The rough idea for the model as a whole is presented below. the paragraphs don't work out, but it's more readable than a single blob.

If you accept the premise that when you imagine and enact a person in an imagined physical reality, then when 'being' the Enacted, you can interact with the physical things that you have imagined, then you have effectively created a reality not unlike our own, populated by a conscious being -- whoever you are 'being.' Since this is the only way I know by which to create realities with conscious beings, I induce that it is probable that our reality was created the same way. If that is true, then 'above' our reality, there quite probably exists another that also contains physical things, and which is also populated by conscious beings. So on, and so on.

Thus, there probably exists an arbitrary number of such realities. Let each reality be given a numerical label {N | N is an integer}, and arbitrate that for our reality, N = 0. Let the set of all realities and the set of all labels N be an ordered bijection. Let any reality, the conscious beings of which enact those who exist in reality N, be labeled as N + 1. What are some properties that we can extrapolate as N approaches positive and negative infinity? First, consider the detail: as you attempt to imagine and enact nested reality within nested reality within nested reality within . . . nested reality, you will find that each reality becomes less and less detailed, and that

your memory of the rules and physics for each becomes jumbled -- you can also try this for yourself. Additionally, the number of enacted beings that you populate in each reality becomes lower and lower, as to populate reality, not only do you require time (in your reality) to think of new 'characters,' but you need the memory to continue their existence. This is the result of the physical limitations that your brain places on your ability to store and process information. Since this can be tested on more than two levels (you can imagine and enact more than two realities nested in one another in significant and meaningful detail -- you can also try

doing this yourself), we may extrapolate the pattern inductively using the contrapositive. Therefore, not only is it probable that as N decreases, the number of conscious individuals, the degree of detail of the reality, the computational power of each conscious individual, and the mechanical consistency of each reality decreases, but it is just as probable that as N increases, the number of conscious individuals increases, the degree of detail and mechanical consistency of the reality increases, and the computation power of each conscious individual increases. This would suggest, contrary to what I have this far claimed, that there be an infinite

pantheon of gods living at N = infinity. However, there is evidence to contradict this mathematically. The most complicated unit of an imagined realm, in terms of entropy, is the conscious individual, not because it can be imbued with character and other details, but because its consciousness grants it memory as necessarily as its Enactor has memories of his own reality. Therefore, the greatest quantizable unit (in terms of minimum information represented) regarded so far (among the list: the number of conscious individual in a reality, the mechanical consistency of a reality, the computation power of the average individual in each reality, and the degree

of physical detail in each reality), is the conscious individual. What's more is that by definition, the reality without a conscious individual to observe it is no more than a visualization. If a reality must be populated by at least one conscious being, but it is possible to enact multiple in the same reality using the mind of only one Enactor, then there are more ways to increase the number of conscious individuals per reality as N decreases than there are to decrease them (in fact, this means that there is no way to decrease the number of conscious individuals per reality to less than one without making no reality at all). Therefore, as N

decreases, until the computation power of each individual is less than what is needed to remember and enact a conscious being, the number of beings in each reality will very probably increase. Contrapositively, as N increases, the number of conscious individuals per reality very probably decreases as N increases. Ultimately, then at some arbitrary level {M | M is an integer}, there would exist only a single individual. We might say, because his computational abilities would be vast, his reality is intricate and persistent, and he is the only conscious inhabitant, that this individual is God, as he would, just as a child has complete control

over his imagined reality, be omnipotent so far as our reality was concerned. But who created him? How is he conscious? Since the only mechanism of which we are aware that dons the characteristics of consciousness significant to this model (imagination, the ability to enact, remembrance, self-awareness of your own cognitive processes) is the process of imagination itself, as described earlier in this reply, this god was most probably made in the same way! So he is not omnipotent. But whoever created him (the lone being who lives on level M + 1) would even more powerful, for he would control all realities beneath M, as well as

