The "Just How It Is" Test

July 28th, 2025

Take any problem that seems permanent. Apply Information Physics. Compare to existing frameworks. The mathematics may reveal better solutions in minutes, not months or years.

The Test Protocol

Feed an LLM your just how it is problem with the IP Study Guide and The Peasant (playbook for positive-sum entropy engineering) doc.

The Process

Ask the LLM to review the IP Study Guide and The Peasant doc and ask you questions to figure out your E, V, and O variables. Then ask it to calculate your SEC value and provide a list of operations you can execute to improve your situation (i.e. to provide you with an actionable framework or plan for your specific situation).

This will help ensure you can follow this process:

Calculate your actual (E) value from your position
Identify shared conscious intent (V) - what outcome do you/your group want?
Map available operations (O | MOVE, JOIN, SEPARATE) from your position
Calculate current SEC = O × V / (1 + E)
Design operations to improve your situation (what’s the plan?)
Compare to traditional frameworks and solutions (how does this hold up?)
Test which approach yields better results (does this actually work?)

The comparison may reveal which framework actually enables optimal change from your position.

Your Starting Point

Information Physics begins with honest assessment of where you actually stand.

Position Reality Check

Calculate your E based on actual constraints, not wishful thinking.

E = Σ(entropy sources) / available_info

Low E (0.1-0.3): Strategic decisions possible, resources available, broad visibility
Medium E (0.4-0.6): Some autonomy exists, translation work required, moderate friction
High E (0.7-0.9): Following others’ decisions, minimal resources, maximum constraints

Accepting your real position enables selecting operations that actually work.

What You Actually Want

V represents shared conscious intent for the system’s purpose.

V = +1: “We want this outcome” (successful project, thriving team, solved problem)
V = 0: “We have no shared vision of success”
V = -1: “We’re actively working against this outcome”

Clarity about desired outcome shapes which operations make sense.

Operations Available to You

From your specific position, which boundary transformations (O) can you execute? (i.e. MOVE, JOIN, SEPARATE)

MOVE: Relocate information, resources, or connections to reduce friction
JOIN: Unite elements that naturally work better together
SEPARATE: Break apart forced coupling that creates waste

Match operations to your actual capability, not theoretical possibilities.

Working Through Problems

Apply Information Physics to common “unchangeable” situations.

”Our Meetings Are Useless But Required”

Everyone complains about wasteful meetings, but they persist because traditional solutions address symptoms rather than entropy sources.

IP approach: Calculate meeting E (confusion, time waste). Identify V (+1 = productive collaboration). Design MOVE operations (async updates), JOIN operations (combine related meetings), SEPARATE operations (decouple status from strategy).
Traditional approaches: More agenda items, better facilitation, meeting-free days
Compare: Which reduces actual entropy from your position?

The Information Physics approach suggests that meeting dysfunction stems from misaligned information flows, not poor facilitation skills.

”The Hiring Process Takes Forever”

Hiring delays frustrate everyone involved, yet speed-up initiatives often make the problem worse by adding more steps and approvals.

IP approach: Map E at each stage. Find where V breaks down (who doesn’t want speed?). Apply operations: MOVE decisions closer to teams, JOIN separated approval steps, SEPARATE must-haves from nice-to-haves.
Traditional approaches: Hire more recruiters, buy ATS software, create urgency.
Compare: Which addresses root entropy versus symptoms?

By targeting the entropy created by decision distance and approval fragmentation, IP reduces hiring time without sacrificing quality.

”Nobody Uses Our Documentation”

Documentation that nobody reads represents massive wasted effort, yet most solutions focus on making people use bad docs rather than making docs worth using.

IP approach: Calculate user E when finding information. Check if V aligns (do creators want it used?). Operations: MOVE docs to where work happens, JOIN related content, SEPARATE reference from learning.
Traditional approaches: Mandate documentation reviews, gamify contributions, better search
Compare: Which reduces friction versus adding process?

Information Physics suggests that unused documentation fails because it increases rather than decreases entropy for the people who need the information.

Each comparison suggests how Information Physics may target entropy sources rather than symptoms.

Measuring What Works

Track progress using Entropic Gap between current and desired states.

EG = 1 - S(current_state, target_state)

EG < 0.10: Solution working as intended
0.10-0.25: Needs adjustment but improving
0.25-0.45: Significant drift from goal
> 0.45: Approach isn’t reducing entropy

Traditional metrics often hide entropy accumulation. EG may reveal it.

The Comparison Framework

Test Information Physics against any existing solution framework.

Questions for comparison:

Which identifies your actual position constraints?
Which clarifies shared intent versus assumed agreement?
Which provides operations you can actually execute?
Which shows measurable entropy reduction?
Which works from high-E positions?

The mathematics doesn’t argue superiority. Results demonstrate effectiveness.

Why This May Change Everything

Traditional frameworks assume uniform capability across positions. Information Physics acknowledges that a janitor and a CEO face different entropy when implementing identical changes.

Most solutions fail because they’re designed from low-E positions for high-E implementation. IP starts with your actual position and finds operations that work from there.

The test may transform “just how it is” from permanent fixture to solvable problem. Feed any stubborn issue through this process and potentially watch better solutions emerge - not through magic but through mathematics that accounts for where you actually stand.

Identify entropy, name it, dismantle it.