For instance, in the Boom Hierarchy* (sets,bags,lists,trees) we can represent the information carried by any of the structures by any of the others (exercise!) despite the fact that operations on that information may be made easier or more difficult by the presence or lack of laws (idempotency,commutativity,associativity) that are the linear delta-edges between those types-as-vertices themselves.
[IIRC, magmas would be mobiles, and I'd bet we can extend the above to them as well.]
* I know I repeat these often, but hey, I'm not alone: gopher-the-language was inspired by a "go" lemma-function in someone's sol'n to samefringe.
I'd been at peace if you mentioned the triples, but it's too late now..
Of course, absent those restrictions, it's doing way more work than it can possibly handle.
But not the references inside apple boxen
(shouldn't all messages be in \pi sooner or [much, much...] later?)
[does the def'n of "message" include finite length?]
>Sagan's friend physicist Kip Thorne gave Sagan ideas on the nature of wormholes when Sagan was developing the outline of the novel.
Can we triage our ikigai such that I (sympathising with my machinery) take all your overly-associative structures and you (communing with the universe?) take all my insufficiently-associative structures?
(there are many in maths: eg topologies, being families of sets, can be represented by a particular magma)
Lagniappe: https://www.georgehart.com/triad.html