A. Persenota - NORMeOLi Nature of Reality and the Meaning of Life

Arturo Persenota published his book "NORMeOLi - The Nature of Reality and the Meaning of Life" in 2020. The book includes the full arguments leading to the conclusions outlined below. Order it from Amazon!

Kindle ebook:

Paperback:

Excerpt from the book - the summary sections of all chapters:

Introduction

The fear to face having been wrong all along is probably the greatest obstacle to arriving at the truth. The NORMeOLi helps one overcome this! Whether one ever pondered the ultimate existential questions of life or not, whether one already concluded a system of beliefs that answered their questions satisfactorily or not, and whether one is comfortable with their system of beliefs or not quite, the NORMeOLi is for everyone. It guides one through a scenario of reality that is most likely the closest to the eventual unfolding reality.

The NORMeOLi refutes Atheism, Materialism, and Naturalism and concludes the meaning of life in an all-encompassing logical system of beliefs without reliance on miracles. It is not a new religion but a new understanding that highlights misunderstandings in some major tenets of an existing religion. It reconciles religious belief with scientific knowledge – but not as traditional proponents of either side would suspect – and offers reinterpretations. What more can one hope for, and what less can one settle for?

NORMeOLi stands for Nature Of Reality and the MEaning Of LIfe. The writing consists of two main parts: the Apparent Objective Dogma (AOD), and the Corroborating Revelation (CR). Under the AOD, I conclude an all-encompassing system of beliefs that can answer all the existential questions one can typically encounter and, ultimately, the meaning of life. I strive to achieve objectivity (or validity) not by accepting existing dogmas of external systems of beliefs, but by rational reasoning that uses the most basic inputs of the conscious mind. For me, the objectivity of a system of beliefs is its theoretical applicability to all of humanity, in all possible situations, throughout history, and into the future.

The AOD defines the criteria for assessing the validity of a given religion and the correctness of its tenets. The CR concludes which religion’s description of reality is the closest match to the eventual unfolding of reality expected by the AOD – this practically answers the question: which is the ‘true’ religion worth believing?

The Rationale

Everyone should have an inalienable right to arrive at their own beliefs and convictions following their reasoning, and not be pressured into beliefs by fear or by a need to conform to their surroundings. However, until relatively recently, most people typically ended up inheriting most of their beliefs from the cultural and religious affiliations of their surroundings. And in more recent times, claims of rationality from those who believe solely in the power of science added another set of arguments to the mix – materialists, naturalists, and atheists branding all religious beliefs as obsolete, superseded by science. Overall, this translates to a broad spectrum of the systems of beliefs people have held, as they attempted to explain reality.

As expected, most people or groups claim to be right about their beliefs. (Some also claim that humankind can not uncover the ultimate truth – and claim to be right about that.) But despite the freedom of belief that people should ideally have, reality will not turn out to be relative. Everyone can not be right at the same time, as there are logical contradictions between tenets and the logic of different beliefs. The description of reality will eventually unfold and will have its place on the broad spectrum of possibilities. Thus, someone’s (or some groups) beliefs held during human history will necessarily end up as the ’closest match’ to this eventual unfolding reality. In contrast, others may be closer or farther from it.

People behave in specific ways because they hold beliefs that tell them: those are the right (or OK) things to do. In general, the closer one’s system of beliefs ends up corresponding to eventual unfolding reality, the better off one can expect to end up: if one lived their lives according to those beliefs, one would have the least amount and magnitude of unexpected consequences. And the reverse also applies. Thus, any measure of how one looked at and lived their life is entirely contingent upon the eventually unfolded reality. So the stakes and implications of which beliefs guide one’s life are not trivial, but the highest.

The problem is, people have no way of reaching certainty about the closest match, and by the time this will become apparent, they will have already lived their lives according to beliefs that may be far from it. The point of realization about having lived an incorrectly guided life may come too late and be too painful. Thus, concluding the closest match consciously, and respectively living life according to one’s best ability should take the utmost importance, even if this seems intimidating, confusing, complicated, or impossible! The NORMeOLi boldly claims to be the closest match of the description of reality and the meaning of life. One can regard it as an exercise that assures one about the wager one makes on a scenario of reality that will guide one’s life (even if not reaching the same conclusions).

Technicalities of the Writing

Unfortunately, this writing will not be an easy or entertaining read. As I aim to be exact, definitive, comprehensive, and self-contained (to the degree possible), some themes and ideas will keep coming up repeatedly. The many definition-like concepts in the text also call for repeatedly mentioning some key terms. My aim is not to provide entertainment or tell a story, but to strive for a kind of clarity that is ready for argumentation and debate. Therefore the text does not form a continuous narrative.

Most sections of the AOD follow a logical series of ideas that build upon each other. Consequently, if one reads into parts without understanding how I arrived at all previous conclusions, one may easily dismiss ideas that seem far-fetched or absurd when facing it out of the blue. Each chapter starts with a set of main conclusions (points) to improve understanding for the reader. They form a summary of the chapters contents. The summary is followed by a set of elaboration sections that attempt to support and explain the reasoning behind those conclusions. Elaboration sections may reiterate points already made, mention ideas or analogies already made elsewhere to explain or further support the same idea differently.

The reader does not necessarily have to read all or any of these elaboration sections if the chapters main conclusions are clearly understood and if one wishes to proceed to the next set of findings. But as some of these sections may also cover additional points or arguments not covered by the conclusions, one may gain an increased understanding or additional insights on the reasoning.

The entire text is meant to be gender-unspecific. For simplification purposes, throughout this writing, the words he, his always mean he or she and his or her (except when I talk about a specific person). In general, I use one except when this felt grammatically awkward.

About the Author

'Arturo Persenota' is a fictional pen-name; it simply refers to the author of the obvious; I believe all conclusions in this writing can and should be evident. The identity of the real author should have no importance. As the main point in the AOD is to get rid of existing contexts and start from the very minimal, it would be misguided to try to connect the conclusions of this book to the real author’s context.

The official website of this book is http://normeoli.info, and the official contact of the author is arturopersenota@gmail.com. The website will include a solution to prevent impersonations or false claims about the author (online or physically) while allowing for authentic and official communication.