the god in M. The same argument could be made over and over and over and over. One property that repeats when you do this, as long as you follow infinitely along the chain of all-powerful god that grows as M approaches infinity, is that God must be omnipotent in all realms beneath his, but not in his own. So he would not consider himself to be omnipotent, but we would think him omnipotent, for lack of significant evidence to the contrary and in consideration of this model itself. To finally address the contradiction that you present, you are correct, Nyarlathotep: I have no way of proving that this god would live in a physically

devoid reality. Based on what I didn't run with with this model, I could argue that it is probable, but It seems like a tangent for now, so I am going to fix the part of the initial post that you quoted, if you will let me. I won't do it until you give me the thumbs-up this time.

So now you can see what I have done. If you want to derive another property of God, you can now do it yourself if you want, just as I have, and see for yourself how cleanly this fits together.

I see what you mean, but I can deal with the math. The categorical calculus is going to be the toughest to defend.

First, I erroneously failed to account for that in any realm of multiple beings, each being is capable of producing a reality of his own, which I shall call 'adjacent' to the reality of his friend's over the hill. Both sub-realities thus must have the same value N = -1. Therefore, the set of realities cannot be a bijection on the set of scalar values N. I expect that an arbitrary number of arbitrarily sized matrices populated by iterator variables will work, however. Reformulating to account for that in a logically rigorous way will take some time (I also just thought of about a dozen other similar problems), so I'll get back to you on that with a full repost.

You are right regarding black holes: they do contain more entropy. My mistake is major, but it is still only a problem of terms. You see, I meant "information," (and yes, I realize that that is a very significant mistake) as I was referring to the ability of an Enactor to mentally sustain an imagined reality. In our reality, we know that a galaxy contains more information than a dog, but we see and consciously perceive dogs far more than we do entire galaxies. So to a consciousness that enacts us, the amount of information held in a galaxy does not need to be memorized; especially as our reality is not inherently consistent, and as we would not be able to show it as inconsistent presently if a small change were to occur in one of our more distal galaxies. The amount of information encompassed by what we know is massive, so to maintain even some semblance of mechanical consistency, a consciousness responsible for imagining our reality would have to be able to house at least enough information to force our reality to remain at least apparently consistent. Since no less information must be present in the reality in which ours is nested than that of which we ourselves are aware, and considering that our collective consciousness and conscious knowledge as humans continues to grow, I induce that the amount of information present in a reality is probably lower than the amount in the reality in which it is nested (e.g. the quantity of information approaches infinity as you progress repeatedly from Enacted to Enactor).

Again, thank you for your comment: this is exactly the type of thing that I am looking for. I'll get back to you with a heavily revised repost.

"We are getting into hot water again. All information is physically stored at least in our N=0 reality. You might argue that a copy of this information exists in the N=1 but this violates the no-cloning theorem." - Nyarlathotep

Well, just as we humans represent information physically (as in our brains) without directly cloning it, so too might the physical minds of the conscious beings in the reality in which ours is nested. Is a representation considered to be a 'copy?'
--------------------
"The above quote and other things you have said seem to hint at a violation the conservation of information. While this might seem trivial, this is a nuclear missile fired right at the heart of classical and modern physics." - Nyarlathotep

I am not sure that what I have said necessarily does violate the law of conservation of information. Since I am here to try to logically induce the existence of a deity of which atheists and many theists alike can be proud, I should ask you, as you seem to be more knowledgeable in physics and information theory than I, about what I can change to avoid needing to rewrite all of physics. The only thing I can think to present in that sense is that just as with the implications I have discussed regarding imperceptibly discontinuous time, other large consistencies held as true by us may be imperceptibly inconsistent, made consistent only when examined as is necessary to preserve computational power in the reality in which ours is probably nested. I'm bridging a gap between rationalism and dualism in the philosophy of science by posing this argument, so I shouldn't be surprised if I find myself facing a large relativistic problem. If I have to rewrite physics to support the existence of a cosmic benefactor, then I can certainly try, but you of course know that I would very much not like to do so.