Btw in a simulation it is possible for the rules to change a lot
It doesn't matter how often rules change, you're conflating too distinctly different concepts into one, through projection and anthropomorphism. It's the movie
Tron.
What if the world of a computer was just like our world? Well, that's fun for a flight of fancy, but it's not at all like our world and all the writer did was take our world and an age-old trope (a dystopian/authoritarian world order) and superimpose some computer terms onto it.
No matter what, any theory of a "simulation" necessarily entails all of us having first been real/actual/objective/whatever you want to call it and then being placed within a simulation (either by force or by choice).
We--the "self" generated by the brain--is already a simulation. So, yes, theoretically some other alien being could have tapped into our brains and downloaded our "self" (or "selves") algorithm, but it would be like downloading the movie
Tron, not anything innate. All they would have is the information stored and maintained up to the point of download, exactly like having a DVD of the movie
Tron.
And, yes, they could base their own characters on our traits, but it wouldn't be "us" living in a computer generated world anymore than the screenplay for
Tron is the end result DVD. It's not the animation that matters; it's the mechanism for animation, so those aliens would need to not only figure out how to encode our "self" algorithm, but they'd also have to figure out how our brains animate and maintain that self and that evidently requires a massive infinite universe of energymatter.
Iow, they'd have to recreate our entire universe exactly as it is. But why would any creature do such a thing? Create an elaborate and pointless zoo? WE create zoos because we're not very intelligent and having even evolved to the point of not killing in order to survive. We're still emotional pre-pubescents in the grand scheme of intellectual evolution.
But replicating our self at Time T and inserting that replication into a simulation and then animating going forward--even if it were possible to not skip a beat in perspective--is no longer "us."
Well, to be clear, there is no "us." "Us" is only that which our brains animate as a reflection of the brain/body/experiences unique to our organism. What makes you "you" is ALL of your energymatter combined with the ongoing animation your brain maintains as a reflection of your ALL.
If I were to come along and somehow take a download of that ALL reflection and put it into a computer and hit "run" it would instantly become a completely different entity, separate from you entirely. It would become "copy of excreationist + koyaanisqatsi computer program" and replicate from there, instead of "continuation of excreationist."
I think that's the biggest problem you might be having. You seem to think in terms of there being an independent, autonomous entity--like a "soul"--that is transferable; that essentially just rides along inside a body the way we drive cars and thus can simply be transferred (intact) from one car to another car.
But that's not the case. Consciousness--the "self" or sense of "I"--is generated, not manufactured. Shut the projector down and the movie stops.
You evidently have direct experience of this in regard to your various brain malfunctions (I mean that clinically, not as an insult). Damage the projector and the movie won't play optimally.
The illusion of movement we experience when we watch a movie is caused by the process of a light projected through the film that must pass through the gate at 24 frames per second (in standard cases). But if you picked up the film itself and looked at it, you would see no movement. You would just see frame 1. Then frame 2. Then frame 3. Etc.
You'd be able to see differences in the subjects from frame to frame--the left arm rising up with a cigarette to the mouth, etc--but in order to have the illusion of movement, you have to use process (the projector) working optimally to generate the illusion.
It is that illusion that is what "we" call "we" (or "I") and it would be that illusion that an alien race would have to not only capture, but figure out how to maintain and update and generate.
WE can do it with video games because video games--like the movie
Tron--are just reflections of our experiences and flights of fancy. Iow, we're simply recreating our own experiences.
And if we ever develop the technology to download versions of our "selves" we would likewise need to program the simulations to stimulate us in similar fashions, so it's more like that, if we are all in simulations, we are in our own individual ones, not in a shared common space.
The only reason I can think of to create a shared common digital space would be if we were all long dead and wanted to create a species survival scenario that didn't rely solely on individual experience to drive it.
But even in that scenario, the "we" that we are talking about isn't the prime "we." It would only be a set of character traits based on us, but not actually us because, again, there really is no actual "us." It's an animation. So you're talking about placing an animation inside an animation. Why? What would be the point?
Our "self" animation serves our brains/bodies in that it allows us to communicate with each other and strategically navigate through an objectively existing hostile environment. But there would be no need to create a virtual "objectively existing hostile environment"
for ourselves.
Iow, if we had the technology, we'd simply each create our own versions of "heaven" and those would be our individual immortality cubes, if you will. And since it's not actually "us"--just a copy of us being used to develop an avatar--"we" wouldn't benefit in any way from doing any of this, as there would be no continuity. It would just be a new animation.
Toy Story 89. Yes, same characters + a new one (called excreationist), but different voices and no one inside the film would be sentient.
Again, one would have to be autonomous from the system--and KNOW it--in order to benefit from entering into the system.
ETA: Just consider the fact that you created an avatar here called "excreationist." Does it have agency separate from you? Can it post without you posting? Not at all. It's simply a reflection of an objectively existing being, not the being itself. So what would be the point of creating a video game and a character named "excreationist" that looks just like you and has all of your traits and memories and experiences encoded into it? It's still not actually you.