Apparent Objective Dogma

Once one goes through a process of self-examination and the analysis of the surrounding environment, conclusions reached in the AOD (as its name suggests) should be apparent. They can universally apply to everyone, in every possible geographic, cultural, historical, and situational context. I kept my reasoning process as internal and private as possible by not relying on or adopting any external sources of established knowledge as starting points or foundations I build on. And indeed, the only necessary inputs that were needed to formulate an all-encompassing system of beliefs were my conscious self and the (commonly available) phenomena I experience and observe. This way, the AOD stays culturally and situationally independent, applicable, and easily transferable to all of humanity. Its conclusions satisfactorily answer all my existential questions, and also those I often hear from others, unlike any other system of thought I have encountered. I believe that the AOD is the closest to the eventual correct description of the ongoing reality I face; therefore, I am comfortable accepting its guidance in my life.

I cannot regard the widespread and undue influence of one’s surroundings (family, tribe, nation, culture, religion, society, education, media) on one’s system of beliefs (or the lack of) as ideal or acceptable. For someone who is searching for objective truth, reconciling differences with people who are under the heavy influence of their surroundings is going to be difficult, if not impossible. Because of this substantial pressure from the surroundings, people stick to their version of truth even if they are not convinced, or they can not logically explain the tenets of their beliefs. The shame of their ancestors and them being wrong for so long will rather make them stick to their beliefs despite not fully understanding some of its tenets, or despite seeing the substantial logical gaps that lack satisfactory explanations. And they may keep doing this even in the face of logical arguments that convincingly contradict their beliefs – thus, this becomes an emotional, not a rational issue.

This loyalty to the surrounding, that outweighs the importance of searching for objective truth is an obvious failure and a flaw of their character. Some are not bothered to live with a superficial set of beliefs; many fear the retribution from their surroundings. Ideally, everyone should arrive at their convictions and beliefs on which they wager their life without caving to any pressure from their surroundings. The self’s ability to go through an independent, private process of reasoning to conclude a system of beliefs one can then wager one’s life on is liberating. This option is available to everyone privately. It is also a more probable expectation of a human than the uncritical or ignorant caving to the dominant ideology of the surroundings. To openly proclaim such a system of belief to one’s surroundings and publicly live one’s life accordingly without the fear of retribution from the surrounding (family, tribe, religion, culture, nation), may still be problematic for a lot of people.

In my reasoning, I did not follow the academic process of researching, analyzing, and evaluating the available historical sources of the accumulated human knowledge of philosophy and religion. Instead, I disregarded external sources altogether to formulate a set of conclusions that can and should be apparent and objective to everyone. Going down such a path proved that everyone else could do the same process and arrive at a set of conclusions the same way – via an internal, rational reasoning process, in isolation, and without referring to or needing to know about any external body of knowledge. This did not mean a blind disregard for any external source; rather, it meant not accepting any claim or information coming from the surroundings at face value. First, I had to complete the reasoning and conclusions of my internal and independent philosophical base in isolation. Then in light of this, I could see whether and what sense external sources made.

Instead of listening to and weighing the available external information (whether coming from a person, organization, or institution), my only tools were my common sense, logic, and my ability to analyze myself and the observations I could make of my surrounding physical world. Using my free will, I became the judge over siding with or rejecting possibilities and reaching conclusions based on my reasoning. And in the end, my conclusions formed an all-encompassing system of beliefs – the AOD. By all-encompassing, I mean satisfactorily explaining all existential questions I have ever had to ask (and have heard others asking, but not getting logical and satisfactory answers). Because of forming it in isolation, the conclusions of the AOD should be culturally and situationally independent and universally applicable and easily transferable to anyone.

The significant observations – that can be experienced by anyone – that gave me crucial insights into the mechanics and essence of conscious existence were:

the correct philosophical starting point is I think, therefore I exist
the rules and limitations enforced on me by the Physical World where I happen to live
my apparent free will in making relevant decisions that can affect others (and vice versa)
the everyday experience of the ever-continuity of the subjective conscious experience of reality – as demonstrated by the way dreaming works at night
the possibility of time gaps in shared experiences of reality when sleeping and dreaming is involved
the common experience of limited self-awareness while dreaming

Almost everyone can commonly observe the first three of the above; I consider them as commonly experienceable facts of the given reality. The last three observations are part of what I will call the Dream Continuity Experience (or DCE in short) – something that everyone who has ever dreamt during their sleep can also experience and analyze – and I will cover this later in detail.

Throughout my reasoning in the AOD, I try to determine the plausibility of available options, and the potential consequences of going the option and ending up wrong. I also believe that I can use some of my observations (select pieces of my reality) as analogies or hints about a broader context of reality, as they exist for this very purpose. These analogies – that everyone can experience – are a crucial part of my reasoning, knowing all well that there is no scientific proof for (or against) any of this. But since my only piece of certain knowledge is my conscious existence, for everything else, I need to rely on my beliefs anyway. Thus, I have more confidence in the conclusions of the AOD than in repeatable and well-tested scientific theories, as in the end, science can only rely on observations of the surroundings.

Knowledge

The Phenomenon-of-me is my conscious awareness in the present, my memories, and my free will that affects the unfolding of the future.
My only certain knowledge is of my own existence; my conclusions about my observable reality, and others I can interact with, do not amount to the same kind of certainty – they are, in fact, based on my acceptance (or belief) of their independent existence from my observations.
I will call the observable physical reality that imposes its strict set of rules and limitations and gives context to the interactions of its conscious participants, the Physical Domain (or PD).
The Observer-Observed Paradox (OOP) is the logical possibility that I can not reach conclusions about the entirety of reality – most crucially about the essence and origin of my observing consciousness – solely from the observations my consciousness is capable of making of the physical world.

Materialism

The materialist way of looking at the natural world is mainly responsible for the prominence and achievements of the sciences. Humanity should uncover the rules that govern the PD to the fullest degree possible, through the unhindered use of the sciences.
Science’s attempts to look at consciousness as entirely a product of the observed physical reality are futile. Consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon originating from outside of the domain of the natural sciences.
A materialist can logically look at himself and life itself as insignificant and without any meaning. Materialist logic can not support a higher purpose of life beyond selfishness and doing what one can get away with.
After death, the materialist can only logically find out about being wrong, and never about being right; finding out nothing has no consequences, whereas finding out that one held and lived by the wrong idea of reality, has serious potential consequences.
The impossible burden of proof for the materialist is to use the available rudimentary properties of elementary particles/fields to describe how and why it is mathematically necessary that specific arrangements of them will necessarily result in intelligent consciousness that composes music, ponders about quantum physics, mathematics, and its own existence.
A conscious observer can not exist without a reality to observe, and any reality needs conscious observers to exist.
One can only be better off than materialists by stepping outside of the boundaries of the sciences to discover meaning for conscious existence, while also fully utilizing them to uncover the mysteries of the PD.

