"In the beginning God created ...."

[Walker]

If you will do this, then we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS "this".

Don't wait on me.

- I’d rather stick with the OP, but don’t let that stop you from pursuing your tangents.

- Here’s something that relates to the OP that you may want to contemplate, which will give you a break from the helm.

- If you are in a really good reality simulation, like Truman in The Truman Show movie, how would you know you are actually in a simulation?

- Now, there’s no need to demand that I expand on this, or negate the contemplation, or write down any insights I have about this, for whatever I think about this tangential topic is not your contemplation, and it will not be your contemplation.

- If you come up with something interesting, we’ll see if anything happens.

[DPMartin]

"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation.

What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?

creation exists whether you do or not, were as simulation only exists in your brain if you exist. and the existence of the universe doesn't revolve around you.

[VVilliam]

I think, even KNOW, 'we' exist within a creation, but I am NOT saying that we exist within a reality simulation.

WHY do you think, or BELIEVE, that 'a creation' is the same as 'a reality simulation'.

The two, to 'me', are two VERY DIFFERENT 'things'.

Why I think they are different words with the same meaning has to do with the implication of both.

That being, in order for a creation/reality simulation to exist, it requires a CREATOR.

[VVilliam]

"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation.

What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?

No reality simulation can encompass reality because the simulation creator is apart from the simulation, within a greater reality that includes the reality simulation, and the simulation is not the creator of the simulation or the creator.

I think you are attempting to say here that there is a difference between the creation and the creator. While that is an interesting concept to explore, it is not what the OPQ is asking.

[VVilliam]

"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation.

What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?

There is no difference between existing within a RS or within a Creation. The creation is a simulation of the brain. The creation is the seen outworkings of the unseen inner integrals of the brain.

I agree that there is no difference between existing within a Reality Simulation or within a Creation.

But you lose me in your argument re the brain, because the brain as we know - is a measurable observable object so must be part of the Reality Simulation, rather than that which causes the Creation being experienced. Obviously it is integral to having the experience of said CRS...

What I could accept as argument re the brain, is that it is [or may be] a representation [simulation] of something outside of the Simulation Reality.

While that in itself is a fascinating subject - what the Creator of our RS's reality is like, it is not the focused subject of this topic...I agree it is obviously related, but first we must crack the egg before we can see the yoke.

[VVilliam]

A 'reality simulation' is a simulation of what is perceived to be 'reality'. Whereas, Creation is just what is happening and occurring HERE-NOW.

Thee actual Universe is in a constant state of CHANGE, which is just Creation, Itself.

If 'you' are existing, which 'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE, then, ultimately, 'you' are existing in Creation, Itself.

Now, if you are existing within a 'reality simulation' or within an 'evolution', then they both still come under the banner of 'within Creation', Itself.

What is the difference between between existing within a 'reality simulation' and existing within an 'evolution'?

Both 'reality simulation' AND 'evolution', if existing, are existing within (a) Creation, Itself.

I understand what you are trying to convey but you are using the word 'creation' incorrectly in a effort to change tracks. I am the points-man of this railroad yard [thread] and won't allow that to occur because of the threat of derailing.

However, I will say this about your argument. "Anything which is a creation was created and anything created is part of a simulation."

Therefore your argument is saying that the 'creation' which created/evolved this simulated reality, is itself a simulated reality. It too was created by a creator.

That may be the case, and there are an infinite sum of possibilities [tracks] we can go tangent on in that regard...

So to return to the topic at hand...

[Walker]

"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation.

What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?

No reality simulation can encompass reality because the simulation creator is apart from the simulation, within a greater reality that includes the reality simulation, and the simulation is not the creator of the simulation or the creator.

I think you are attempting to say here that there is a difference between the creation and the creator. While that is an interesting concept to explore, it is not what the OPQ is asking.

I said what I said, no attempt was involved in the saying.
Your "trying to understand" is what's questionable.

- What I'm saying is a simple Venn diagram in which the simulation bubble sits wholly within the creation bubble.
- Creation implies a creator.
- Creator has to have to have a Venn bubble, too.
- Creator Venn bubble encompasses the simulation.

- Is the Creator encircled by the creation, or does the Creator encircle the creation?

- Arms encircling the universe seems like an apt illustration, eh?

[VVilliam]

What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?

Theoretically. None whatsoever.

Practically. None whatsoever.

Practically.

Practically.

In the Christian world-view we had absolutely NO idea how God could possibly accomplish what he accomplished. Or as it's commonly said: any sufficiently sophisticated technology is indistinguishable from magic. 3000 years ago, If the universe was a Creation the HOW was conceptually foreign to us - nobody even dared to dream that we, humans could create simulations.

The thread isn't asking anything about the creator. That is a different topic. Related, I agree. In that a creation and a simulated reality require a creator.
That is why the thread question. "What's the difference"?

In 2021 the idea of a simulated existence is not magic anymore - it's mainstream. Simulations are daily occurrence, simulating entire universes seems plausible and within reach. And suddenly God isn't this super-duper omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent entity that does magic. God is just some future, technologically advanced human.

So you are saying that Christians oppose the idea of being in a simulated reality because the image of The Creator changes from [a glorious enthroned human] to something more ET-like?
Or for that matter [more likely in my opinion] the machinery itself.

And so, the Christian god is a wise old man, and the Simulation God is a bunch of jeans&t-shirt wearing hipsters who coded up our Simulation with the help of alcohol, pizza and weed.

Is that how Christians would have to imagine The Creator(s) or imagery [gift wrapping] you pulled out of your own psyche?

The gift-wrapping certainly confuses our reverence-radars. Which god would you revere and respect more? Personally - I am more scared of the youngsters and if push comes to shove I'd end up kissing their ass to keep the lights on.

