Not quite as impressive when you know, and if you don't you should before opening this link, that "quantum teleportation" is not teleportation. It was a cool-sounding name at the time, but has nothing to do with sci-fi style teleportation: nothing disappears from one place and then shows up in another. "Quantum teleportation" is a process of information duplication using particles that already exist, and have been po…
At the subatomic level, is there any real difference between information and a "thing"? Seems mostly philosophical and arbitrary at that point.
I think what you are really asking is: what is the substantial reality of 'the thing', if it is merely 'information'.
All following quotes are from the documentary "Atomic Physics and Reality" [1 - 'emphasis' mine.].
John Wheeler:
Einstein admired Bohr and Bohr admired Einstein. And you
recall that Einstein felt that 'reality' exists, in effect,
'out there', something independent of us. And the position
of Bohr was rather this: that 'reality' is only a word and
we have to learn what the right way is to use that word.
Bohr, I think, quite in early in life had decided that
ordinary concepts such as space and time simply wouldn't work
at the atomic scale. And it was always a bit unclear what
Bohr would replace those concepts by, if anything. But
Einstein was very attached to the space-time description, and
thought that one should try very hard to extend it into the
atomic domain.
And this was the root of the disagreement between the two men.
Bohr had developed a view in which he essentially would say
that 'reality' was unknown or unknowable, or even had no
meaning, 'reality' by itself. Reality, except at the large
scale level of ordinary experience, atomic reality had no
meaning, and all that we have are 'phenomena', produced in
an 'experiment', and that quantum theory deals with the inter-
relationships of all these phenomena.
Bohr was not a professional philosopher. How much of the
traditional philosophers he read, one does not know. But
he was an extremely intelligent man and he must have thought
through some of the issues that professional philosophers had
thought through very deeply. And certainly one of the issues
that he had though through considerably, with some help I
think from reading, was the Kantian issue of the status of
'the thing in itself'. The 'thing' as it really is, quite
apart from Human 'perception' of it.
Bohr, like Kant, was very suspicious that one can say anything
significant, intelligent, controllable, about 'the thing in
itself'. [Bohr] once said that physics or science in general
was not about 'nature' but about nature exposed to our
'observation'. And that is very Kantian.