Simulation

The PD is a consciousness-centric simulation, not a physical entity; it exists (solely to, and) while facilitating its conscious participants' interactions. All existence is for, about, and via consciousness; anything ‘exists’ as a determination of a conscious experience that can be projected backward or forward in time, according to simulation rules.
Any conscious experience that is not the function of the PD hints at the overall essence and origin of conscious reality as not being the function of the PD.
My conscious existence in the PD simulation in and of itself necessitates a Creator who organized (created) the simulation and assigned me to participate.
A simulation created for its participants signals those participants' significance in the Creator’s eyes. Humans are at the center of this Creator’s focus.
The PD contains logical, consistent, observable, and rational explanations for all its internal observable phenomena; this can involve Internal Integrity Stories (or IIS) that extrapolate causation back into the unobserved past. IISs are stories presented by the simulation to their observers that appear to have taken place in the simulation, but did not.
My human body is the manifestation of my consciousness in the PD.
The simulation assumes the existence of a larger domain – the Existence Domain (or ED) – that encompasses the PD and the origin and essence of consciousness, where the natural sciences do not apply.
Supernatural occurrences are non-shared private experiences, with no relevance to those not experiencing them.

Continuity

My only experience of reality is a never-ceasing ever-continuous flow of awareness.
My conscious experience’s subject and duration can either be shareable (as in the PD) or private (as in dreams).
The entirety of one’s experience (or its perceived length of time) may not be reconcilable with that of others or the overall objective reality.
Death is an irreversible transition into a non-PD reality that happens similarly to the Dream Continuity Experience (or DCE), rather than the end of conscious awareness and the extinguishing of all its memories.
Conscious existence is ever-continuous and experiences time subjectively.
Consciousness gradually enters the human body; the newborn baby is an IIS arranged by the simulation for its surroundings. This experience is missing from the personal time continuum of the one being born.
While people are not participating in the shareable PD reality (they are asleep, in a coma, in an altered state, still a baby, or just died), the simulation maintains an IIS of them in the PD for their surroundings.
The DCE points to the presence of embedded contexts of realities that can complement one another. It demonstrates how one experience time subjectively, directly challenging death’s reign over existence.

Free Will

Ultimately all humans have free will in making their decisions.
One’s will is free because of the lack of an automatic reward or retribution upon exercising it.
Because of the interactive aspect of exercising free will, the choices humans make are the most significant influences on the unfolding future.
From the possible perspective of the Creator of the simulation, decisions people make – regardless (and in spite) of their specific assigned situation – are the only variables in the PD that are not configurable, predictable, or even boring to follow.
With its necessary lack of direct consequences, free will makes suffering and injustice logically inevitable for PD participants, allowing for ‘bad things happening to good people’ (with all its other variants).
The overall prevention of suffering and injustice would be absurd as part of the PD’s setup; most significantly, it would counter free will.

ED-self

My conscious existence is a limited form of a greater entity – my ‘ED-self’ – that belongs to the ED. An ED-self is a bi-directionally eternal consciousness that can neither be created nor destroyed.
My memories – originating from or beyond the PD time continuum – can be hidden from me, but triggered back into my consciousness at any moment - in the PD or beyond.
The phenomenon of dreaming provides an analogy for my existence in the PD; thus, I can realistically expect to be able to rationalize my PD existence from the ED’s broader context once my memories from there become available again.
A human gains consciousness in the PD as the PD facilitates the transfer of an ED-self’s limited consciousness into it. The human body becomes the manifestation and limiter of the ED-selfs consciousness in the PD.
The Creator temporarily assigns – not creates – the eternal ED-self’s consciousness into the PD as a human.
The Creator created the PD simulation for the ED-selves, with a particular intent and motivation. Reasoning about this intent from a possible ED context should be a source of guidance for my PD existence.
Logically, there can not be a higher purpose to life in the PD than to serve this intent, making sure that my ED-self succeeds with its participation.
The success of an ED-self’s participation in the PD is proportional to how aligned are the conduct and values of its human form with the Creator’s overall intent and motivation with the PD.
Reality consists of the Creator’s eternal master consciousness (that includes mathematics), the simulated realities he creates, and the participating audience of these simulations (and possibly also accompanying the Creator) – the legions of eternal ED-selves.
The total quantity of consciousness in existence in the ED, in all forms and dimensions imaginable, is constant from eternity to eternity. The Creator can change the ED-selves' level of awareness and their assignments to different domains (simulations).
Feelings and values I experience in my human body’s physicality likely have their analogs for my ED-self in the ED.

Precursor

The existence of a greater ED-self of my consciousness implies my Precursory existence before the PD in a larger encompassing domain, the ED, and the unequal playing field humans face in the simulation implies an unequal Prior State for the ED-selves.
The Precursor refers to the events and decisions that caused an ED-self to participate in the PD as a human. The Precursor took place in the infinite past of the ED-self before it joined the PD. The Precursor is the reason the ED-self got assigned to the PD as a human.
In the Precursor, the ED-self earned a Prior State – a wrong that caused a rift with the Creator; its magnitude and specifics justify the set of accidental situations assigned to its human form throughout the PD. Humans are not to know the details of their Precursor while in the PD, but only in the following broader context, similar to how one is not aware of one’s greater context of reality while dreaming.
The ED-selves' wrong committed during their Precursor makes all humans already guilty at their birth in the Creator’s eyes.
For the ED-selves, PD participation is penance for their Prior State, and most likely, an opportunity to rectify it. The reason for the PD’s existence is to serve as the platform that enables this.
Multiple reincarnations into the same instance of the PD – either a fixed number of times or until someone reaches a certain end-state – makes no logical sense from the Creator’s and the simulation participants' perspectives.
After death, human consciousness will most likely return to the broader originating context of their ED-self, and not reincarnate to the same instance of the PD simulation – similar to what happens when someone dreams.

