Leaving aside the funny but flippant conclusion, I think this is still a bit harsh on the causal channel capacity argument of the paper discussed. The under-emp

Leaving aside the funny but flippant conclusion, I think this is still a bit harsh on the causal channel capacity argument of the paper discussed. The under-emphasised part is that our brains and bodies do have an artificially imposed uniform distribution over microstates, and that is why macro-level causation is so useful (and often wrong) for us. Of course that might seem obvious, and doesn't mean reductionism is false, and it's not something a reductionist would disagree with, but I think it formalises and makes explicit an assumption that often conceals the root of the disagreement. The channel capacity thing provides an explanation (an excuse) for having to settle for macrostates. The 'normalization trick' is another important reminder that our brains are scale-invariant. https://xkcd.com/915/ https://xkcd.com/915/