It is a bit of a leap to start with a description (“we can describe all the information by referring to "That point in that state."”) and end up with a claim about the essential nature of the thing being described (“space is essentially an array of bits”). Shouldn’t there be a bit more of a bridge between those?
And as you note, the description is incomplete without some additional something that tells us how the description will change over time. One convenient hypothesis would be that space and that something are distinct and can be dealt with separately. But there are other hypotheses that could be considered. Have they been rejected?
It is a bit of a leap to start with a description (“we can describe all the information by referring to "That point in that state."”) and end up with a claim about the essential nature of the thing being described (“space is essentially an array of bits”). Shouldn’t there be a bit more of a bridge between those?
And as you note, the description is incomplete without some additional something that tells us how the description will change over time. One convenient hypothesis would be that space and that something are distinct and can be dealt with separately. But there are other hypotheses that could be considered. Have they been rejected?