I can see the connection to idealism, but not pantheism.

Your video alse spend a lot of time briefly touching an eclectic mix of philosophers (some of which you misrepresented) and talking about God, without any apparent goal.

Thank you for feedback. I talk a lot about God because within the concept of simulation theory it has two meanings: creator of specific simulation or creator of the real world. I am trying to build a proper simulation theory doctrine. So any constructive criticism and feedback are welcome. I needed to give viewer some basics of metaphysics as not all viewers are familiar with the most basic terms. Pantheism is perfect fit for simulation theory because it doesn't see the difference between digital artificial word, physical world and most importantly final God. It is all one which to me is perfect and elegant solution to problem of infinite nested simulations, morality within each of the simulation and so on. Please, understand that I had to keep video very short to get views... I am happy to discuss in detail every point on this forum. Please, explain which philosopher I misinterpreted?

Assuming you’re trying to speak to the uninitiated (in terms of philosophical jargon) I think you’d be better off making your points clearer and briefer.

I have never done a talk like this (I’ve considered it many times though; good practice!), my thinking would involve taking an essay writing approach. Don’t leave the listener/reader guessing what you’re talking about.

Express your thoughts in a superficial manner and then give maybe 2 or 3 short sharp examples - whilst making it clear you’re trying to get the gist across.

I think you’ve introduced too many concepts. Simply starting by stating there are many branches of philosophical thought and that they all interconnect in varying disparate and less disparate ways would be enough.

I would avoid saying ‘epistemology is x’ or ‘ethics is y’ because someone will always pop up to refute your definition taking it to be dogmatic rather than used as a convenient touch stone within a complex subject.

You may also find it better to go ‘off-script’. Talk to the camera and make yourself and the subject matter relatable. Make it known that you’re exploring your thoughts and sharing them with people in order to express a d refine your ideas and actually ask for feedback/suggestions.

I doubt you’ll get many views and if you do I doubt anyone would be inclined to return. Great job over all though! I hope you keep making more and enjoy the process.

Just curious. What are your goals here? Who is your audience?

I'm author of "Answers In Simulation" book that tries to answer philosophical questions using the simulation hypothesis as a tool. I'm working on the new material now. As I do my research I also post videos which are related to what I am researching. It is fun!

I can see the connection to idealism, — Echarmion

Is there an argument for idealism in regard to a simulated world that wouldnt also apply to a nonsimulated one?

If you want to engage people on this forum with your ideas, don't post a link to a video with a message that amounts to "go watch my video." There's absolutely no way I will go off to watch some Youtube video about god knows what made by god knows who. In fact, it's very unlikely that I'll go watch a video, period - and I am not alone in this. Short written essays are much better suited to philosophy discussions than rambling 'tube clips.

First of all, to get people interested (or not, as the case may be), write a one-two paragraph abstract summarizing the topic: what issues you address, what approach you take, and what your findings are. Then you can follow with a longer essay, or even a video, if you absolutely must.

You might be right. I will take time and try to compile something. I thought videos are actually more engaging than text.