On the Canonical Transformation of Information Geometry into an Action Principle by the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Why Earlier Researchers and Investigators Did not Make Such an Audacious Conceptual and Mathematical Leap
The big move which John Onimisi Obidi has made in his audacious Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is not merely “using information geometry.” It is more specific and incisive than that:
ToE tries to make information geometry physically dynamical by embedding it in an action principle for a real entropic field, and then identifying physical spacetime, matter, and interactions as emergent from that entropic-geometric dynamics.
ToE begins from the primacy of entropy, not from geometry.
Then it argues that if information geometry arises from distinguishability, and distinguishability itself is rooted in entropy, then information geometry is downstream of entropy. Once that is accepted, and once geometry in modern physics is treated as physically dynamical rather than merely descriptive, the next step is to ask whether the deeper source of that geometry — entropy — must itself possess a field structure.
That is stronger than just saying “states have a Fisher–Rao metric.”
So, in the ToE picture, the above trajectory is essentially the birth of the theory: the realization that entropy cannot remain only a derived scalar measure if it is to ground information geometry, physical geometry, matter, and dynamics. It [entropy] therefore must be given ontological and dynamical status as a field.
Why earlier researchers did not do exactly what ToE has done has a few clear reasons.
First, most information geometry was developed as kinematics, not ontology. In the standard tradition, Fisher–Rao geometry describes distinguishability between probability distributions, and Fubini–Study geometry describes distinguishability between quantum states. These are usually treated as geometries of statistical or state space, not as the literal substrate of physical reality. So there was less pressure to write a fundamental physical action for them. Reviews of information-geometric dynamics and complexity often study geodesics, curvature, and dynamical behavior on statistical manifolds, but not usually as a universal field theory of nature【Felice, Cafaro, & Mancini, 2018】【Cafaro, 2008】.
Second, some researchers actually did introduce dynamical or variational structures, but in narrower ways. Ariel Caticha’s entropic dynamics program explicitly uses information geometry, Fisher–Rao structure, and geodesic-style ideas to derive dynamics from inference principles rather than from a conventional fundamental field action【Caticha, 2002】【Caticha, 2005】. Cafaro and collaborators studied “entropic motion” on curved statistical manifolds, geodesic flows, and information-geometric complexity, again making information geometry dynamical in an important sense, but not usually as a universal ontological field theory for spacetime and matter【Cafaro, 2013】【Gassner & Cafaro, 2019】. More recent work also discusses dynamical or variational formulations on information manifolds【Kim, 2021】【Mishra, Kumar, & Wong, 2023】.
So:
Earlier researchers did give dynamics to information geometry in several senses, but usually not in the exact foundational sense that ToE is attempting.
Third, there was a conceptual barrier. Before one writes an action, one must decide what the dynamical variable actually is. In ordinary field theory, one varies a field such as Q, A or g. But in standard information geometry, the primary objects are probability distributions, density operators, or parameters of statistical models. Many researchers were content to study the geometry of these spaces without claiming that the geometry itself is a physical field living on spacetime. The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) however boldly crosses that barrier by saying, in effect: the entropic/information-geometric structure is not just descriptive; it is physically real.
Fourth, the dominant physical paradigms did not force this move. General relativity already gave physics a dynamical geometry through the Einstein–Hilbert action, and quantum theory already gave state-space geometry through Hilbert-space methods. So information geometry remained largely a secondary or bridge formalism. The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is rather unusual because it tries to invert that order and make information geometry primary.
So what is distinctive in ToE is not simply “an action for information geometry,” because that phrase would understate uniqueness. But the more defensible and uniqueness claim of ToE is:
ToE attempts a stronger synthesis than earlier work by turning information geometry into the core dynamical architecture of a universal entropic field, rather than treating it merely as an inferential, statistical, or auxiliary geometric structure.
That is where ToE can also plausibly claim originality.
One may then ask: Why did earlier investigators not go all the way? We reply: Mostly because they did not accept the ontological premise required for the move. They were willing to say:
- information geometry measures distinguishability,
- geodesics represent optimal inference or entropic motion,
- curvature measures complexity,
but not necessarily:
- entropy is the fundamental field of reality,
- information curvature generates spacetime,
- and a fundamental action for that field underlies matter and geometry.
ToE’s real novelty therefore lives at the level of ontological promotion plus physical unification, not merely at the level of writing down a variational functional.
So, the best historical judgment for the history and evolution of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is:
Earlier researchers did partially dynamize information geometry, but usually as geometry of inference, complexity, or statistical evolution. ToE’s distinctive ambition is to elevate that geometry into a fundamental physical action principle for reality itself.
References
Caticha, A. (2002). Entropic dynamics. AIP Conference Proceedings, 617, 302–313.
Caticha, A. (2005). The information geometry of space and time. AIP Conference Proceedings, 803, 355–369.
Cafaro, C. (2008). The information geometry of chaos.
Cafaro, C. (2013). Information geometric complexity of entropic motion on curved statistical manifolds. arXiv:1308.4867.
Felice, D., Cafaro, C., & Mancini, S. (2018). Information geometric methods for complexity. Chaos, 28, 032101.
Gassner, S., & Cafaro, C. (2019). Information geometric complexity of entropic motion on curved statistical manifolds under different metrizations of probability spaces. International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics.
Kim, E. (2021). Information geometry, fluctuations, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and geodesics in complex systems. Entropy, 23(11), 1393.
Mishra, K. V., Kumar, M. A., & Wong, T. K. L. (2023). Information geometry for the working information theorist. arXiv:2310.03884.
Obidi, J. O. (2025). On the Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE).
Obidi, J. O. (2025). A simple explanation of the unifying mathematical architecture of the theory of entropicity (ToE): Crucial elements of ToE as a field theory.