8:23 speaks of
believers having the “FIRSTFRUITS OF THE
SPIRIT” as a pledge of future glory. The Spirit
is not only the breath of life in the beginning
but the breath of new creation at the end.
As Bavinck writes: “The Spirit of God, who in
the beginning made heaven and earth, now
renews human beings and will one day renew
the world itself” (REFORMED DOGMATICS,
IV). The Information Field, sustained by the
Spirit, is therefore eschatological: it moves
creation toward the fullness of communion with
God.

 The Spirit interprets the Word, making

the Information Field intelligible.
 The Spirit gives life, turning structure
into vitality.
 The Spirit renews the mind, reordering
the second heaven (soul).
 The Spirit forms the Church, making
the Word communal.
 The Spirit anticipates consummation,
breathing new creation.
Thus, the Information Field is not merely a
system of laws but the ongoing Breath of God,
147
the Spirit who makes the Logos present,
intelligible, and transformative.
The Trinity and the Unity of the Field

Having considered the Father as Source, the

Son as Word, and the Spirit as Breath, we must
now draw these together into a single vision:
the unity of the Information Field as the
revelation of the Triune God. This section
anchors the doctrine of the field not in abstract
metaphysics but in the eternal, personal
communion of Father, Son, and Spirit.

Unity in Distinction

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms

that God is one essence in three persons.
This unity is not mathematical but ontological.
God is not three beings but one Being-in-
Communion. Augustine famously wrote:
“THERE IS A TRINITY: THE LOVER, THE
BELOVED, AND THE LOVE” (DE TRINITATE,
VIII.10).
This means that the Information Field is not a
patchwork of separate forces but a single field
that expresses plurality within unity. Its
coherence arises not from impersonal necessity
but from divine communion. The Father speaks,
the Son is the Word, and the Spirit is the
Breath; yet the act of creation is one, the field
one, the revelation one.

148
The Logos-Centric Unity

At the center of this unity stands the Logos.

For in the Word all things cohere. Colossians
1:17 declares: “BY HIM ALL THINGS
CONSIST.” The Word is not one voice among
many but the focal point of divine
communication.
Yet this Logos is never detached from the
Father or the Spirit. The Word reveals the
Father and is carried by the Spirit. Thus, the
Information Field is Christocentric but not
Christomonistic. It is not the Son alone, but
the Triune communion shining through the
Son. As Calvin insisted, “The Father is known
only in the Son, by the illumination of the
Spirit” (INSTITUTES, I.xiii.15).

The Field as Covenant Reality

The unity within the Information Field is

covenantal. God does not reveal Himself as a
bare principle but as the Lord who binds
Himself to His creation. In Jeremiah 31:35–36,
God ties the reliability of cosmic order to His
covenant faithfulness: “THUS SAITH THE
LORD, WHICH GIVETH THE SUN FOR A
LIGHT BY DAY, AND THE ORDINANCES OF
THE MOON AND OF THE STARS FOR A
LIGHT BY NIGHT… IF THOSE ORDINANCES
DEPART FROM BEFORE ME, SAITH THE
149
LORD, THEN THE SEED OF ISRAEL ALSO
SHALL CEASE FROM BEING A NATION
BEFORE ME FOR EVER.”
The laws of physics are not independent
frameworks but covenantal ordinances —
divine promises embodied in creation. The
Information Field is therefore both scientific
and theological: scientific in its discoverable
consistency, theological in its covenantal
reliability.

Van Til and the Transcendental Unity

Cornelius Van Til pressed this point: human

thought can only find unity in the Trinity. “WE
MUST PRESUPPOSE GOD, THE
ONTOLOGICAL TRINITY, IN ORDER TO HAVE
A FOUNDATION FOR THE UNITY AND
DIVERSITY OF THE WORLD.” Without the
Trinity, reality collapses into either chaos (pure
diversity with no order) or tyranny (pure unity
with no diversity).
The Information Field, grounded in the Trinity,
avoids both extremes. It is a unity that does not
suppress difference, and a diversity that does
not dissolve coherence. Science discovers
patterns because God is one; philosophy
discerns meaning because God is triune.