Wager

Intentionally or unintentionally, everyone lives according to a scenario (the attempted description of the entire reality, according to the extrapolated logic of the tenets of the philosophy one holds to be true).
Wagering on the right scenario has paramount consequences to the ED-self, as each scenario can translate to a radically different outlook and conduct in life. Wagering consciously on the Creator’s disposition and my relation to him is the single most critical decision I can make in my life for my ED-self.
Because of its inherent and necessary uncertainty, needing faith to wager on a scenario is an intentional and essential part of the PD’s design.
Because of humans' free will, the Creator does not know all future outcomes in the PD. Knowing them would render the PD pointless.
Random assignment of unequal opportunity and misery would be fundamentally unjust from PD participants' perspectives, signaling the absence of any weight, significance, or relevance of individual human consciousnesses in the Creator’s eyes.
The Creator’s repeated observations of very predictable outcomes (resulting mainly from situations assigned by him) would make for a rather dull spectacle in the long term. This makes having a malicious Creator unlikely.
Scenarios without a caring-Creator do not call for a strategy to follow or have consequences if not followed.
Scenarios with a caring Creator have the most positive and the least negative potential consequentialities (the expected magnitude of probable negative consequences if another scenario turns out to be the case) because of their logical need to find and adhere to a strategy with the PD. By not wagering on a caring Creator, I can only lose, while wagering on it, I can not lose anything significant, regardless of the eventual unfolding scenario of reality.
Weighing plausibility, desirability, and the consequentiality of the possible scenarios, I confidently wager on having a caring Creator who deliberately and fairly assigned my initial situation and may intervene to affect my ongoing situational outcomes to fit my ED-self’s Prior State or to act on my behalf.
The meaning of my human life should directly follow from the Creator’s motivation to compel my ED-self to the PD.

Evaluation

There must have been a motivation for the Creator to create the PD and let humans participate. Given free will in an interactive setting, this must have been to evaluate how humans exercise it and develop their soul, given (and despite) their assigned situations.
The PD Evaluation (or ‘PDE’) most likely has a single, realistically achievable, and universal evaluation criterion for all humans applicable in each historical and situational context.
The PD exists to serve as penance for the Precursor’s wrong and allow for its rectification by passing the PDE. Hence, it is not a perfect place/paradise for its participants.
If the PDE uses a single criterion for every human (which is most logical), then one’s chances of succeeding can not depend on or be affected by the different amounts and degrees of suffering and luck endured in assigned accidental situations.
Humans' entire conscious experience must be transparent to the Creator as if their souls were running in the Creator’s mind.
Willful ignorance to stay unaffected, no matter how far and removed the affected subjects are from one, constitutes a significant decision for the PDE. Thus, voluntary self-isolation or withdrawal from society are inappropriate strategies to succeed in the PDE.

Criteria

To various degrees, every human is innately predisposed to opposite sides of the most fundamental polarity of love and selfishness. This defines the universal right and wrong and is the most fundamental basis of morality.
The most prominent and logical evaluation criterion of the PDE is the human soul’s proximity to and domination by love, as demonstrated by one’s life, despite the differing degrees of difficulty of one’s situational assignments and their predisposition to love and selfishness. This is the only true accomplishment of human free will, the indicator of one’s quality of soul that can universally apply to everyone, in all situational or historical contexts of the PD that is challenging enough to be worthy of evaluation from the Creator’s perspective.
As the Creator grants the fruits of achievement-oriented driving forces in life, success in wealth, power, the recognition that holds these in high esteem, and one’s outstanding achievements in one’s talents would be too obvious, and therefore unlikely to be the evaluation criterion. These accomplishments are logically worthless once the ED-self returns to the ED unless they helped in the PDE.
One succeeds in the PDE not by achieving success in life, but by aligning their character and life with the PDE criterion.
The positive sides of the polarities are likely to be a likeness to the Creator’s traits. The Creator must be a proponent of these values.
The Creator’s relation to the participating ED-selves must also be about love, making love the logical evaluation criterion.
The values that polarities represent transcend into the ED, while material or esteem achievements don’t.
The positive sides of polarities are aligned with happiness, while their opposites are not.
Because of the necessary uncertainty that testing humans' character involves (about details of the Precursor and consequences of the PDE), finding and following the right path will ultimately require faith – that is also part of the PDE.
The burden of what one has to bear because of one’s Prior State is already fully included in one’s situational assignments arranged by the Creator, and others should not add to this.
Knowingly failing the PDE or not making any effort to succeed is ridiculous under any circumstances.
Knowingly continuing to do wrong and counting on repenting later is a failing strategy to succeed-with in the PDE.

Meaning

For humans, the meaning of life is to rectify the ED-self’s Wrong-of-the-Precursor by succeeding in the PDE, so the ED-self qualifies to rejoin the Creator’s presence.
For the Creator, the meaning of creating the PD and having the failed ED-selves participate is to let them serve their penance for the wrong of their Precursor and give them a chance for rectification so they can rejoin the presence of the Creator.
Once the Creator separates those whose characters are driven by selfishness and stops imposing situational misery on the remaining, all suffering should end in one group while amplifying in the other group.
I am an essential participant in a system to which my ED-self gave meaning. The ED-selves were either assigned, compelled, or volunteered to participate in the PD, likely having only harsher alternatives, if any.
The motivation for creating the PD was the same as the evaluation criterion for its participants – love that testifies the special significance of each ED-self to the Creator. The likelihood of facing a loving Creator should make any human hopeful, regardless of their assigned circumstances.
My assigned PD situations reflect not my ED-self’s importance in the Creator’s eyes but its Prior State. All human participants of the PD are equally important and significant to the Creator.
The PDE is a test that is either pass-fail, rated on a scale, or both, likely carrying significant consequences for the ED-self – but regardless, rectifying all wrongs committed without delay is the only sane strategy. Aiming to qualify with the best score possible is a calculated, but also the only wise move.
The realization and subsequent conviction in one’s character of being right, together with the acts following from this, do not equal performing the same acts out of fear or hope for the consequences or rewards.
Not trying to succeed in the PDE or giving up at any point, in any situation, for any reason, is logically and paramountly foolish. It is never too late to try to succeed in the PDE.
Improving one’s material well-being in the PD can be done as long as it does not impede keeping one’s soul in line with the universal evaluation criterion.
The neighborly considerations for others need to include all of humanity as far as one is aware.

Corroborating Revelation

In the AOD, reasoning in isolation (staying independent of the already established external body of knowledge) was crucial. This allowed me to conclude an all-encompassing, universally applicable system of beliefs that can objectively apply and stand on its own in any social situation. However, naturally, anyone should question this claim of objectivity by walking through a similar path and critically examine my conclusions. I also do not want to arrogantly assume that I already figured out everything in the AOD. This objectivity is a subjective claim that the description of reality and the meaning of existence I outline in this writing will be closest to the eventual unfolding truth among alternatives on the range of possibilities. This may sound like an extraordinary claim, but it is not – in an ideal world, everyone should hold and stay true to their own version, and most of these versions should converge to the eventual truth. And all everyone should be responsible for is to continue being critical, keep universal applicability in mind to strive for objectivity. Everyone should keep an open mind to realizations that either complement or contradict the logic of one’s system of beliefs and thereby increase or decrease one’s confidence in the wager they make. If one realizes the truth elsewhere, one should be ready to discard and replace one’s entire system of beliefs, regardless of the pressures coming from one’s surroundings, as only beliefs held in conviction are of any value.

