[050528 cg] djs:

You have written about three categories:

that which is uncreated and eternal
that which is created and thereafter eternal
that which is created and non-eternal (destroyed)

I understand that you believe souls are in the second category (created and thereafter eternal). 

[050529 djs] Correct. Such a position, however, by no means denies the concept of reincarnation. The concept of a soul visiting the physical one time or a multitude of times has nothing to do with the concept: ‘that which is created and thereafter eternal’.

[050528 cg] During a recent contemplation I thought of "that which is created and thereafter eternal":  information.  I mean information in its broadest sense.  This would include knowledge, facts, and data, …

[050529 djs] Correct but keep in mind that the passive existence of ‘data’, ‘facts’, ‘knowledge’, has no meaning without a ‘knower’/consciousness/’soul’/…

[050528 cg] … but also the universe itself in this moment as information; i.e., this moment exists as it is because the preceding moment, in all its fullness, existed and this moment with its trace of all previous moments is the information that causes the next moment.

[050529 djs] This part of your last sentence is a surprisingly intriguing aspect of a complex sentence.

This aspect of your last sentence gives insight into ‘Reality’ for it implies three aspects ‘composing’ Reality, namely: the ‘previous moment’/past, the ‘next moment’/future, and what ‘is’/present.

In addition, the implications of your statement lead to an understanding of the structure of Reality through the understanding of ‘moments’.

Within the physical only the past and the future exist. The present does not exist in the physical since the present is of such ‘short duration’ that it no more exists than does a point on a line exist.

The question then becomes: If the present does not lie in the physical, then where does the present lie? The present would appear to lie ‘within consciousness’ and the totality of ‘the present’ would appear to lie within the totality of consciousness.

And where does the totality of consciousness lie?

If the totality of consciousness does not 'lie within' the physical, then the totality of consciousness would appear to lie ‘outside’ the physical. The totality of consciousness is what the physical ‘lies within’. The totality of consciousness is the manifestation of the unmanifested. The totality of consciousness is perceived, at this juncture of history, as G-d yet is not G-d for we, humans, are capable of understanding ‘the totality of consciousness’ and by definition G-d is that which we, humans/limited beings, are incapable of comprehending.

[050528 cg] Sharing a passing (now eternal?) thought,

[050529 djs] If there is such a ‘thing’ as a (many) knowing entity (ies)  then: Yes, an eternal thought.

And if there is no such ‘thing’ as a/many knowing entity (ies) of knowing, then: No, it is not an eternal thought.

Rationality/reason, however, would suggest: It is an eternal thought.