I agree with that. It's consistent with Thomas Nagel's account of the "view from nowhere," which I'm sure Vervaeke's familiar with. And I agree that fittedness makes sense if we're talking about games with stipulated rules. Certain behaviours become illegal in that context.

But here Vervaeke seems to be presupposing theism. He's talking about human fittedness to cosmic facts. I agree that we should be concerned with the question of the best human fit to universal reality, but I doubt this ultimate, transhuman relationship would be characterized as good or as perfectly redeeming for the enlightened creatures.

Thinks of adaptation and natural selection. The species that adapt flourish, but they're still pawns of their genes and slaves to a predetermined life cycle. Free, enlightened people don't have the luxury of contentment that's possible only for animals.

To project the analogy with human games, Vervaeke would need to show that the laws of nature are prescriptions or stipulations of a divine intelligence. That's a no-go. Plato says everything's unified by a power of goodness which gives everything its purpose. Yet the meaning crisis arises when we dispense with that teleological, quasi-theistic metaphysics.

What's the best alignment between intelligent, creative beings and an inhuman, pointless, amoral wilderness? That's the question for transhumans (spiritually and intellectually elevated people) to ponder.