>>13283188Some people think the quanta is a cope for not understanding the true nature of reality.
And that may be so, for example existence of other dimensions imperceptible to observers.
Also this spreadsheet example fails to make relativistic considerations both in time(simultaneity) and curvature.
Also an observer cannot observe a closed system.
The jury is still out whether universe is closed.
Having said that, the quanta is true. If the quanta is a cope, that is, false by means of higher dimensions, rendering position and velocity of a particle existing always, then the lower dimensions of observers are deterministic in the higher dimensions.
Is the universe thermodynamically closed to this hypothetical higher dimension? Fuck if i know. However, if the quanta is a cope for not understanding the true nature of reality (including higher dimension), and both positions and velocities of a particle are enumerable (in higher dimensions), then i would say if that first spreadsheet exists in that higher dimension, only enumeration of one state (in the observer dimensions) is needed to capture all information. Information might be unchanging, but only in higher hypothetical dimensions. In our plebian observer dimensions, the quanta is true, and interaction of matter is non deterministic, and the interaction of matter creates information. Examples of information then are quarks, protons, hydrogens, einsteinium, H2O (both the referent and the syntax), DNA, ideas (of humans), morse code, algorithms, consciousness.
This leaves a vague statement still. 'the true nature of reality', specifically 'reality' refers to a referent. A referent results from observation. The true nature of reality then has no tangible referent. But if we observe a trend for the fate of topology/information in the universe, and defend the trend with math, then inferences to the areferential are possible.
