"In the beginning God created ...."

[Immanuel Can]

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

Objective reality.

[VVilliam]

"Irrelevant argument"

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... 0Way%20Out

[VVilliam]

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

Objective reality.

IF "objective reality" [your answer] is the difference between Created and Simulated, [re OPQ] which is the objective reality? Creation or Simulation?

[Age]

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.

'you', "WALKER", were the ONE who brought into this thread the notion of a "greater" 'reality', when YOU WROTE:
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.

So, if you now do NOT even want to LOOK AT your now CLAIMED, "tangent CLAIM", then I suggest you do NOT make the CLAIM in the FIRST PLACE. I suggest this MORE for you considering that you have SHOWN that you can NOT even back up and support YOUR CLAIM anyway.

- 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?

LOL "really GOOD reality simulation".

By the way, who cares if you can NOT KNOW you are in a "reality simulation"? My point WAS, and STILL IS, it would NOT matter if you are or are NOT in a "reality simulation", as this is still happening and occurring within 'Reality', Itself. Of which there is ONLY One. This MEANS there is NO "lesser" NOR "greater" version of 'Reality'. There is ONLY One, and of which 'you' are IN It.

Furthermore, it would NOT matter how many 'reality simulators' there are, nor of how many 'creators' of 'reality simulators' there are, as what REALLY matters is that ALL of this is happening and occurring in Creation, Itself.

You appear to be under the SAME delusion and/or illusion as so MANY other of 'you', human beings, are, which is that the word 'Creation' implies or infers that there is some other 'Creator'. Which is OBVIOUSLY a PURE misconception and misinterpretation of what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS.

- 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.

Okay. But I doubt I will EVER come up with absolutely ANY thing interesting, to 'you', and to the VAST MAJORITY of the posters in this forum when this is being written. This is because you are NOT here, in this forum, to LOOK AT ANY thing other than what you ALREADY ASSUME and BELIEVE is the truth.

[Age]

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.

BUT 'Creation', Itself, does NOT require a CREATOR, other than Its Self.

Obviously a 'reality simulation' requires an 'outside' of its self 'creator'. But, Creation, Itself, does NOT require such a 'thing'.

In fact this is HOW the Universe is actually ALWAYS Creating, Itself. And this is what the words, 'Creation' and 'Creator' in the bible are actually referring to, in the omnipotent sense. The visibly seen physical Universe is just in a constantly always process of CHANGE, which is just Creation, Itself. This process happens because of 'cause and effect', 'causality', which is CONSTANT and ALWAYS. EVERY 'thing' was and is Created through the process of 'every action causes a reaction, and every re-action is just another action, 'causing' another 'REACTION', which is just 'CREATION', Itself. This just occurs naturally through a never beginning and never ending evolutionary process. The Universe as a WHOLE is constantly CHANGING in shape and form, and it is this One 'thing' that is (in) Creation, Itself, and thee Creator of Its Self.

Now, some of 'you', human beings, may be wondering how could some 'thing' create its self. See, this did NOT happen in the sense of there was nothing, and then there became something. The Self Creating Universe has ALWAYS been existing. But some may now be wondering how this could be because EVERY 'thing' created NEEDED at least two prior to create 'it'. This is answered/solved by the fact of what the Universe, Itself, is ACTUALLY and fundamentally made up of, which is just 'matter' and a distance between and around 'matter'. This can be CLEARLY SEEN when LOOKING 'deep down' at the smaller scale of 'things'. 'Matter' and 'space' has just ALWAYS been co-existing together, and it is these two ALWAYS PRIOR 'things' which is what is Creating absolutely EVERY 'thing' else.

Although essentially these are two separate 'things', known as 'matter' and 'space', together they are just thee One 'thing', generally known as 'the Universe', Itself. And, it is thee Universe, Itself, which is REALLY just One 'thing' that is what 'we', sentient beings, are ACTUALLY 'observing' and 'experiencing', CHANGING in shape and form ALWAYS, but what we have conceptualized into and labeled "separated things", which some BELIEVE are ACTUAL 'separated things', (duality verses Oneness).

