|(Stephen - 17 days ago)||Well said, Tom!
I would, however, like to expand on my agreement with Paul about the term “Infinite I.” Yes, you're right: "the moniker is fun and thought provoking." But it simply may not be accurate. At the time of writing my book, I was not aware of the possibilities of ancestor simulations. Perhaps I should have been, because 7 years earlier Bostrom had come up with his Simulation Hypothesis, and Philip K. Dick was even earlier – in 1977. But I wasn't aware. All I knew is that whatever – whoever – was creating our holographic experiences had to be on the other side of The Field that was used to choose certain frequencies. Since we are finite, I reasoned that that "whatever – whoever" would be Infinite.
That could easily not be true. If, as Neil deGrasse Tyson suggests, it is a "some snot-nosed kid sitting in front of his computer in the basement of his parents' house somewhere in an alien civilization programming our world purely for his own entertainment," then that "kid" doesn't have to be "Infinite." But he/she is still outside the Field he/she is using to create our ancestor simulation. So, the Kid qualifies to be my Infinite I, in terms of fulfilling all the functions I assign to an Infinite I, without actually being Infinite.
As I said, I'm leaning heavily in this direction at the moment, and I think the coming years will shed a lot more light on computer simulations and maybe we'll get a better idea and a better name for my Infinite I. Meanwhile, keep a look out for a new film by Rodney Ascher called "A Glitch in the Matrix."