This is where you are simply wrong concerning the concept of entropy, and where you deify it.
That is not a rebuttal.
You don't seem to comprehend that you can't just grab an initial condition out-of-your-ass (as if you weren't a product of the continuous living human network and the environment) and declare that your inertial frame's entropy is only dependent only on your perceived macrostates at that instant in time. That is fundamentally incorrect. Sorry. You may not realize it, but your paradigmatic conceptualization implies the assumption of the reversibility of thermodynamic processes, which is of course impossible.
You'd like a top-down model of the universe to be true, but sorry mate, the microstates are just as intertwined also.
Please talk to someone like Roger Penrose or Nicholas Taleb.
I added to my prior post to aid your understanding:
You are conflating the perception of information by any finite perspective (i.e. any partial order) with the entropy of the unbounded universe. The perception of a total order can't exist (because it would require an unquantifiable speed-of-light and the past and future would collapse into indistriguishable), but the (Butterfly) effects of the total entropy exist via unbounded space-time.
Existence is a very complex, unbounded system. We don't just pop into existence out of nothing with only a finite entropy from our history contributing to our initial conditions. The history of the universe is also unbounded, as is the future. Those who try to compute the start of the universe give me a good laugh. Such computations are only bounded by our (humanity's ability to share a common) partial order of perceptions.
P.S. The entropic force is not a deification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity#Erik_Verlinde.27s_theoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_force#GravityI resent the slander. Please make cogent arguments if you have any.