Phil,
A superb essay. Your brief but coherent history of the key ideas evidences superior understanding of how this view fits together. I don't subscribe to the view, but I gained insights from your presentation. For example you say, "If there is redundancy, there must also be gauge theory." I've been focused on Yang-Mills for many months and have not seen it this way. Very thought provoking.
I completely agree with you that the arguments are not watertight, and, if not correct, "some other deeply held assumption must break down." I've tried to understand the key to the radical difference in our views, and I think it may be your belief that "a consistent theory built on mathematical logic that accounts for all known observations" is a useful concept, except for a very closed set of observations. Perhaps, if one excludes observations of awareness and experience, but when one hopes to replace physical matter by logical chains of which one has become aware, I do not see how one can ignore this awareness, and if one does not, then I contend such mathematical schemes are hopeless.
With the topic, "It from Bit" or vice-versa, it was clear that essays would come down on both sides. You have certainly presented a strong case for one side. I doubt that anyone will do a much better job. I hope that when I submit my essay you will find it as enjoyable.
I'd hoped to comment on your many ideas, but you simply cover too much, so I'll make a few remarks. First, at a Stanford symposium last month Joe Polchinski and Leonard Susskind agreed that physicists are very confused by the 'firewall' and the question of information conservation, things that seemed resolved for the last decade or so. I think the current structure is coming unglued.
Your conclusion based on the second derivative formulation of Noether's theorem that "energy is a relative quantity that cannot be separated from this field" is fascinating. I believe it's relevant to work I've been doing; I need to digest it.
I won't try to summarize any of my arguments here, but in my essay. Nevertheless, while I believe strings, holography, infinite towers of spin, super-symmetry, multi-dimensions, and multi-verses are supefluous, I do want to understand their proponent's arguments, and you do a simply remarkable job compressing these into a short essay. Congratulations, and thanks.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman