There can be no two things that are in principle 
indistinguishable.
  Show me any two things that are in principle 
  indistinguishable and I will show you one thing that 
  you have no basis on which to postulate that it is two
  exactly similar things.
The universe, as information, is not compressible.
  Inasmuch as a parcel of information is truly redundant, it must, in
  principle, be indistinguishable from its equal.  Otherwise information
  would be lost in expressing/storing the information as X * 2.
  And if it is truly equal then it is misfounded to postulate that the
  information actually exists any more than once.
Order is apparent compressibility.
  When you see order, you see similarity or consistency, that is, two or more
  objects having apparently the same attributes; the same parcel of
  information, attributed to them, repeated.  But that would constitute
  objective compressibility.  In a hypothetical alternate system of storing
  universe-information, you could simply store the parcel of information once
  and create a reference in the second instance pointing to the first.  But
  since we've already showed that the universe's information is not truly
  (viz., lossleslly) compressible, that means that the universe-information
  must ALREADY exist in the most compact possible way.  Since order is the
  appearence of consistency in time or space, i.e., redundancy in form across
  multiple objects or instances, that means that order is actually an
  illusion of sorts caused by our seeing the same information multiple times!
  This would be a result of our particular mode of perceiving & interacting
  with All That Is object-ifying/distinguishing/separating
  universe-information in such a way that truly distinct and apparently
  discrete parts of it (EVERYTHING is connected and one, in actuality) are
  associated with the SAME parcels of information, multiplied in our
  perception.  For example, inasmuch as two angles could be about 90 degrees,
  the about-90-degree-ness of one angle is the SAME about-90-degree-ness in
  the other angle.  More specific DIFFERENCE in angle is true information
  but because they are both about 90 degrees, there exists no true
  possibility of one being not about 90 degrees, because inasmuch as the
  consistency is due to order and not chance, the principle that makes one
  about 90 degrees is the SAME principle that makes the other about 90
  degrees, therefore the potentiality of one or the other is intrinsicly
  limited and restricted from being not about 90 degrees.  We see consistency
  because our mode of perceiving allows us to create a false hypothetical
  scenario of one angle being not about 90 degrees and to contrast that with
  the fact that they both 'happen to', for some reason (maybe 'order'), be
  about 90 degrees.






--



Inasmuch as
  the spatially differentiated 'objects' are similar, 
  they are one and the same.  Or inasmuch as a spatially
  extended is self-consistent, the consistent attribute is a single point of 
  information.  We create more information than is
  necessary by assuming that the exactly similar aspects
  of objects must be repeated just because the objects
  associated with the aspects are repeated in space or 
  time.  We also assume that repetition in space or time
  is necessarily ontological.  But inasmuch as the objects
  are truly similar they must be considered one and the 
  same.  The only real differences are the aspects/
  attributes that are truly dissimilar.  It is questionable
  whether difference in time or space in itself necessarily
  represents a true dissimilarity.  It could be us seeing
  the same thing twice.  It could be argued that inasmuch 
  as it is actually valid to consider two things separate, 
  it is not valid to consider them to be ordered, because
  order assumes redundancy and redundancy assumes actual 
  exact similarities which are at the same time different 
  (i.e,, in principle distinguishable which makes them not 
  actually redundant)
Order, then, is nothing more than an illusion created by 
  witnessing the same thing or aspect multiple times 
  (in space or in time).


--

It should also be noted that one implication here is that the complexity
that we add to the universe in creating redundancies where none exist, must,
to be perceived, exist within ourselves.

(see perspective.htm, via sister link : "The material universe is an equation..")