I feel like I understood 30% of what he said. Any chance at a quick refresher?
The blogger also argues against an experimentation (to prove reductionism false) introduced by the paper he is discussing in the article quite convincingly, I must say.
Here's a couple of extracts from the article that should clear the premise up for you:
"For here is the argument from the Entropy paper, for the existence of macroscopic causality that’s not reducible to causality in the underlying components." <the argument follows>
"...scientific reductionism is false. There is higher-level causation in our universe, and it’s 100% genuine, not just a verbal sleight-of-hand. In particular, there are causal forces that can only be understood in terms of human desires and goals, and not in terms of subatomic particles blindly bouncing around."
In that context, I could maybe see an argument based on chaos theory. i.e. systems being essentially infinitely large compared to their component parts. There could be macro-states that are indistinguishable at micro-scale given any computational ability.
But then...you would have to be arguing against the ability to experiment. One way to compute macro-states of a system would be to duplicate that system.
Without getting much further into it...I see this becoming a serious rabbit hole in no time.