What you seem to say is that the universe couldn't have objectively evolved like that, because YOU can't grasps its underlying principles.
No. I understand them completely. Everything that is knowable about the spectrum or circles or squares is right there on the surface. There's no mystery there - it is communicated directly to us (not to our brain necessarily) in a language we innately understand as soon as our eyes can focus the image.
I also don't grasp a lot of things, and humanity as a whole might still have a lot to learn as well. But the fact that we might have troubles in understanding how this could be, it doesn't change the fact that it is like that.
So you are saying that since YOU don't grasp a lot of things but that you KNOW that your authority on this matter is a fact, regardless of any insight or experience I may have.
The programming of the game, the fact that humans evolutionary like games, etc, it all is part of the OMM world view.
Yes but it has no idea what a game is or where it comes from...not the usefulness of a gamelike behavior, but a game's creative content itself. In an allegory where consciousness is the monitor and the brain is the computer, the OMM has no claim to evoke any 'programmer' or 'operator' unless there is some specific material construct that actually performs that function. Which there isn't. There is no game without a sceen, no consciousness without an experience of spatiotemporal presentation layer; images, icons, words, meanings, essence, etc decoded from neurology.
The game is graphic forms on the screen, code instruction sets and microelectronic changes to p and n transistor materials in the box. Totally different. Related, essentially equivalent, but existentially separate.
Programming codes are transduced to
instruction sets to microtransistor arrays, to
i/o devices (monitor) to physical media (photon emissions, acoustic vibration) to
human i/o devices (eyes, eardrums), to
neurological biocomputer texts (chemical and electric activity) to
conscious apprehension of light, sound, geometric patters, avatars.
It's further processed when the living organism is able to identify symbolically with an on screen icon and project themselves (not their brain or body at all, but psychologically) into a simulated situation they find entertaining.
The fact that games maaaaaaay have once conferred a minor survival/reproduction advantage is speculative, dubious, and in no way explains how games are imagined or predicts that they ever would or could be. It's a total non issue.
You seem to stress that understanding every part of a complex process degrades enjoyment or experience of the complete thing. But this is absolutely not so.
It has nothing to do with complexity at all. You keep holding on to that like it means something. I'm the one arguing for increased complexity by acknowledging that potential subjectivity is the inside of objectivity. You are the one trying to collapse consciousness into a 'simply' this or that, reducing it to some, as yet not understood epiphenomenon of the brain (located where, I don't know).
A kick in the ribs is not subtle or esoteric. For us, on our level, it's a simple reality full of a non-material we know as PAIN. If you were the young universe, and you've got atoms and stars, galaxies and molecules, increasing the complexity of what you do with them gets you no closer to the invention of pain than it would get you toward the invention of Mickey Mouse. Are both pain and Mickey Mouse 'simply' part of what, 'neurological interpretation blah blah'? The cause of pain may be complex but the experience of it surely is not. What accounts for this? How does abstract activities of some axons and dendrites call 'pain' into being from the painless cosmos of just matter and energy?
You may claim not know, but I do. It's obvious. Cells are a higher order of molecular arrangement than atoms. That arrangement itself probably confers an ultra-primitive subjectivity. It wants to live a tiny bit. It sort of feels something if the cell as a whole is getting energy and thriving vs starving. This is what life actually is, from the inside. A story of struggle, of community. From the outside, who cares, it's just a cell to us because we've got trillions of cells. We can't see it feel anything (we don't see other people's feelings either first hand, we infer them from the somatic semiotic texts which we, as humans have intimate knowledge.)
Pain may exist in cells and not in atoms (presumably, but who knows) not because pain was a random mutation of molecules, but because pain is a timeless expression of what it is to be alive. It doesn't matter if it correlates to a molecule or an electrical response. Pain is much more than that to a living organism. Pain is not just a description of damaged cells, it's an interjection to consciousness. A full cognitive list interrupt. That doesn't really do it justice though. You can't explain pain, you can't model it, you can't map it's evolution because it can only be understood by subjectively experiencing it.