I have a firm belief in the conclusions of the AOD, but I also can not presume that people throughout history did not yet arrive at essentially the same truths – in whatever other form or shape, speaking to the context of their times. After all, it would be highly unlikely that the correct description of reality and the meaning of life only arrive during the twenty-first century. The AOD weighs the plausibility and consequentiality of logical alternatives – but certainty necessarily remains out of reach. But this necessary uncertainty built into existence in the PD also makes it likely that the Creator has been attempting to guide simulation participants with messages, hints, and predispositions. After all, if the PD is an evaluation, the Creator must have had a vested interest in its participants' success. Granting hints or revelations that can potentially increase the chances of success at the PDE for susceptible humans would be a logical act from the Creator, which still stays short of granting certainty (thus preventing testing humans' real character). The opposite (keeping participants entirely in the dark) would not be a characteristic of a loving Creator.

Thus, after concluding the AOD, I was ready to step out of my intentional limitations' bounds to examine how some available external sources may align with the AOD. The AOD is a philosophically complete system of thought that I consider the correct description of reality that can logically answer all the questions I throw at it. But I still look for this potential alignment out of curiosity and to stay open to concepts that complement or enhance (or refute) my conclusions. If there is such an alignment with already established guides, I need to examine this alignment in more detail, in light of the AOD. Any guide already in the common knowledge of humanity would either concur or contradict conclusions of the AOD. Finding an alignment or a striking resemblance should offer me opportunities to rethink and re-evaluate my conclusions in the AOD, realize new interpretations of existing external beliefs, or refute them as misunderstandings or misguided beliefs (while will still staying short of certainty).

The AOD as an all-encompassing logical system of beliefs gained its personal and subjective value because it answered all my existential, philosophical, and theological questions satisfactorily. Formulating its conclusions internally in isolation (without relying on outside sources or influences) helped the AOD’s objectivity, universal applicability, and rationality. The result and its methodology compel me to examine anything that originates in an external body of knowledge in light of the AOD, not the other way around. I have to assess and interpret any philosophical and religious tenets from the AOD’s perspective instead of judging the AOD from their points of view. This is an exception to almost all other cases where it usually is wise to learn, use, and build on already-accumulated human knowledge. However, when one tries to uncover the mysteries of consciousness and its observed reality, one should only accept the supremacy of external sources' if and only after one gains a conviction of its logical foundation of beliefs. Regarding this supremely important area to the self, one should never cave to outside pressure (typically coming from the surroundings and upbringing).

Arriving at, agreeing with, rejecting, or reinterpreting tenets of religions and philosophies after one already concluded their independent logical system of beliefs is valid, proper, and – according to the AOD – the evaluator of the PDE expects one to do so. Likewise, I invite and urge anyone to take the conclusions of the NORMeOLi with a grain of salt, weigh them in light of their own (perhaps inherited) system of beliefs, and then wager on the resulting conclusions reached. The Creator expects humans to think independently and gain a conviction for themselves. Thus, searching for the truth in good faith is a duty that shall not be obstructed by any person or institution. Ultimately, the burden of what follows from the NORMeOLi – whether a complete or selective agreement, ridicule, marvel, amusement, conviction, disagreement, resentment, enlightenment, dismissal, or insecurity – will be on the reader. For them, this is yet another indirect invitation arranged by the Creator to get them to succeed at their PDE.

As this may already have been obvious to readers of previous conclusions, the AOD inadvertently and conspicuously aligns with tenets of a long-established religion. This alignment means:

Anyone who goes through the necessary diligent reasoning process has the means to arrive at the scenario that is likely the closest to eventual correctness and figure out the meaning of life accordingly, using only assets at everyone’s disposal.
This realization is not a secret that has to come from prophets who receive special revelations or maintain unique connections with the Creator.
Due to the necessary lack of certainty, the Creator likely intends to guide all PD participants to succeed in their PDE through hints, predispositions, and revelations.
Revelations – attempted guidance to the right path arranged by the Creator – can happen to any human, especially if one actively seeks the truth. They can consist of an enlightened idea or feeling one has.
As many people may not be actively seeking the truth (as they should) or deem themselves unimportant to receive revelations directly, they follow ideas revealed to others (documented as the various religions and philosophies).
Following different scenarios of realities necessarily means ending up with differing proximities to the eventual unfolding truth.
The AOD’s alignment with a particular religion can only mean (to me) that the religion’s original writers' revelations were most likely the closest to the eventual unfolding truth among other major religions and philosophies.

Unfortunately, the aligned religion’s doctrines have been grossly misunderstood and abused throughout history. Some of its adherents continue to miss the essence of its message to this day. The AOD, in effect, provides a different frame of context for looking at these doctrines and tenets, that resulted in new, distinct interpretations – as detailed under the chapters of Corroborating Revelation (or CR). The result should be more clarity and a fuller understanding that is argument-ready with the various competing ideas circulating during the 21st century. The CR is a much-welcome and glorious (though not necessary) extension on the AOD, reaffirming its wager-scenario and the PDE criterion. The AOD underpins the CR and serves as its philosophical base. The AOD is analogous to a scientific theory, with the CR being its experimental validation. Together they form the NORMeOLi, a powerful and convincing message for those wagering on the wrong scenario.

Becoming convinced of a set of conclusions of the NORMeOLi will carry a heavy burden: it will become crucial to conduct one’s life accordingly, as it will make sense to do so (and will not make sense not to do so). And this will remain hard throughout life. But the stakes are paramount: none other than the whole point of existence in the PD is at stake, not to mention the side effect of a chance at a better world for all of humanity on Earth. Following any path of conviction has its risks, of course. Still, they don’t compare to the danger of living life while not concluding anything about its meaning, blindly or non-critically accepting and following sets of beliefs because of outside pressures.

