I think the point is to say something about the boundaries of "embedded systems," (a vague concept that I'm not convinced makes any sense outside of certain kinds of world simulations) in the style of Douglas Hofstadter (or that's my guess, as I haven't actually read GEB myself). In part two he says "the goal of this series is to pound a stake through the heart of a certain way of thinking about the world that has become quite popular."

Unfortunately I have no idea what that way of thinking is or what he is trying to say about it, and, frankly, at this point I don't care very much. So far his unintentional point is that this style of writing is hard to do well.

Sorry Steve - I read the whole thing, but I don't understand it well enough to know if it's actually disrespectful, or if I should be mad about anything. Hopefully parts four and five will shed some more light.

After a thorough reading, I think his point is that he has a short story he'd like us to read, elsewhere. ;)

It's along the same lines as "A programmer's view of the universe, Part 2" post about MarioKart.

The point of the whole Dawkins/COMA bit is to show that the universe is yet another embedded system from which data can flow in and out. The two human boys being teleported into the virtual tour is akin to Luigi's kart being "zapped" out of a video game and into some other process space. The odds of either occurring are astronomical, but the singularity, being a sufficently smart programmer of the universe, intervenes to make the former happen.

If there is a main point I guess it would be that what lies beyond the boundary of the universe is unknowable and stranger than human imagination.

Steve is saying that miraculous things can happen even without a god or gods around to make them happen. All that is needed is a sufficiently-sophisticated (insert ironic reference to compiler optimization here) understanding of physics. Refer to Arthur C. Clarke's quote:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

It is the Christ story darkly recast as a parable of mankind's urge towards hierarchy and domination, realized through the fetishes of capitalism, religion, and technocracy.

The poor and dispossessed brothers represent mankind's thirst for freedom, for opposition and resistance. They symbolically kill Darwin, the story's central power figure and the main avatar of the hegemonic singularity. Yet they do so in an attempt to erase the boundaries between themselves and that oppressive structure. Darwin, whose domination of humanity has rendered him godlike, grants them their wish and transforms them into the insipid tourist children they wish to become. In the end, their struggle for justice and self-determination has come to nothing, and they go, indistinguishable from the other siblings, for ice cream.

You should also consider its similarity to the 1975 short story 'Let's go to Golgotha'

That the singularity is a such an unimaginable thing, that all we can do is obsess over every detail in that tiny time and space when the singularity first happens?

Well i can think of several ironies.

You might be able to draw a comparison between the Singularity and the Judaeo-Christian God as well as Dawkins and Jesus.

As far as I understand it (the blogpost, not the linked story), the point is: listening to the whining of others is pointless.