There REALLY is ONLY One 'thing', sometimes generally known as the 'Universe', and sometimes generally known as 'reality', of which there is NO "lesser" NOR "greater", and therefore is the One and ONLY 'real/ity Creator'. ANY 'perceived' "different" 'thing' within the One and ONLY Creation is just a PERCEPTION, and thus NOT necessarily True, Right, nor Correct.

'Reality simulators' can exist WITHIN Creation, Itself. But there is NOTHING that could exist OUT OF Creation, Itself, this includes a, so called, Creator.

[Age]

"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.

But the opening post was written on and with the ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that there was or could be some OTHER 'thing' outside of or beyond Creation, Itself. Which, OBVIOUSLY, is just ILLOGICAL and NONSENSE. It is also a COMPLETE MISINTERPRETATION of what was ACTUALLY MEANT in past writings.

[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.

BUT 'Creation', Itself, does NOT require a CREATOR, other than Its Self.

Well since it is called 'creation' the implication is there, yes?

Obviously a 'reality simulation' requires an 'outside' of its self 'creator'.

Yes I agree.

But, Creation, Itself, does NOT require such a 'thing'.

However [re the OP] Christians believe they are in a creation, created by a creator.

[VVilliam]

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.

But the opening post was written on and with the ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF that there was or could be some OTHER 'thing' outside of or beyond Creation, Itself. Which, OBVIOUSLY, is just ILLOGICAL and NONSENSE. It is also a COMPLETE MISINTERPRETATION of what was ACTUALLY MEANT in past writings.

So you are saying that Christians believing that existence the physical universe was created [by an intelligence outside of it] is "a complete misrepresentation of what was actually meant in past writings"...without backing your claim up with anything at all?

The OP is simply asking 'what is the difference between one and the other belief' NOT making any assumption at all.

I cannot see any reason for your statements as they do not appear to have anything to do with the OPQ...

[Age]

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.

So, NONE of 'you', human beings, have worked out and solved (the) 'creation' (puzzle), YET, you say and CLAIM that it is 'me' who uses the 'creation' word incorrectly. Could it just be possible that just maybe it has been the way 'you', human beings, have been using the 'creation' word, for thousands upon thousands of years, which was NOT exactly correct?

Or, is it 'ME' who undoubtedly and irrefutably who is using the 'creation' word INCORRECTLY.

Also, and by the way, is there just One and ONLY CORRECT way to use EACH and EVERY word?

Just out of curiosity also, could it be 'you' who is HOLDING ONTO and using a word here, in a VERY PARTICULAR and SPECIFIC WAY, in an effort, to 'try to' back up and support an ALREADY HELD ASSUMPTION and BELIEF of yours?

SEE, if 'you', human beings, do NOT CHANGE the way you LOOK AT and SEE 'things' the way you currently do now, which can be so easily done by just changing the way you LOOK AT and DEFINE words, then 'you' will NOT be able to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' the way they ACTUALLY ARE. You will just SEE 'things' as you currently do now, and in the days of when this is being written, then OBVIOUSLY the way 'you', human beings, SEE 'things' is NOT YET absolutely CORRECT.

I am the points-man of this railroad yard [thread] and won't allow that to occur because of the threat of derailing.

The ONLY 'thing' you are 'trying to' conduct here is to 'try to' keep "others" thinking and seeing 'things' the way that you currently do.

You are 'trying' your hardest to "argue" for, or point out, some truth, which you BELIEVE is true and thus BELIEVE IN.

Philosophy discussions USED TO BE about 'logically reasoning' together WITH "others" to find an ACTUAL Truth. But this has been derailed and changed so much that human beings, in the days of when this is being written, BELIEVE that when they start a thread, in a 'philosophy forum', that EVERY one has to agree with and accept the poster's opening post and if ANY disagrees or points out ANY thing differently, then they are, supposedly and allegedly, "derailing" the thread.

