> The truth is that this alternative is being rejected a priori, indeed not even acknowledged, by the authors of the article or most people in this thread, because it is an affront to their core beliefs, not through pure logical reasoning.
I think it isn't acknowledged because it is inconsistent with literally everything we have learned about physics and the universe, and even if it were true, as you said, they are outside this reality and don't care. They set the simulation parameters, and then walked away, so they are irrelevant.
If however, you point to something like miracles occuring in our reality to back up the "gods" view, then you aren't really having the same discussion as the authors.
I think it isn't acknowledged because it is inconsistent with literally everything we have learned about physics and the universe, and even if it were true, as you said, they are outside this reality and don't care. They set the simulation parameters, and then walked away, so they are irrelevant.
If however, you point to something like miracles occuring in our reality to back up the "gods" view, then you aren't really having the same discussion as the authors.