[dinkumthinkum]

I mean you can quote those bounds all you like but this is not what a “finite state machine” is. You are using the words in a nominalistic way but for people in computing, we know very well what a finite state machine is and it encompasses things far greater than the “Bekenstein Bound”. It’s no problem to consider more states in an FSM than there are particles in the universe. Of course, this is silly because what you are describing as an FSM is not.

[naasking]

So you're saying that a set of finite states governed by a set of finite state transitions is not a finite state machine. Ok buddy.

Don't confuse expressiveness and state space. Even if there are more faithful encodings that better preserve other properties, what I said is strictly true and it's important for people to understand that human cognition is not as powerful as some think: a finite state space means a human can be fully captured by a finite state machine.