If I've read the OP correctly, it would appear that information theorists would say that since the definition of individual is the effect of propagating coherent information forward in time, the "end" of the individual entity would be when it ceases to cohere information forward in time. Given everything "dies," and in this proposition in the blog post individual entities (living units or not) cease to propagate coherent information forward, the implication to me is the entity that is, "I," will also de-cohere.

By defining an individual unit of something as information, they've taken something we only had metaphors and analogies for and concretized it as a category of things that behave like information. I've applied it to something else we only have metaphors and analogies for, and am sounding out whether it provides any additional insight.

What's over-simplified about that statement? That's a perfect summary of Buddhism - it encompasses the point completely without going into techniques.

The only part that's missing is "...with the goal of avoiding suffering".

Comments like that are a bellwether of the place they’re posted in. People will hedge their comments whenever they fear there is a sufficient concentration of “well, actually”s in the audience.

I think it's oversimplified because there would need to be a long explanation on what is meant by "self", which the commentor very wisely put in scare quotes.

To the parent: actually I think this "death of decoherence" pretty closely matches the Buddhist doctrine of interdependent arising, so not sure about the disagreement there.