Human beings have "progressed" to such a stage that the way they 'think' and "behave" as gotten to a seemingly 'unbelievable' way.

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

You can say WHATEVER 'you' like. But if what you say is NOT what I have said, then OBVIOUSLY you are just TWISTING and DISTORTING 'things' around to suit your OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true and correct.

Oh, and by the way, what you said here is just PLAIN OBVIOUSLY WRONG and ABSURD, in regards to what I have ACTUALLY SAID and CLEARLY WRITTEN.

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.

LOL you could not be ANY FURTHER from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

YOUR INTERPRETATION is OBVIOUSLY WRONG. And what I suggest you do from now on is CLARIFY with 'me' what I am ACTUALLY MEANING, BEFORE you make ASSUMPTIONS and JUMP TO OBVIOUSLY WRONG and INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS, like you have just SHOWN US here now.

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...

IF the "topic at hand" IS;

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

Then I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVEN that if and when I 'think' we exist within a creation, then I am CERTAINLY NOT saying that we exist within a reality simulation.

I have also ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY I am NOT saying and would NOT say such an ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL 'thing' as this.

You just say the above in an ATTEMPT that it would prove true the BELIEF that you OBVIOUSLY have and OBVIOUSLY want to continually HOLD ONTO and MAINTAIN.

YOUR ATTEMPT, however, is FAILING and would, OF COURSE, ALWAYS have FAILED anyway.

[Age]

"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.

These two are ABSOLUTELY NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

[VVilliam]

I am sure you have much to say on the subject of "The Universe Created Itself" but it is wasted here on a thread which isn't asking if the universe created itself.

I would probably join a thread which was specific to the question of how the universe became the universe...but am not interested in derailing THIS thread by engaging with your posts on this other subject...please create your own thread to discuss this amazing insight you have to the universes origins.

[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?

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.

These two are ABSOLUTELY NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

I don't care. The OP is not asking for anyone's opinion on if they are necessarily true.

And please consider using the italic function as caps make you appear to come across in a somewhat desperate manner. Much like someone at a party who's voice is heard over ever other sound in the room...

[Age]

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]

There is, to 'me' anyway, NO 'problem' of, so called, "infinite regress", anyway.

Also, WHY do you want to LOOK FOR some 'thing' that is a 'simulated Reality' or NOT anyway?

Even if 'you' ARE in a 'simulated Reality', then still absolutely NO bearing at all on the fact that that 'simulated Reality' and its creator ARE WITHIN Creation, Itself. Even if that 'simulated Reality' and its creator were any number of 'simulated Realities' with any number of creators, they ARE ALL STILL WITHIN Creation, Itself, anyway.

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].

On first glance there appears to be a LOT OF TRUTH in this, which I had NEVER thought about before. Thank you. This could come in VERY HANDY.

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.

To 'me', it has NO 'beginning', in the sense of a start/a beginning to ALL of It.

The words, 'in the beginning', in the bible, did NOT reference and NEVER meant to reference a start NOR a beginning to Everything anyway.

What the Universe is ACTUALLY made up of, and how the Universe ACTUALLY works and could ONLY work, there could NEVER have been 'a beginning' to It.

[Age]

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?

All of this can be very easily and simply explained and understood. That is; if you are REALLY very curious to having this questioned answered, properly and correct, or in other words; once and for ALL.

[Age]

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.

OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL the answers are found in just one written literature.

ALL the answers are found, or better worded, 'verified' from and by ALL of the literature written so far.

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.

Do you mean here; 'we', INDIVIDUALLY, are each just one piece of the infinitely large jigsaw puzzle?

Because, obviously, 'we', COLLECTIVELY, ARE thee One piece of the infinitely large "jigsaw 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.

.

And if and when one arrives at a Truly 'satisfied finding', then this is when what is found is KNOWN, FOR SURE, to be COLLECTIVELY agreed upon and accept, with and by EVERY one.

Only when this takes place is when one can make True and FULL sense of 'things'.