I like the idea that life is a game, in so far as there is a beginning, middle and end. But I dislike the idea of a winner and a loser that typically accompani

I like the idea that life is a game, in so far as there is a beginning, middle and end. But I dislike the idea of a winner and a loser that typically accompanies the idea of a game. The suggestion of a simulation is a valid philosophical consideration, though I like the framing of the idea from episode #095 from Philosophize This! podcast, built on the paper by Nick Bostrom (freely available online): 1. Civilization will de destroyed/destroy itself before developing the technology 2. Civilization might eventually develop the simulation, but ultimately decide against it 3. Civilization develops a reality simulation, and you are already in it I like the suggestion of #3, because if it's true, is our experience the base simulation or one of countless variations of the base simulation? The podcast/and paper suggests the base simulation is like the main branch of a git repo and simulations exist like test branches, for introducing new "features". The point is though: if it is a simulation, so what? Perhaps the purpose of the simulation is to push the established limitations (speed of light, time, energy, space, etc)... But as far as life being a game as a way to frame self-actualization, you do you OP