The Simulation Model v.2.0

[QuantumT]

It seems to have happened again. Despite my best efforts to avoid it. The thread got derailed by one single user.

Sorry guys!

(3rd time is the charm, maybe?)

[FlashDangerpants]

I see to further prove your theory is religious rather than scientific you have taken to excommunicating heretics who doubt your dogma. Strong choice.

[Noax]

Version 1.0 of this thread didn't work out so well, because a user derailed it with numerous so-called "questions".
So here's a new attempt. But this time I'm better prepared!

Attempt 3 will need to be far more prepared, because I cannot figure out your basics even. You give pretty much zero details except a name, so questions are the only option we have. If it derails the thread, then actually post something first.

I have ruled out BIV and solipsism. It's far to unrealistic/unlikely, that you are the only conscious being in our universe.

BIV is not solipsism. The latter follows from idealistic assumptions: Only that which is perceived exists. Since I perceive only my own consciousness, the consciousness of others does not exist, hence solipsism.

BIV is a dualistic concept and does not lead to solipsism, and you haven't even said if your simulation model is a dualistic one or monistic.

The dualistic model is similar to an internet RPG (role playing game). There are multiple players (the BIVs) each assuming a virtual 'physical' identity, and the simulation is for the entertainment of these players. There are additional characters in the virtual world that are not played by real players (typically 'bad guys'). The distinction is one of consciousness. Characters being played by real players are conscious, and the the rest are zombies. It is typically immoral to prematurely end the game for a conscious character, but one is typically encouraged to do so for the ones not conscious. The distinction is obvious in our low-quality RPG. The bad guys behave obviously different, and typically are not simulated when outside the experience of one of the conscious characters. A good simulation theory would simulate everything, and there would be no obvious distinction between conscious characters and the zombies. Distinction: Bodies of conscious characters have no need of brains since they use the player instead (the brain in the vat so to speak). The zombies need a mechanism to make their own decisions. So what role is played by these expensive brains?
Argument against this is that a player of a RPG typically knows he's a player in an RPG. We all retain memory of the real world even when immersed in the game. We know we're playing a game. Not so with us if this universe is an RPG. I have no memory of what I really am if I am this player assigned to play the role of 'Noax'.

The monistic model has no external players at all. The simulation is run by whoever creates it, but none of them can play the role of any of the characters. They can perhaps experience the characters in some sort of epiphenomenal way, but they have no control, and hence are not 'players'. So in that way, the purpose of the simulation might be more like a very immersive motion picture, for the entertainment of the experiencer, even if they are incapable of altering the paths taken by the character in the simulation. On the other hand, you are typing this model as one of the characters, not as an epiphenomenal experiencer. That means you suspect that you are the character itself, and the universe is created for the entertainment of the simulated characters, which seems like a very weak motivation for the simulation being run. The creator of the simulation puts out all this effort with zero benefit to himself.
A self-contained natural simulation, one with no external (supernatural) input, is a mathematical object, the simulation of which does not alter the object. It is not possible to 'be in' such a simulation, since that is a dualistic concept. One simply 'is' a character in the mathematical object being explored by the simulation, and the simulation does not instantiate the object, it just lets it be explored by the runner of the simulation. The purpose in this scenario cannot be for the entertainment of the characters since it has no effect on the characters.

That sort of sums up the two typical interpretations of the simulation models. You give no answers at all in this 2nd attempt. The first you say the purpose is entertainment, but you don't say whose.

There was this:

So what is intended to be simulated

A world with intelligent beings who think they are real. The ultimate game.

If it is a game, it is a dualistic model. If intelligence is being simulated, the model is monistic. In the dualistic model, the beings are the players, and they are very much real, and the universe is their game. I'm asking which is your model, because this answer seems to confuse both.

You say they exist as much as (various abstract characters, none of which are simulations). Are they pure simulations of the characters, or are there players that get to play Donald Duck in a Disney game? Do you see the question I'm asking? My vibe is the monistic model, but you don't seem to clearly convey that.

[QuantumT]

Attempt 3 will need to be far more prepared, because I cannot figure out your basics even. You give pretty much zero details except a name, so questions are the only option we have. If it derails the thread, then actually post something first.

Yes, I realise that now. I'm working on it, and will post it when it's done.