Before I continue, we must discuss some underlying principles. Otherwise, the following experiences will make little sense. I am not the first person to conceptualize these principles, although I am certainly the first to do so in this context.

1. The universe is intelligible , when it need not be.
2. Intelligibility is a measure of relationships .
3. Relationships are governed by law .

These things may seem obvious, obvious to the point that they may seem unrelated to a recollection of the Civil War except in the broadest, oblique (to use the English term) sense, but this is only because one fails to truly consider the implications of intelligibility to their final, and thus operative, extent.

Consider that intelligibility is actually a condition of human mental accessibility -- what man can and cannot intake into the mind as information. We take it for granted that this information has no matter, and that it is actually accessible to all. Certainly, not all information can be equally utilized or read in a computing sense. I can tell you the words I read as I parse them from a book about nuclear reactions, but that does not mean I understand anything about the information which I am relating to you. You might, but that you accessed that information from me from a book that I do not understand should call to mind what the "stuff" of information is. I am leaving aside any scenarios where I might mispronounce a word, or stumble as I speak. The information properly related is still communicated. It is of the same "stuff," stuff with no physical properties or form.

A scientist may tell you that the neurons of the brain are the stuff of this page or whatever stuff that I am reciting to you. We must not be so hasty as to accept this materialist explanation without due critical thought. A book has no neurons, yet it stores the same information as well as any neuron, if not better. Nor can any scientist point to any combination of charged neurons and say this definitively represents this piece of information or that piece of information. That is not say that this might not be the case -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, after all. Or rather, simply because something cannot be shown to exist does not prove it doesn't exist. What I mean to say is that whether there is a core "language" or "lettering" of neurons to information as it is stored in our brain. This merely pushes the question of what the relations are between matter and information to a lower strata. It is a reverse "God of the Gaps" argument to assert that the stuff of information must be material because it must be.

There is in fact reason to suggest that intelligibility, and thus information, has not material component, that it is a dimension unto itself, not different from other dimensions of measurement like heat, time position, etc.