This simply isn't true. You seem to have read the abstract and made assumptions about the arguments of the paper. Tegmark doesn't focus on the how; he spends t

This simply isn't true. You seem to have read the abstract and made assumptions about the arguments of the paper. Tegmark doesn't focus on the how; he spends the paper building an argument about what properties an observer must have. It's very easy to call something you don't understand, or reject a priori, nonsense. But at least try to grapple with the argument and a make criticism with substance.