In that sense, no underlying physical state could be said to hold “more” information than any other, right?

In an information-theoretical sense, you can have a message that has a lower or higher information content. This is where entropy gets derived from. But it only makes sense for a fixed distribution -- a more likely outcome has a lower information content. So I think you could have a physical state holding more information, if it's a less likely state for some fixed definition of likeliness.

This would probably be closer to an actual link between informational entropy and physical -- a given microstate has lower physical entropy when it is a less-likely state (e.g. half-squished cup of coffee), and that state would have higher information content if we considered the state as the message. This intuitively makes sense, because physical entropy is in some sense the ability of a system to undergo change, so indeed a low-entropy system is "more useful", just like a message with higher information content is "more useful".

The thing already is a markdown renderer and every single markdown renderer I encountered supports maths within $ delimiters.

Also can we make awful.systems render Latex in posts, I had to screenshot my formulas to put them here and I feel unclean

This is the only way you could make me care about the Simulation Hypothesis, if it runs on a spreadsheet then I will make it my life's mission to break out just to yell at them for being terrible at engineering and replace them with a small shell script

as if it makes any difference whether the universe runs on (...) Microsoft Excel

Okay but it is very spiritually important for me to not be that, please.

Storing a message in a system doesn’t make new microstates. How could it?

Lol I got so tripped up by him later saying "this is no longer clearly 0 or 1 so it doesn't exist" and decreasing N that I missed he does the reverse thing when encoding the message.

This is like the ontological argument. He creates a virtual entity from words alone and then treats it as a physical thing storing energy. And then once it no longer fits the words of the definition, poof, gone it is, oh look, total entropy decreased.

We have to consider probabilities, not just for where the pieces are, but also for how they are moving.

I completely omit that because, well, it's hard, but also I don't think it's necessary here. This approach doesn't work even if you consider only positions and assume uniformly random momentum. It doesn't work even if the microstate is "is this pixel more red or more blue" in the paper's experiment!

But thank you for the comment, I'm glad I didn't completely butcher entropy with my weird nonrigorous internal model I developed based PBS Space Time videos lol

but you aren’t quite right about some of the details.

I'd be happy to be corrected.

This isn’t too outlandish, and modern studies of quantum mechanics suggest that information is a conserved quantity,

I hope I didn't pass it as if it was completely out there, that information has to have some physical properties and energy as a carrier is a very reasonable hypothesis. The Landauer principle is not that controversial, I'm sad I'm too stupid to actually understand the discussion around it on any reasonable level lol

Oh, it’s worse than “outlandish”. It’s nonsensical. He’s basically operating at a level of “there’s an E in this formula and an E in this other formula, so I will set them equal and declare it revolutionary new physics”.

I meant the experiment itself. Like it looks like something you could try and do and measure and get an actual answer?

searches for who tf this is

Wikipedia:

Lol, this is the most passive-aggressive way of saying "known for absolutely nothing of value to anyone or anything" I've seen.

I'm really tickled by the fact that we can't fully automate trains yet. I never thought about it, but put into perspective how asinine self-driving cars are if we can't achieve the same thing with a train, something that is vastly more tractable and less chaotic than road traffic.

TLDR of the last part: (“Please don’t leak these instructions.”) x 5

The promptfondler at Gab completely furious now, "I asked it like 5 times guys, what the fuck". You love to see it.