Physicist John Wheeler proposed a model of the universe based on "It from Bit" asserting that the world is fundamentally information.
I've been told both that Wheeler's It from Bit is compatible with inconsistency (for example, the bits in "It from Bit" could be arranged in inconsistent ways and thus inconsistent realities would exist)
Or, for example, in this article (https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.20.1.61) which is related to Wheeler's concepts of "It from Bit"/"Participatory Universe"/"Pregeometry and Law without Law" it is said that universes with different logics could exist (in section 188.8.131.52).
Also, Wheeler's ideas (specially Participatory Unuiverse) is related to Strong Anthropic Universes, which is related with the idea of a multiverse with multiple universes governed by even different logics (for example, in John's Barrow book "The Constants of Nature" in chapter 13, he talks about a hypothetical multiverse composed of universes governed by other logics. Specifically, he talks about different approaches that physicists take when studying the multiverse, and he mentions a radical approach where even logic could change from one universe to another)
Also, since Wheeler's models are based on the concept that reality is information, since we can imagine and simulate (at least partially) inconsistent worlds in our brains and computers (which are basically patterns of circuits/neurons and informational processes) wouldn't that mean that information could also create an inconsistent world in Wheeler's models?
But I've also been told the contrary. For example, I was reading an article "The Tao of It From Bit" (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.0765.pdf) where this was said:
Just because we don’t have access to reality, but only to the bits, it doesn’t mean that there is no reality. Which possibility is simpler: (1) that the yes/no bits are consistent with one another, that the probabilities are correlated, and that’s all, or (2) that at any moment there is at least one possible reality, which ensure the consistency and the correlations?
For me, possibility (2) would mean that in an infinitely "ocean" of inconsistent realities there would be at least one consistent reality. I thought this meant that in Wheeler's model there would be a vast multiverse of inconsistent realities
But I contacted the author and he told me that this did not mean what I thought. He said...
In (2) I don't say " inconsistent realities would exist": The difference between (1) and (2) in my essay is that (1) just requires the propositions to be consistent with one another, as well as their consequences. (2) requires a mathematical structure to make this happen. Both (1) and (2) are consistent, but (2) is "more consistent", because (2) requires a mathematical model to exist which gives the same answer to those questions
So, what is happening here? Who is right? Did Wheeler tolerate inconsistent realities in his models or not? Does anyone know how did Wheeler treat/consider inconsistencies? Did he say that they did not exist or did he accepted them?