This is not my major area of study, it is all wrong for a thinker who starts with systemic intuition and moves from there to logic, but I sense it is important and you @swamidass are more or less available.
So when you say “entropy=information” are you saying it acts like it in the sense that much like energy assuming one state takes away possible other forms it could assume. So that once we know something it eliminates other possible meanings that the data might have had? Its a hard thing to grasp.
In the link you wrote…
" We can never be sure that what looks like noise to us actually is noise. Equivalently, we can never be sure what looks like to information to us, actually is information."
Well I get the first part but not the second. For example, a few lifetimes ago I was an officer in the Navy and one of my duties was handling the crypto keys. As long as whoever we were sending to had one of those keys, they could extract our messages. If they didn’t, it was noise. The Soviets could build a supercomputer but they could not break our code until they got John Walker to sell them some of the keys. So it would look just like noise unless you had the same key as the sender. There was additional info outside the transmission needed to get the info from the signal. The signal did not contain the information needed to get the information out of the signal. You needed the keys.
But that brings me to the second part of your statement. That part I don’t get. We extracting information from that “noise” on a daily basis and operated on it as if it was right like someone’s life depended on it, which it frequently did. There has to be ways to know if we have gotten information from the signal.
As best as I can see your attempt to explain it went like so…
" The proof is esoteric, but the intuitive explanation is that we can never be sure that we did not see a hidden pattern in the data that would allow us to “compress” or “understand” it better. We can never be sure that what looks like noise to us actually is noise. Equivalently, we can never be sure what looks like to information to us, actually is information.
Again I see the truth of the first part but not the second. Operationally, we act like we can get signal from noise in a lot of ways and it seems to be working for us. Even if a message is further compressible, like a picture in .BMP format could have been sent in a much smaller .JPG file, it doesn’t change the information. It just took more data to express it.
The big picture I am getting from all this, without being able to explain step by step if I got it, is that if God was sending information to change living things, guiding evolution as it were, it is unlikely we would be able to detect it. Is that a part of it?