You tacitly assume that when you apply the semantic treatment of "everything is in motion" - since everything is material substance - every real thing is in motion, logically. Is the past in motion? Is the future "in motion". These are informational states and are major players in how life works. Saying everything is in motion - generates a tautological truth-table for any premise that follows.
I was perhaps careless in my use of everything there. I didn't mean it in an absolute sense as I don't know if it applies to absolutely everything. I was more referring to what we were talking about: that is living and non living things.
As for the future, I honestly don't know if it is properly categorized as a thing - or whether it makes sense to ask if it is in motion or not. I'm not sure what you mean by categorizing the future as an "informational state". I did some quick googling but my search terms I think were too broad. Do you have any links on this?
I see this fallacy so clearly because information objects are real structure and although they evolve by changing state - they do not have physical coordinates. Their structure is on a different level of abstraction. The seed gets going more from signal agreement than from a single motion. It is a pattern of motions that carries the message to the seed - of the chance for germination.
I've been using information in the sense of how I understand it to be used in information theory and physics. I've certainly read a lot that intimately relates information to physical properties. Information appears to be as much as a physical state as solids and liquids are. I agree that information objects are real structure, though I'm not sure that it is as abstract as you suggest.
Rolf Landauer, in his paper, The Physical Nature of Information, writes:
Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation. It is represented by engraving on a stone tablet, a spin, a charge a hole in a punched card, a mark on paper, or some other equivalent. This ties the handling of information to all the possibilities and restrictions of our real physical word, its laws of physics and its storehouse of available parts.
Note: spin and charge ie: structure and dynamics. This brings information down to the smallest movements of matter.
I quoted above the definition by Miller in the Living Systems article: "Information is the amount of formal patterning or complexity in any system."
Conceptual information also seems related. Here is how Miller explains it:
2.5 Conceptual Systems The units of conceptual systems are terms such as words, numbers, and other symbols. Relationships in these systems are expressed by verbs or by mathematical symbols that represent operations such as inclusion, subtraction, and multiplication. Conceptual systems are borne on information markers. Scientific conceptual systems exist in observers, theorists, experimenters, books, articles, computers, and so on. Observers form conceptual systems by selecting sets of units to study from an infinite number of units and relationships. The units selected may be purely logical or mathematical, or may be intended to have a formal identity or isomorphism to empirically determined units and relationships in concrete systems. Because observers can never be certain they have selected all units and relationships in any concrete system being studied, such selected systems are termed abstracted systems to distinguish them from the concrete systems as they actually exist. Science advances as the isomorphism increases between a theoretical conceptual system and the empirical objective discoveries about concrete systems. For this reason, it is important to distinguish between conceptual and concrete systems even though both are integrated into living systems.
Information Integration Theory seems to bridge the gap between conceptual and concrete systems. If I'm not mistaken, IIT would view the conceptual system as a result of information integration processing.
IIT and conceptual information relate to consciousness though, which is a separate issue from whether something is living. That is, a living thing might not be conscious, and a non-living thing might be conscious. The information exchanges that relate to basic life would have physical coordinates in this view, I believe.
You refer to signal agreement, and pattern of motions: Which seems to agree with my proposition that what you are referring to involves motion.
Maybe you can help clarify how your view of information differs from what I've described here. We might be talking about different concepts here. If you have any sources that would be helpful as well.