Merits

Pressuring anyone to comply with religious rules, laws, or customs or expecting anyone to hold beliefs would infringe on their free will and undermine their real character’s evaluation.
A religion with a good chance of correctly describing reality should also make a reasonable amount of sense to its believers. It makes sense that religious beliefs that encompass the correct ongoing scenario of reality also make sense.
It is realistic to expect that a System Of Beliefs that will end up as the Closest to the Eventual Unfolding Reality (SOBCEUR) is already externally available to me in the present, and for it to make the most sense among the alternatives (to have the closest alignment with the AOD).
The set of requirements to be addressed by the basic tenets of a valid religion with a realistic hope to be the SOBCEUR I call the Required Focus: a convincing and viable wager-scenario (including humans' relation to the Creator), the human soul’s origin, the reason and goal of human existence in the PD, a guide on how to reach this goal, and justification for the differences in accidental situational assignments of individuals.
Any religion’s main responsibility is to address the Required Focus. Merits of any religion lay in its validity (universal applicability to all of humanity) and its likelihood of being the SOBCEUR (how its basic tenets address the Required Focus). I expect that the religion with the closest alignment with the AOD will be the SOBCEUR.
One can establish the validity of any religion with near certainty; however – by design – one can only conclude its correctness with increased likelihood, not with certainty.
The SOBCEUR can still include misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and misguided, incorrect, or irrelevant parts, once compared with a theoretically correct description of reality (that may be available in the ED). However, even with all its potential shortcomings, the SOBCEUR is still a better wager than other alternatives.
The need to gain the ability to address the Required Focus satisfactorily should outweigh the comfort and benefit one achieves by staying loyal to one’s circles of associations or give in to fear.

Alignment

The uniquely brilliant concept of the ‘Creator Entering the Simulation As a Participating Human’ (or ‘CESAPH’) conceptually extends the AOD as a non-apparent dogma that I could not have concluded via the rational reasoning process of the AOD. It is a gift of Good News, the confirmation of truth to those who seek it, and a reaffirmation for those who already found it, meant to reach those who deserved it based on their Prior State.
The ‘Message Of the CESAPH’ – the ‘MOCESAPH’ (the core teachings of the New Testament, which boils down to reaching Salvation by living a life dominated by love) – is in complete alignment with the AOD’s conclusion on the meaning of life: to succeed in the PDE according to the single universal criterion of love.
One can arrive at the essential message of the New Testament in isolation, without relying on the religion’s historical sources, and presumably, reach Salvation that way. There can be no better confirmation of MOCESAPH being the SOBCEUR than propagating a message that – through isolated logical reasoning – should also be one’s natural conclusion.
It is possible to figure out the likeliest SOBCEUR through rational reasoning alone (as in the AOD). But facing the concept of the Creator’s demonstration and confirmation of the AOD in human form (in the established story available to most as the New Testament) is an inimitable way to underscore and increase the confidence of the MOCESAPH being the SOBCEUR while leaving the evaluation’s ability to test humans' real character intact.
By concluding the AOD, I am compelled and enabled to reprioritize, disregard, reinterpret, accept, or reject irrelevant details, inconsistencies, interpretations, and applicability of Christian dogma and rearrange the significance of tenets in my good-faith effort to search for the truth.
Faith in a system of beliefs is an affair between the human and the Creator. By granting me (and everyone else) an independent, intelligent mind and a free will, the Creator entrusted and enabled me and made me responsible for critical thinking when I form my system of beliefs in search of the truth and good faith, as I see fit.
The great sacrifice of the CESAPH ensured that the maximum possible number of ED-selves reach their Salvation by succeeding in their PDE. It is also the strongest indicator that the redemption opportunity granted in the PD is a single and the final chance for the ED-selves to redeem their wrongs of the Precursor.

Stories of the Past

Irrespective of a story’s truth or authenticity, my attitude to it has to be the same once it reaches me. If it makes sense, I can critically examine its message’s applicability to my life, its merits, and interpret it as I see fit.
It is not authenticity and original intent that I am primarily looking for from original writers, but the overall message’s likelihood of correctness, wisdom, guidance, and applicability to my life.
Stories-of-the-past confronting me in my life are parts of my situational assignments for my PDE. Applying my critical thinking to them compels and enables me to disregard details I deem irrelevant, question inconsistencies that I may uncover, assess where the story is trying to take me, form new interpretations, or reject applicability as I see fit. Seeing fit has to include my best good-faith effort searching for the objective truth while keeping my character in line with the universal PDE criterion.
In the CESAPH – the Good News of the New Testament – the Creator formally gave a gift of promise directly to everyone, that living life as guided by Jesus will lead one to Salvation, rescinding the Precursor’s wrong. The CESAPH and the MOCESAPH are the stories offering the most significant help to the ED-self in getting them to succeed in their PDE.
When analyzing Christianity’s merits from the AODs point of view, the mutual reassurance of Jesus’s message and the conclusions of the AOD, together with the Good News and promise of the CESAPH, make the scenario to wager on brilliantly evident, leaving no reasonable doubt worth acting upon.

Testaments

The event of the CESAPH, applicable to the whole of humanity, is magnitudes more significant than the arrival of the Jewish Messiah would have been to the Jews.
The new commandment of love – the evaluation criterion for the PDE – needs to overrule all other beliefs and conclusions.
Prophecies, miracles, and descent are philosophically and logically irrelevant; to use them to tie the Old Testament to the New Testament’s message is misguided and unnecessary.
In their values, way of life propagated, audience, and focus, the Old and New Testaments differ and outline different wager-scenarios. As they can not both have an equal chance at being the SOBCEUR, one needs to untie their conceptual relationship and not look at them as different elements of the same system of beliefs.
In most established views of Christianity, the Old Testament serves as an unneeded distraction from the MOCESAPH, indicating a superficial comprehension of the significance of the CESAPH and its guide for life.
The Creator likely selected the timing and historical context for the CESAPH, specifically to contrast and confront it with the MOCESAPH, not to fulfill or piggyback on it.
When looking from the AODs perspective, some Zoroastrian tenets could form parts of a context from which the concept, claims, and message of Jesus and the CESAPH could be better understood than from the context of the Old Testament.
I can believe that the person of Jesus was the CESAPH because he claimed to be precisely that, because the CESAPH happening once during human history makes logical sense from the AOD’s perspective, and because the MOCESAPH matches the conclusions of the AOD and measures up to the event of the CESAPH.
The CESAPH did not administer divine justice, rule, or awe with miracles, leave complex rules to obey and subjugate people to the divine will, but instead demonstrated the Creator’s love by attempting to lead humans back to his side. Doing so made the story-of-the-past wiser, simpler, more convincing, more powerful, and more beautiful than any other.

