This analogy for Wheeler's "it from bit" concept is not my creation- I first came across it (I think) in Max Tegmark's "our mathematical universe" (I highly recommend it) and I believe he was paraphrasing someone else... but the analogy resonated with me and I found it powerful...

It may be bullshit, or not- or it may capture only a tiny slice of the nature of reality.... I am hesitant to share it because it will sound like I am on heavy drugs- I assure you I am not- my employer has me randomly tested... :)

Imagine you are at a dinner party, a fairly lame one as dinner parties go, but stick with me here...

To alleviate the boredom someone suggests a game, the rules are as follows:

One person is sent out into the hall, all the other guests decide on an object or concept together, once they agree on the secret object or concept the exiled player is allowed to come back in and rejoin the party.

The player can ask 'yes or no' questions of various other party members and the goal is to see if the player can deduce what the secret object or concept is...

(I didn't say this was a great party, or a fun game, its just the goddamn analogy, so stick with me here....)

After a few rounds the party members are getting bored... sometimes the player gets it right in 5 questions, other times it can take 30 or more... the game is boring for all involved...

So finally, it is Tom's turn to go into the hall- no one likes Tom- I mean, really- who would?... So some of the party gets the idea to change the rules of the game.

Tom goes into the hall, and some party member suggests a change to the rules....

"Let's change the game and NOT decide on an object or concept beforehand- when Tom comes in we will let him ask each of us questions, but we will almost randomly answer 'yes' or 'no' with the ONLY restriction being that our yes or no answers must be consistent with the answers that have been given before"

In this variant of the game the 'reality' at the start is undefined, but with each yes or no answer the realm of possible answers - possible realities- gets narrowed down.

Tom comes back in and starts asking questions... the first answer is chosen at random, the second answer is also chosen at random, except it cannot conflict with the implications of the first answer...

Given enough questions Tom will narrow the possible realities down to a single possibility- uncertainty is dispelled with and all players have to admit, given the long chain of yes or no answers, there is no ambiguity left- there is only one answer possible, even though at the start of the game to screw with Tom there were INFINITE possibilities, the rules of the game required that with enough yes or no questions a single reality must emerge.

From MY PERSONAL understanding of Wheeler's philosophy - we are constantly playing this game... defining reality as we observe the universe. The fact we exist to ask these questions dramatically restricts the possible answers at the start, every observation we make defines reality and restricts the laws of nature a bit more- the only constraint is that everything be mathematically self consistent.

The basic concepts that are critical to understand are:
1) reality requires an observer
2) The observations of that observer have to be consistent with previous observations...by that observer or previous observers
3) Everybody hates Tom...

that is it- we exist in a cloud of possibility, our observations diminish that cloud for us... in other words OBSERVERS establish the laws of the universe, the laws are ambiguous until observed.

Do I believe this is the way the multiverse operates? I am not sure- there is lots of 'evidence' - or more accurately ways to interpret evidence for this interpretation - but its implications are that its likely impossible to find evidence to disprove it. If it is true, then nothing changes... the best we can maybe hope for is in a hundred years we prove there are alternate realities we will never interact with...

Treat this as the musings of a tired man staying up too late