Note: I'm not a physics major, much less in any exotic physics. I've just been reading stuff like this for a long time, it interests me. Expect errors, but I typically find later evidence means I'm at least nearly correct in understanding the concepts. And please, anyone correct me where I'm wrong, I'd be interested in correcting my own misconceptions.

First, an information theory primer (for you or others who don't know):

What it seems to be saying is based partially off information theory's view of the universe, where everything is merely information. This has the nice quality of simplifying a LOT of things. That apple, up in the tree? Information. That apple, falling? A change in information. That charged capacitor storing a 1? Information. Even an electron changing energy levels around an atom is a change in information. The key part is that, because of thermodynamics, any change in information can only maintain or increase the entropy of a system.

The alternative, more classical view is to see information and matter as separate, or even ignore information, but the same rules apply in an enormous amount of situations, and quantum mechanics casts doubt on the nature of matter anyway.

So, motion, energy, matter, everything is information, and information cannot be created or destroyed (see how nicely it plays with Einstein?). This touches on one of the problems for information theory, in that black holes seem to be a net loss, not merely a change. Info goes in, and it never comes out, in any form (hawking radiation doesn't appear to reveal anything about what's in the black hole), and the black hole can vanish, taking all the info with it. There are loads of was to resolve this, but the one important one here seems to be coming from a link in the article [1], essentially saying that, in the same way a hologram stores 3D info in a 2D (ish) material (in information theory, it's actually 2D), the black hole displays all the information about what's inside it (3D matter) via the event horizon (a 2D boundary) as a holographic surface, thus it's not "lost" when it vanishes.

I don't fully understand holographic principles, so I just won't touch on how that directly applies to this idea. The important thing here is that, with the above, they seem to be saying that gravity can be viewed as a change in information, and thus maintaining or increasing entropy. As entropy cannot decrease, some changes in that information are more likely (somehow, the article doesn't touch on it), with mutual attraction being the most. This all happens on a 2D holographic surface, which is displayed as our 3D world. The linked article covers it a bit better.

I can't even begin to guess at the math involved, but it seems to be fairly consistent with a lot of other theories, as well as internally consistent. It could also explain why gravity is so frickin' hard to accurately account for, if mutual attraction is merely most likely. (we don't have a working equation, just ones that are "close". Newton was amazing for the time, Einstein refined it further to a huge degree, but we still can't truly accurately predict it)

[1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world...