I meant to add that "create" sounds anthropomorphic, especially since it's agreed here that God isn't an element of metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

Let me reply again to this post. Maybe a stronger suggestion can be made. Metaphysics isn’t really off-topic in this topic, because it relates to your comment/question about what’s true.
.

I know. The Eastern view on that is both preferable and more healthy but the true question is; what is true? — Beebert

In answer, I said that the Eastern position regarding our future is implied by Skepticism, and that Skepticism is particularly believable and plausible because of its complete parsimony. Maybe something stronger can be said:.
.
Actually, it seems to me that the Principle of Parsimony carries a lot more weight in metaphysics than in physics. …to the point of being compelling, or even conclusive. I’ve acknowledged that metaphysicses can’t be proved, but that might not be quite so, if parsimony is conclusive.
.
I suggest that a metaphysics with a brute fact wouldn’t “happen”, wouldn’t be true. Why should it?
.
A brute-fact is something that doesn’t have a reason. So obviously there’s no reason why it should be so, then there’s no reason to believe it to be so. And I further suggest that, in metaphysics, the absence of any reason for a metaphysics to be so, is a conclusive reason for it to not be so.
.
I realize that that’s a strong suggestion.
.
Why should there be the fundamentally, independently, existent, metaphysically-primary physical world of Materialism? If Materialists can’t give a reason for it, because there isn’t a reason for it, then I suggest that it wouldn’t be true.
.
So I suggest that the metaphysics that I propose, completely parsimonious, is the one that can and must be.
.
Reincarnation:
.
For the purpose of this discussion, the relevant difference between the metaphysics that I propose, vs the metaphysics of traditional Western religion, is reincarnation. Traditional Western religion says that everyone goes to Eternity at the end of this life. ]…a good Eternity or a bad Eternity.
.
Eastern religions say that someone who has something bad coming won’t go to Eternity, but will instead be reincarnated (maybe after a temporary hell). …and that, in fact, nearly everyone will experience reincarnation, maybe after a temporary heaven or hell.
.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, reincarnation is the relevant East-West difference.
.
As I’ve been saying, reincarnation is implied by Skepticism, the metaphysics that I propose.
.
The reason why you’re in this life will remain, only somewhat modified, at the end of this life (unless you’ve, during this lifetime, achieved the status of an ascended-master, someone with no remaining needs, wants, undischarged consequences of consequence-producing acts,).
.
Now, I should admit that I can’t prove that death won’t amount to just going to sleep, dreamless, awareness-less sleep.
.
So maybe I should say that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, rather than implied by it.
.
But:
.
1. If there’s continuing anything after death, awareness and consciousness, instead of drift into a dreamless, awareness-less, nothingness-sleep, then Skepticism does imply that it will be reincarnation instead of immediate arrival at Eternity after this life.
.
2. There’s some reason to believe that death doesn’t become awareness-less-ness. Near-death experiences (NDEs), for one thing. Besides, sleep isn’t experience-less, with its dreams.
.
3. It has been suggested that even deep sleep is experienced, at least at its periphery, and merely isn’t remembered later.
.
By the way, reincarnation was mentioned in Christian scriptures, until those books were discarded at the Council Of Nicea. It has been plausibly suggested that reincarnation was deleted because the threat of eternal hell facilitates the extraction of money from old, rich sinners. As I said, even to this day, the Catholic church collects money to pray people into heaven…if they can afford it. Can’t afford to buy your way into heaven? Too bad!
.
Michael Ossipoff

..besides, even if Materialism were true (but it isn't), worlds consisting only of systems of inter-referring hypotheticals would still inevitably be--an infinity of them.

...meaning that, even if Materialism were true, a Materialist nature of this particlar physical world wouldn't change the inevitability of the infinitely-many possibility worlds, and therefore wouldn't rule-out reincarnation.

...a matter relevant to what we were talking about.

So, even if Materialism were true of this particular physical world, it would be superfluous and irrelevant overall.

Michael Ossipoff