Hi Tommaso,
the idea of bitoms is only a -finger- which should point in an easy way that there is an ultimate limiting state in our universe, which can never be reached by any natural process, that is, the state of perfect order. This state is considered of being excluded because perfect order excludes any motion, but our (!) universe is obviously full of motion.
The other ultimate limiting case of our universe is the state of perfect chaos, which means, that there is - in a way - too much motion, preventing any kind of order. Actually J.A. Wheeler has investigated this extreme state at the most fundamental level in detail claiming that there is no law except the law that there is no law, which he considered as an ultimate principle of the universe. He had in mind the emergence of approximate lawlike behavior, such as the ideal gas law, from an underlying chaotic complexity like that of the motion of myriads of molecules. But it was recognized by others, that lawlike behavior can never emerge from something that obeys no laws. The motion of molecules f.e. is not lawless, it is random .. and randomness implies a kind of probabilistic order.
It's my conviction, that ultimate limits (like perfect order vs. chaos) determine the internal structure of our universe in such a way, that only one (!) structure is likely. In other words, I claim, that a fundamental blueprint of the universe does exist, which describes just this structure completely.
This claim, which is of metaphysical origin, has in fact far-reaching consequences with respect to the concept of the observer, including any kind of information-theoretic view of the universe.
If such a fundamental blueprint of the universe is really existing then the observer cannot be in the center of natures doings. The observer has now to be regarded simply as the subject, which uncovers this fundamental blueprint or parts of it. By this view the meaning of the observer is significantly reduced in contrast to our contemporary physics. In our physics there are fundamental descriptions of our universe, like Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, in which the observer is inseparably part of the laws of nature.
According to the viewpoint presented here invoking the observer as an essential element of a fundamental theory is therefore a clear sign that we do not have understand nature fully. From this very restricted (or personal) view there is no need for any observer to read bits. Bits can be used in a purely objective manner without any relation to an observer .. as a theoretical tool, in order to describe the fundamental blueprint of the universe resp. specific aspects or parts of it.
There is growing number of physicists who interpret physical laws already as a specific sort of digitised algorithms. Hence, some of them are concluding, that the ultimate form of physical laws, in turn, must be consistent with any sort of binary rules or steps. By identifying the term of energy and the term of bit I have tried to give a counterexample that the concept of a bit though a powerful theoretical tool is not of unlimited applicability. Under very specific conditions, that is, the close identification of energy and information, it leads to a conclusion which seems to be incompatible with our observable universe.
