>>5
I refuse to accept that objective truth exists. I don't think computation would play out differently given any possible universe. There would be universes incapable of universal computation, but I doubt they would be complex enough to allow conscious observers.
I am the creator of this universe and all that it was meant to be
From the 1st person point of view, that would be "correct" (the wrong part is that nothing is actually created or destroyed, so it's not literally true, but it could seen as true (in a way) if you associate the entire computational history of an universe with an observer), but at the same time, this would be true for any conscious person. The actual laws of physics that you may infer depend upon which computation you have happened to have selected to represent you ("randomly", in the sense that all possibilities are instantiated, and you just happen to be one of them, but whatever you happen to be will be a unique possibility (or group of, as your sense data (observer moment) is much more limited than the total possible variations of the environment supporting that exact same observer moment); this will be quite wide if only computational histories are considered, although if you don't like that, you could just consider all possible histories instead (and risk creating too much white noise)).
There are however a few very interesting and testable consequences if this is true, and we might eventually get a chance to test them.