I think we may be approaching these questions too differently, and I’m having trouble appreciating your question. I want to make sure I actually answer it.
The way I’m modelling the situation is this, the implication being that this is the closest to the way we would want to understand our universe:
1. A universe is created
2. Observers are “placed” in this universe as a result of the universe’s inherent processes
3. You are “assigned” to one of these observers at random
In this framework, you don’t necessarily get to verify anything. It’s merely the case that if you were modelling the universe that way, then you would find that the probability of being in any given universe was determined only by step 1, unaffected by step 3.
I don’t think I agree with #3 (and I’d frame #2 as “localities of space-time gain the ability to to sense and model things”, but I’m not sure if that’s important to our miscommunication). I think each of the observers happens to exist, and observes what it can independently of the others. Each of them experiences “you-ness”, and none are privileged over the others, as far as any 3rd observer can tell.
So I think I’d say
Universe exists
Some parts of the universe have the ability to observe, model, and experience their corner of space-time.
It turns out you are one of those.
I don’t think active verbs are justified here—not necessarily “created”, “placed”, or “assigned”.
I don’t know for sure whether there is a god’s eye view or “outside” observation point, but I suspect not, or at least I suspect that I can never get access to it or any effects of it, and can’t think of what evidence I could find one way or the other.
I think we may be approaching these questions too differently, and I’m having trouble appreciating your question. I want to make sure I actually answer it.
The way I’m modelling the situation is this, the implication being that this is the closest to the way we would want to understand our universe:
1. A universe is created
2. Observers are “placed” in this universe as a result of the universe’s inherent processes
3. You are “assigned” to one of these observers at random
In this framework, you don’t necessarily get to verify anything. It’s merely the case that if you were modelling the universe that way, then you would find that the probability of being in any given universe was determined only by step 1, unaffected by step 3.
I don’t think I agree with #3 (and I’d frame #2 as “localities of space-time gain the ability to to sense and model things”, but I’m not sure if that’s important to our miscommunication). I think each of the observers happens to exist, and observes what it can independently of the others. Each of them experiences “you-ness”, and none are privileged over the others, as far as any 3rd observer can tell.
So I think I’d say
Universe exists
Some parts of the universe have the ability to observe, model, and experience their corner of space-time.
It turns out you are one of those.
I don’t think active verbs are justified here—not necessarily “created”, “placed”, or “assigned”.
I don’t know for sure whether there is a god’s eye view or “outside” observation point, but I suspect not, or at least I suspect that I can never get access to it or any effects of it, and can’t think of what evidence I could find one way or the other.