It’s just a verbal tick (ha, I did it again) and means nothing. Eliminate that word and the sentence meaning is unchanged as far as my intent is concerned.

If we’re living in a simulation, it would be strange indeed that they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic but with an extra sprinkling of coincidence pixie dust as experienced by Darwinistic entities which experience a self-bootstrapped illusion of free will.

> It’s just a verbal tick (ha, I did it again) and means nothing. Eliminate that word and the sentence meaning is unchanged as far as my intent is concerned.

So it may seem...but can you know for certain that it doesn't reflect underlying cognition, at least to some degree?

For example, let's reconsider your statement:

"Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. A million things happen to you every day; most of it is noise unless you assign meaning to it. This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them."

We now know that "paying close attention means you notice more of them [only coincidences, which has also been ruled out]" is not necessarily a comprehensive set of the consequences/benefits of paying very close attention - so then: what might some other plausible benefits be, for various degrees of the exercise of "paying close attention"?

(And as an aside: have you ever noticed how programmers and scientists, and their fans, regularly extol the superiority of the virtues of strict logic and epistemology, but when they are asked to practice it they often claim that it is ~stupid/dumb/meaningless/a waste of time?)

> If we’re living in a simulation, it would be strange indeed that they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic but with an extra sprinkling of coincidence pixie dust as experienced by Darwinistic entities which experience a self-bootstrapped illusion of free will.

This makes several assumptions - for example, if we are in a simulation, you seem to be assuming a particular kind of simulation (one that people or an entity of some kind made) - what about the Plato's Allegory of the Cave style of simulation, that has substantial scientific support?

For example: "they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic" is your experience, but not mine - materialists (not making an accusation, just saying "in general") tend to only "see" the physical realm of reality, but others also see the metaphysical realm (although ~everyone complains about the metaphysical realm, despite thinking it doesn't exist).

I have read your post twice and I can say with all sincerity that I can't make any sense of it, and that I'm unable to even guess what the point of any of it is.

The best I can tell is that your argument is that it's not possible for me to provide an absolute assessment of my own opinion. And that my choice of sentence construction could have some deeper meaning. If that's what you're saying, it is—in my opinion—nothing more than empty sophistry.

Very simply: I am suggesting the possibility that you may be engaged in speculation, perhaps without realizing it.

You’re suggesting a possibility that I might not be aware of the basis of my own verbal ticks, which I happen to know about and catch myself saying in a properly diverse range of contexts? Those? I can only speculate that they’re not revealing of some deeper hidden truth about the preconceptions I hold about the nature of a deterministic universe? Cool.

How about reading my star signs next.