I ' m assuming that just as relativity tossed out conservation of mass and replaced it with conservation of energyincludingmassIt was never really conservation of mass , that ' s something we learn in our elementary school science class because we aren ' t sophisticated to learn the real law conservation of energy . Conservation of energy includes mass , so it ' s not conservation of energy mass . Relativity never threw anything away , we just aren ' t taught it unless you take collegelevel physics courses . then physicists will be replacing the current version of c o nservationofmassandenergy with c o n s e r v a t i o n o f m a s s a n denergyandinformationYeah , I know this is something McCulloch likes to talk about but it ' s baloney . Mass and energy are equivalent as per the Relativistic dispersion relation and so we just say energy . Information does not belong in that category . Yes , there is the conservation of information issue that Hawking and Susskind like to talk about but information is not a physical quantity like energy or mass are . If you did want to associate a quantity with it it would be entropy . In the statistical mechanics definition it is proportional to the log of the socalled microstates of the system . Very broadly , and without going into details , the higher your entropy the less you know about the system before you looked at it . This doesn ' t make a lot of sense because I haven ' t defined the system or what microstates are or on what scale it makes sense to think of entropy this way . But the point is it doesn ' t make sense to throw in information into the law of conservation of energy . The concepts are related , but it does not make sense to make a direct equivalence like McCulloch attempts . What he does is just junk .