I am half-sure that you would kiss ass no matter what image presented itself if one day you find out that all along you have been experiencing a Simulated Reality.
That aside, is it better for some that they believe we do not exist within a creation, because of the implications implied therein...perhaps it is. But that is for another thread.
For my part, thinking on what we do know about our reality [universe] we are dealing with a creator whom just has to be far greater than a few hippies in a garage sipping coke while making ways in which they can use their know-how to their advantage...

I hope there's an older/wiser/more mature being in charge of this gig.

Examining the universe [the tiny bits we know about it] I am positive that even if the being is an AI super-duper computer, IT will always prove to be the older/wiser/more mature being in charge of this gig...even if it largely left most of the donkey work to ITs standard algorithms...does IT notice us? All I know for sure is that IT notices me.

[bahman]

"Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

Often Christians argue that we do not exist within a Simulated Reality while maintaining that we exist within a Creation.

What is the difference between existing within a Reality Simulation and existing within a Creation?

The act of creation is impossible since it leads to regress in the creation of time. That is true because time needed for the act of creation of anything including time.

[VVilliam]

Your previous example of a 'simulated reality' has ALREADY BEEN SHOWN to be just a REAL 'thing', which is just part of ACTUAL 'Reality', Itself.

I think your argument has much merit and have thought along similar lines.

Indeed, "Turtles all the way down" is appropriate and not in itself an illogical thing to think of as 'maybe the truth of it all' in relation to ANY reality which can be seen to be a simulation.

So what do we look for in order to determine a if something is simulated Reality which puts a stop to the problem of infinite regress? [if indeed it is a problem]

I think it would be along the lines of something like "IF within the reality being experienced, there is evidence of a beginning, THEN it is a simulation/creation].

Since we only have but the one [the "physical universe"] in which it is our dominant reality experience, does it have a beginning? If 'yes" then it is a simulation/creation. If "no" then it is not.

[Dontaskme]

But you lose me in your argument re the brain, because the brain as we know - is a measurable observable object so must be part of the Reality Simulation, rather than that which causes the Creation being experienced. Obviously it is integral to having the experience of said CRS...

What I mean is, when we are experiencing the external world of objects, it's as though we are literally walking around the inside of our own brain activity, as though our brain activity is appearing to be on the outside, like the external world is a projection of the inner world of the brain activity. We cannot see our own brain, we can only see the brain's outworkings as we experience a reality externally in a world of objects. And yet the contents that appear to be outside of us, are all but the inner contents of the brain inside our skull.

Something like this

Or this

Hope that doesn't sound too weird, but I do not know how else to put it.

.

[VVilliam]

But you lose me in your argument re the brain, because the brain as we know - is a measurable observable object so must be part of the Reality Simulation, rather than that which causes the Creation being experienced. Obviously it is integral to having the experience of said CRS...

What I mean is, when we are experiencing the external world of objects, it's as though we are literally walking around the inside of our own brain activity, as though our brain activity is appearing to be on the outside, like the external world is a projection of the inner world of the brain activity. We cannot see our own brain, we can only see the brain's outworkings as we experience a reality externally in a world of objects. And yet the contents that appear to be outside of us, are all but the inner contents of the brain inside our skull.

Something like this

Or this

Hope that doesn't sound too weird, but I do not know how else to put it.

.

While it is an interesting concept, how does it fit into the OPQ?

Obviously [to me] you are arguing that we are indeed within a simulation but that it is our brains which provide us with the reality [are the creators of the simulation] but in that you have to then explain what the "we" is which are experiencing said simulation. Nor have you explained why it is that we share the simulation with other individuals [the "we"] if our brains [the brains inside our skulls] are individual. Why are the individual brains supplying us with a collective experience? Are they somehow connected to an overall brain which does not reside within any human skull?

[Dontaskme]

While it is an interesting concept, how does it fit into the OPQ?

Obviously [to me] you are arguing that we are indeed within a simulation but that it is our brains which provide us with the reality [are the creators of the simulation] but in that you have to then explain what the "we" is which are experiencing said simulation. Nor have you explained why it is that we share the simulation with other individuals [the "we"] if our brains [the brains inside our skulls] are individual. Why are the individual brains supplying us with a collective experience? Are they somehow connected to an overall brain which does not reside within any human skull?

It would take me forever to explain all this to you.

All the answers you seek can be found written in nondual literature.

We are each just one piece of a very infinitely large jigsaw puzzle. I can only offer you my piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle.

If we are seeking answers to these things, we must each and individually put in the work to see for ourselves until we are satisfied with our findings and can make sense of them.

.

[VVilliam]

While it is an interesting concept, how does it fit into the OPQ?

Obviously [to me] you are arguing that we are indeed within a simulation but that it is our brains which provide us with the reality [are the creators of the simulation] but in that you have to then explain what the "we" is which are experiencing said simulation. Nor have you explained why it is that we share the simulation with other individuals [the "we"] if our brains [the brains inside our skulls] are individual. Why are the individual brains supplying us with a collective experience? Are they somehow connected to an overall brain which does not reside within any human skull?

It would take me forever to explain all this to you.

Well thanks for coming along and attempting to promote an idea which you haven't got all the time in the universe to "explain".

My questions are pertinent in regard to your claim that "the Brain did it" and are easily enough answered unless, of course, 'the brain didn't do it'.
Then it would make sense that even given forever, one could not explain it. In that, it has to be regarded as a false claim followed by a handwave.

Importantly, whatever [brain/brains/super-brain/super brains or something else] created the Simulation we are experiencing, the OPQ is focused upon why Christians see a difference between the idea of being in a creation as opposed to the idea of being in a simulated reality.

[Dontaskme]

Like I said to you - all the answers you seek are found written in nondual literature.

You might not like the answers you find though, just a prior heads up.