Messengers

The only road to Salvation is living life in conviction, according to the MOCESAPH. One can arrive at the MOCESAPH internally, without access to the CESAPH.
It would be fairly illogical for the Creator to want to outdo, overwrite, or change the MOCESAPH during the PDE, because its central message – the evaluation criterion for the PDE – is the essence of (and reason for) existence in and of the PD. This leaves prophets coming after the CESAPH with dubious legitimacy and those coming before it no longer relevant.
Validation and vindication can only come from arriving at the right message – the SOBCEUR. Once one is sure to have arrived at it, one should render all else obsolete and irrelevant.
To help fulfill prophecies is NOT a mission, task, assignment, or role for anyone; living life and improving one’s (and others') character to pass the PDE is! One will be ready to live through and witness any extraordinary times that may occur during one’s life by focusing on succeeding in the PDE every day, and on that alone!
One can only be at ease in good conscience if they gained their faith voluntarily and adhered to it, having resisted all pressures that tried to sway them to the contrary and having evaluated and judged all messages that attempted to contradict or improve those beliefs.
The NORMeOLi stands as a solid theological and philosophical foundation that underscores Christianity’s tenets, as understood from the AOD’s perspective to be the proper interpretation of the MOCESAPH (the CR).

Trinity

The concepts of reality as a simulation and eternal ED-selves immersed into the PD as humans facilitate a new interpretation of the Trinity.
The duality of Christ (simultaneous full humanity and divinity) is a crucial attribute of the CESAPH that allowed the PDE to keep evaluating humans' real character while carrying out the Creator’s strongest possible demonstration of love and intent to steer humanity toward Salvation. It left humans with reasonable doubt about Jesus’s divinity, death’s finality and fatality, the possibility of no consequences for how one lives life, thereby leaving selfishness the (decreased) chance to dominate and the evaluation to proceed.
A divine-only intervention would not demonstrate the Creator’s love for humanity, while a human-only intervention would not be the CESAPH. However, the brilliant concept behind the CESAPH and the words attributed to Jesus that are in full alignment with the AOD incline me to regard the story-of-the-past about Jesus as the CESAPH. Thus, the CESAPH taking place in Christ and his duality become part of the wager-scenario for my life.
The Trinity does not have members; it represents the different interfaces, approaches, levels of access, or manifestations of the same entity, the Creator. There are no other plausible approaches, and the three that exist are all essential. Thus, it is absurd to think of relationships between members.
The Son’s interface is the MOCESAPH and the demonstration of the CESAPH in Jesus that guides humans to their Salvation via reason. The Holy Spirit’s interface predisposes humans towards the Creator’s spirit – that humans share to various degrees – through feelings and emotions. The Father’s interface is largely inaccessible to humans while in the PD; it represents the incomprehensible, infinite, magnificence of the Creator, in its theoretical entirety, that still desires humans at its presence.
In the eternal word of the Creator formalized by Jesus in the MOCESAPH, and in having a predisposition to the Creator’s loving spirit, humans have the complete interface they need to the Father (the Creator) to succeed in their PDE.
The value and weight of the Creator’s demonstration of love for humanity and the attempt to steer them towards their Salvation in the CESAPH and MOCESAPH stay untarnished, even if none of the miracles in the New Testament took place or happened not as described. They are independent of Jesus’s conception (immaculate or otherwise) or the fulfillment of prophecies (or the lack of); their credibility arises from the sheer brilliance of the CESAPH’s concept and the logical sense the MOCESAPH makes, as demonstrated by its alignment with the AOD.

Sin

Stories of Adam and Eve and the Fallen Angels are metaphors for ED-selves committing their wrongs in the ED during the Precursor – the Original Sin – resulting in their expulsion from the ED and assigned penance in the PD. Thus, humans do not inherit their sinful condition from their ancestors, but from their own ED-selves' acts in the Precursor, still making them sinners at birth.
Sin is a violation (having the opposite state) of the Creator’s loving spirit: acts and thoughts spawning from selfishness, disregarding others for the self’s benefit. It materializes as the weakness or character flaw that causes one to decide selfishly.
Satan is not necessarily a separate entity, person, angel, or sub-deity, but the values that stand in opposition to the Creator’s spirit and desire that manifests itself as an influence on my thoughts and decisions, trying to overrule my natural predisposition to love.
Paradise is a metaphor for the ED-selves' conditions in the ED before committing their wrongs, not a physical location on Earth in the distant past. Heaven represents the return to Paradise, in the presence of the Creator.
Hell is a condition of existence away from the presence of the Creator in the ED. All signs point to hell not being a place of fun and joy, where like-minded people can gather and have a good time together.
Angels are ED-selves who (perhaps because they did not commit wrongs) were not compelled to participate in the PD.

GrAtJuRe (GRace, ATonement, JUstification, REdemption)

The chaos of everyone passionately but peacefully arguing their conviction with others (where the best arguments may win) is infinitely better than centrally sanctioned and mandated beliefs preventing and incapacitating adherents too afraid or proud to consider more convincing reasoning.
Grace is the ever-present, active, loving desire of the Creator’s spirit (or the Holy Spirit, or love) for every human to reach their Salvation and the willingness to help them in it by fostering Justification. Grace was the force behind the PD’s creation as a chance for the failed ED-selves to redeem their sinful condition of the Precursor.
Justification is a gift of Grace, the instillment of conviction into one’s character (the gaining of the enlightened faith) about the meaning and goal of life, as defined by the MOCESAPH. The MOCESAPH is beautifully simple: love (as opposed to selfishness) as a conviction of character guiding life, to redeem the sinful condition of the Precursor and reach Salvation.
The selective granting of unsolicited Justification is the only form of predestination that is logically reasonable.
Once one loses the conviction of Justification, one may no longer genuinely regret wrongs committed, and so lose the chance for Redemption and Salvation.
The most effective way for the Creator to foster love to be the guiding force in humans' conviction is to reveal that the Creator intends the failed ED-selves to rejoin his presence and that he loved them so much that he undertook the sacrifices of the CESAPH to maximize their numbers reaching Salvation. Thus, the CESAPH was the most potent form of Justification that accomplished both of these. People with faith in the CESAPH have a much better chance to choose and prevail to live a life that, in the end, will gain their Salvation.
One should not belittle the CESAPH by attributing more to it than what was a part of it (like the Redemption of the sinful condition, triumph over Satan, or the conquering of death).
One can view Baptism and the Eucharist as recommended rituals that mark man’s initial and renewed desire to belong to those striving to reach their Salvation and as a commemoration of the CESAPH.
Redemption of humans' sinful condition is not a burden or task for Jesus, or even the Creator’s ever-present Grace, to perform, but for each human to achieve, with their lives, in cooperation with the Creator’s plan for them, to reach their Salvation by succeeding in the PDE.
The path to Salvation/the chance at Redemption from the sinful condition/the saving of sinners who redeemed their sinful condition all refer to the act of the PD’s creation for the PDE, not to the sacrifice undertaken in the CESAPH. The CESAPH did not change, forgive, or take away humans' sinful condition in any way (whether it refers to Original Sin or those committed in the PD).
Disciples must refer to all of Christ’s followers, whom Christ commanded to forgive the sins of those who have trespassed against them, who demonstrate their beliefs with their lives, who will be known for loving one another. They are Grace’s primary vehicle for exposing the Good News to others.
The passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus did not satisfy the penalty or debt owed to anyone for humans' sins or constitute a favor that secured or enabled man’s Salvation. Christ did not suffer for humanity so that the Creator could forgive them without punishment. Christ’s suffering and death at humans' hands was an expected and foreseen outcome for the Creator, as part of being fully human in the CESAPH.
Satan is not a separate entity – whom the Creator could or would have to pay any debt or ransom to or triumph over – but a concept representing the opposite values and preferences of the Creator’s spirit.
Once one is freely convinced that life’s meaning is to reach alignment with the universal evaluation criterion of love, living life accordingly should naturally and logically follow.
One can consider those who reach their Salvation through inspiration and strength gained by realizing the significance of the CESAPH as saved by (the Creator’s sacrifices in) Jesus.
Those who end up not getting exposed to the CESAPH during their lives can also hope to reach their Salvation by intrinsically arriving at the Creator’s eternal word – the MOCESAPH – and subsequently aligning their characters with it.

