I haven’t read the paper but an event is just any interaction between particles. Just literally anything happening. I wouldn’t be trying to learn much from this write up though and highly suggest looking into some better sources of information.

Since the second law of infodynamics is a cosmological necessity, and appears to apply everywhere in the same way, it could be concluded that this indicates that the entire universe appears to be a simulated construct or a giant computer.

This is such a huge leap to make. It’s nearly equivalent to saying due to the fact that your coffee gets colder over time you can conclude that the entire universe is a simulation.

A super complex universe like ours, if it were a simulation, would require a built-in data optimization and compression in order to reduce the computational power and the data storage requirements to run the simulation.

According to? Presumably if you can simulate an entire universe you have at least orders of magnitude more computational capacity than this universe. But apparently not too much more because you would “require” compression in order to fit all that data?

Just a few things that stood out to me as wtf moments.

EDIT: I forgot the best quote in the page:

We know the universe is expanding without the loss or gain of heat, which requires the total entropy of the universe to be constant.

Not even remotely true. It’s commonly accepted that the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing and it’s got nothing to do with the the universe as a whole being unable to lose or gain heat (from an outside source). Entropy increases because what’s inside, as a whole, is moving towards a state of equilibrium.

Information is quantifiable in physics. PBS Spacetime has some videos on information theory if you’re interested. A very simple example could be the spin of a particle (say it’s either up or down). That represents one “bit” of information because it only gives you a binary response - the same as in a computer. We don’t have any great models once you get to the size of biology but in theory you can layer it up all the way from the smallest of subatomic particles and “measure” the information of anything.

Possibly true, but as much as that’s bandied around it’s rarely balanced against the fact that if it’s not possible then there’s a 0% chance of it happening (somewhat obviously). And it’s not like the possibility exists on a continuum where you could say it’s 50/50. It’s either one or the other.

Just to be clear, are you saying Firefox with fingerprinting resistance used in conjunction with Arkenfox user.js provides fingerprint unification, similar to what Tor browser does? I’ll have to check that out.

I think both approaches are valid tbh. Having a unique fingerprint obviously uniquely identified you, but if it’s randomised then your browsing sessions can’t (in theory) be linked.

As a Firefox user, the only thing Brave does that I wish Firefox would copy is their fingerprinting resistance. I know Firefox does have fingerprinting resistance but it’s nowhere near the same level as Brave.