How is the idea of God, the creator, tied to a theory of simulation?

It appears that people in general crave myth. Analogous to the idea that we are fundamentally worshipping creatures.

If culturally, we cannot fill the void with a traditional concept of God, then what is the post-modern version of God? What is the re branding process?

Assuming western society has collectively lost the capability to accept God in the context of religion.

This assumes a prior: that “God” is the same no matter how abstract a narrative. If a true creator force exists, then it surely is indifferent to our human branding.

Unless, of course, our narrative is God. Then, we are still left to ponder the unobserved force that appears to exist. The thing that without which there is nothing. If you take away humans, there is still nature. If you take away nature, there is still God.

Science does not cut it. Because science describes the natural world, the observable world. The new brand must describe specifically what is not nature. What made nature. What comes before nature.

A good candidate for the new branding of the mythological creator, that which gives us a connection to our spiritual selves, could be simulation.

Simulation has some potential because you can start by referring to the statistics. Something like: if you assume any progress at all in simulating worlds then we can assume worlds are simulated. Then, there is essentially only one base reality. And the odds that we are in base reality are then infinity:1. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a good critique on this here. But my interpretation of his critique makes it infinity:2. So not much better. Tyson describes it to be more like 50/50, which is reasonable odds to be convinced of something.

But this simulation branding could really have some pull here, I mean, Elon Musk could be considered patient 0.

Think of it: All hail the great Simulator!

Jordan Peterson has a great comment on the topic here.

Problem is we are then left with the monumental task of distilling the human condition to a base framework in the context of a simulation.

Key flaw: how do you abstract all the nuances of the human condition, like the archetypes, to something like the Bible which has already achieved such frameworks?

How do you codify all of human morality, but with just enough ambiguity that it actually fits.

Theres this idea that in law ambiguity is necessary because defining every detail is prohibitively difficult. Ref: Lawrence Lessig,~34:00.

The ambiguity in this example seems analogous to tolerance in hardware design. Products must have tolerance to fit during assembly and to account for the differences in your raw materials. The same may be necessary in codified morals.

Imagine, perfect codification of morals. This surely does not exist. Try:this

So, are we then left with traditional religion? Or the daunting task of starting from scratch.

Its not clear if a restart is exactly necessary. Considering that our brains are the same. And the same biological drives are still true. Until there is a massive selection event, there may be no point in a re write.

If only we could access an API to the Bible, then we could just build a nice new user interface, and the world could be reborn.

To some extent, the same logic that may convince you of the simulation theory, should strengthen your concept of God.