Haven't read the paper or anything, just judging that quote out of context: I think it's folly to try to differentiate a "law" from a "principle". That said I

Haven't read the paper or anything, just judging that quote out of context: I think it's folly to try to differentiate a "law" from a "principle". That said I'm taking his words out of context. He's saying that "information" is something akin to "energy". Ok, but after the hand-waving there is nothing left. Does he say something more interesting? For example, we've explored many truths about "computation" (e.g. Turing's Halting Problem && Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) that so far have only been discussed in the abstract. But to weave computation/information onto physics raises questions of how these truths we've held in the abstract may also correspond to laws in the physical. That is, it doesn't help us derive new laws of physics (in other words, our laws of physics is always incomplete), but constrains what can be explained by laws (which by definition must be consistent). TLDR; I agree that information doesn't exist in the abstract but is tied to our physical reality. I think that our inability to find a complete set of laws of the physical universe is intimately related to HP and GIT. I wonder if he gets into it.