150
Bibliography

Scripture

 The Holy Bible, Authorized King James

Version.

Scientific and Contemporary Sources

 Barrow, John D., THE CONSTANTS OF

NATURE: THE NUMBERS THAT ENCODE
THE DEEPEST SECRETS OF THE
UNIVERSE. London: Vintage, 2003.
 Davies, Paul, THE MIND OF GOD: THE
SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR A RATIONAL
WORLD. New York: Simon & Schuster,
1992.
 Davies, Paul, THE FIFTH MIRACLE: THE
SEARCH FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.
 Einstein, Albert, RELATIVITY: THE
SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY.
Translated by Robert Lawson. New York:
Crown, 1961.
 Gell-Mann, Murray, THE QUARK AND
THE JAGUAR: ADVENTURES IN THE
SIMPLE AND THE COMPLEX. New York:
W.H. Freeman, 1994.
 Hawking, Stephen, A BRIEF HISTORY OF
TIME. New York: Bantam Books, 1988.
151
 Hawking, Stephen, and Roger Penrose,
THE NATURE OF SPACE AND TIME.
Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1996.
 Landauer, Rolf, “Information is Physical.”
PHYSICS TODAY 44, no. 5 (1991): 23–29.
 Lloyd, Seth, PROGRAMMING THE
UNIVERSE: A QUANTUM COMPUTER
SCIENTIST TAKES ON THE COSMOS.
New York: Knopf, 2006.
 Schrödinger, Erwin, WHAT IS LIFE?.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1944.
 Shannon, Claude E., “A Mathematical
Theory of Communication.” BELL
SYSTEM TECHNICAL JOURNAL 27
(1948): 379–423, 623–56.
 Susskind, Leonard, THE BLACK HOLE
WAR: MY BATTLE WITH STEPHEN
HAWKING TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE
FOR QUANTUM MECHANICS. New York:
Little, Brown, 2008.
 Wheeler, John Archibald, “Information,
Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links.”
In COMPLEXITY, ENTROPY, AND THE
PHYSICS OF INFORMATION, edited by
W. Zurek, 3–28. Redwood City, CA:
Addison-Wesley, 1990.
 Zeilinger, Anton, DANCE OF THE
PHOTONS: FROM EINSTEIN TO
QUANTUM TELEPORTATION. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010.

152
Philosophical Sources

 Aristotle, METAPHYSICS. Translated by

W.D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924.
 Augustine of Hippo, CONFESSIONS.
Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1991.
 Augustine of Hippo, ON THE TRINITY.
Translated by Arthur W. Haddan.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1873.
 Aquinas, Thomas, SUMMA THEOLOGIAE.
Translated by the Fathers of the English
Dominican Province. New York: Benziger
Bros., 1947.
 Berkeley, George, A TREATISE
CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF
HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. Edited by
Jonathan Dancy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1998.
 Descartes, René, MEDITATIONS ON
FIRST PHILOSOPHY. Translated by John
Cottingham. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
 Heidegger, Martin, BEING AND TIME.
Translated by John Macquarrie and
Edward Robinson. New York: Harper &
Row, 1962.
 Kant, Immanuel, CRITIQUE OF PURE
REASON. Translated by Paul Guyer and
Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998.
 Plato, TIMAEUS. Translated by Donald J.
Zeyl. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000.

153
  Plotinus, THE ENNEADS. Translated by
A.H. Armstrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1966.
 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, PHILOSOPHICAL
INVESTIGATIONS. Translated by G.E.M.
Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell, 1953.
 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, TRACTATUS
LOGICO-PHILOSOPHICUS. Translated by
C.K. Ogden. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1922.

Patristic and Medieval Sources

 Athanasius of Alexandria, ON THE

INCARNATION. Translated by John Behr.
Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2011.
 Augustine of Hippo, THE CITY OF GOD.
Translated by Henry Bettenson. London:
Penguin, 2003.
 Basil the Great, ON THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Translated by Stephen Hildebrand.
Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2011.
 Chrysostom, John, HOMILIES ON THE
GOSPEL OF JOHN. Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. 14. Edited
by Philip Schaff. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1994.
 Gregory of Nyssa, ON THE SOUL AND
THE RESURRECTION. Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 5. Edited by
154
 Philip Schaff. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1994.
 Irenaeus of Lyons, AGAINST HERESIES.
Translated by Dominic J. Unger. New
York: Paulist Press, 1992.
 Origen, ON FIRST PRINCIPLES.
Translated by G.W. Butterworth.
Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973.
 Tertullian, ON THE RESURRECTION OF
THE FLESH. In ANTE-NICENE FATHERS,
Vol. 3. Edited by A. Roberts and J.
Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1994.

Reformation and Post-Reformation

Sources

 Bucer, Martin, CONCERNING THE TRUE

CARE OF SOULS. Translated by Peter
Beale. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2009.
 Calvin, John, INSTITUTES OF THE
CHRISTIAN RELIGION. Edited by John T.
McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles.
2 Vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1960.
 Heidelberg Catechism. In REFORMED
CONFESSIONS OF THE 16TH AND 17TH
CENTURIES IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION,
Vol. 2. Edited by James T. Dennison.
Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage
Books, 2010.

155
  Knox, John, THE HISTORY OF THE
REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND. Edited by
William Croft Dickinson. London: Nelson,
1949.
 Luther, Martin, THE BONDAGE OF THE
WILL. Translated by J.I. Packer and O.R.
Johnston. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Revell,
1957.
 Luther, Martin, SERMONS ON THE
GOSPEL OF JOHN: CHAPTERS 14–16.
Translated by Martin H. Bertram. St.
Louis: Concordia, 1959.
 Westminster Confession of Faith.
Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications,
2003.

Reformed Scholastics and Modern

Reformed Voices

 Bavinck, Herman, REFORMED

DOGMATICS. Edited by John Bolt,
translated by John Vriend. 4 Vols. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008.
 Owen, John, THE WORKS OF JOHN
OWEN. Edited by William H. Goold. 16
Vols. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965.
 Turretin, Francis, INSTITUTES OF
ELENCTIC THEOLOGY. Translated by
George Musgrave Giger. Edited by James
T. Dennison, Jr. 3 Vols. Phillipsburg, NJ:
P&R, 1992–1997.

156
  Van Til, Cornelius, THE DEFENSE OF
THE FAITH. 4th ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R,
2008.
 Vos, Geerhardus, BIBLICAL THEOLOGY:
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.
Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1975.

Modern Engagements

 Henry, Carl F.H., GOD, REVELATION

AND AUTHORITY. 6 Vols. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 1999.
 Schaeffer, Francis A., THE GOD WHO IS
THERE. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1968.
 Sayles, S. C., THE ARCHITECTURE OF
THE MIND: THE INFORMATION FIELD
AND THE SOUL. Evolsiay Tulip
 Sayles S C ., THE SECOND SHAMAY:
Unveiling the Biblical realm of Mind and
Spirit. Evolsiay Tulip.
 Sayles S C., Beyond the Veil of Flesh: A
Metaphysical Journey into Spirit, Soul,
and the Higher Dimensions. Evolsiay
Tulip.
 Sayles S C., THE RATIONAL UNIVERSE:
PHILOSOPHICAL COSMOLOG. Evolsiay
Tulip.
 Sayles S C., Entropy of the Soul: Evil,
Disorder, and the Eternal Triump. Evolsiay
Tulip.

157
 Sayles S C., BEING AND NOTHINGNESS:
The Logos-Centred Ontology. Evolsiay
Tulip.
 Sayles S C., The Hidden Substrate of
Reality: Resolving the Failures of Modern
Physics. Evolsiay Tulip.
 Sayles S C ., VERITAS CONFIRMATA: The
Logos-Centred Epistemology. Evolsiay
Tulip.
 Sayles S C., LIGHT IN THE
INFORMATION FIELD: PHYSICS,
PHILOSOPHY, AND THE LOGOS. Evolsiay
Tulip.
 Sayles S C., THE LOGOS-CENTERED
COSMOLOGY: Reality, Information, and
the Glory of Christ. Evolsiay Tulip.
 Sayles S C., The Cosmic Code: Decoding
the Universe’s Informational Architectu.
Evolsiay Tulip.

158
159
160