Resurrection

The Apostle Paul’s main argument in 1 Corinthians is the importance of belief in the afterlife that gives context to a Christian’s faith, not the importance of belief in Christ’s resurrection. Belief in an afterlife (of a reality independent of the physical world) gives context to the Christian faith. Claiming the miraculous resurrection and subsequent reappearances of Jesus could foster others' beliefs in the afterlife – a crucial first step before the MOCESAPH can make it to one’s conviction. If the disciples made up the story of the resurrection, this explains their motivation.
The resurrection and reappearances of Jesus – if happened as described – are exceptions, integrity violations of the simulation, as with any miracles. But they are not the cornerstone elements or the guarantor of the faith, or a logically necessary part of the CESAPH. The absence of the resurrection would not change the essence or dent the significance of the CESAPH.
The culmination of the CESAPH (the real miracle that followers should celebrate with the utmost admiration) is the Creator’s degree of love that made him undertake the sacrifices in the CESAPH to maximize ED-selves' chances of reaching their Salvation – not the resurrection.
Belief in the resurrection is not the prerequisite of faith that can deliver one to Salvation; a conviction of the MOCESAPH is, as it describes the SOBCEUR, worth wagering one’s life on. The MOCESAPH stands as the self-evident guide to life, needing no support from the resurrection.
Removing the prominence of the resurrection does not question or deny that such a miracle took place. But if one’s focus of belief shifts towards the admiration and celebration of the resurrection and other miracles, away from the demonstration of love and the magnitude of sacrifices taken on by the Creator for humans' sake, then one’s convictions stand on shakier grounds.
One does not attain eternal existence after death because Christ has conquered death with his resurrection, but because there is no other possibility or fate for a conscious being after dying in the PD. The afterlife is given and unavoidable for all conscious participants, so the real question is under what conditions will they continue their existence!
The simulation’s almighty Creator could perform all sorts of magnificent and spectacular miracles imaginable without any effort. But none would be as impressive and humbling as submitted himself to the same, very human experiences of pain, suffering, humiliation, and even the desperation and doubt typically experienced before dying that any human may end up facing during their lives. And this is what humanity received in the CESAPH.
If one lives life ready to exit the PD at any moment (as Jesus has advised people), one has nothing to worry about in any eventuality or judgment, whether it happens back in the ED or still in the PD (facing a literal second coming of Jesus).
The day of judgment and the second coming of Christ may not be an event in the PD but a shared moment for all human souls to experience simultaneously in the ED.

Creation

The Creator is a loving conscious entity capable of creating and running shared simulations by sheer will and assigning lesser-conscious participants to them. The object of creation is not human consciousness (not even the ED-self), but the simulated phases they can enter.
One can not distinguish between reality and simulation, as all reality is consciousness-centric, simulated, and runs in the Creator’s mind. Overall-reality consists of the Creator, the eternal ED-selves, and the simulations the Creator assigns them.
It should be theoretically impossible for participants of a well-implemented (perfect) simulation to determine the time the simulation started. The PD has likely been running for at least several thousand years (corresponding to modern humans' appearance – its targeted participants).
Creating simulations for eternal ED-selves and not just for himself may explain why love is a shared spirit and the essential bond between the Creator and the ED-selves. Love being the shared spirit and the essential bond between the Creator and the ED-selves may explain why the Creator creates simulations for eternal ED-selves, not just for himself.
The ED-selves sharing the quality of love with the Creator and their infinitely durable memories remaining potentially accessible and shareable give sense to creating shareable simulated realities – a logically desirable scenario of reality that necessitates their eternal and indestructible conscious awareness that can recall those memories, without which there would be no point in creation (and thus, in existence of any kind).
The collection of memories of all simulation participants defines what the simulation was/is/will remain into infinity. A simulated reality remains real because all its conscious observers remain able to recall and relate to their memories into eternity. Thus, the complete cessation of conscious awareness from infinity is absurd, as it would equal the destruction of the total reality, everything that ever was, including the future.
A simulation is the total sum of its conscious participants' actions and memories – this can not be subtracted from or lessened by taking away pieces of participant memories from it. The overall number of consciously aware is most probably constant throughout infinity.
The Creator may pause the ED-selves' awareness for up to any amount of time short of infinity, banish, or compel them to participate in any number of finite or infinite phases, for any length of time. All the while, the ED-selfs subjective conscious experience remains continuous and endless. Only the Creator can wholly reconcile the ED’s overall objective reality; the ED-selves may only partially do this amongst themselves.
The Creator regularly limiting the context of the ED-selves' understanding and the access to their overall memories in various phases (perhaps infinitely many times) may serve to maintain their sanity in infinity.
Creation stories may contain metaphorical hints about designing the simulation in the Creator’s mind and insights into the relationship between humans and the Creator.
The most crucial hint about humans' relation to the Creator is their creation in the image of the Creator, meaning that my eternal (non-created) ED-self shared the quality and essence of the Creator’s spirit and got commanded into the PD as such being. This lets me relate to the Creator, highlights my significance in his eyes, and hints that my human condition’s important qualities transcend into the ED.