IF the universe was created THEN...

[Immanuel Can]

What I actually said was I don't have the kind of evidence that one can show the others. I did not say that I have not experienced the evidence for myself.

Ah. So you claim that you have seen reality as it actually is, and it's not this -- this is a "simulated" reality?

So you have been "red pilled," and actually seen and been outside the Matrix, like a Neo.

But nobody else has?

[VVilliam]

What I actually said was I don't have the kind of evidence that one can show the others. I did not say that I have not experienced the evidence for myself.

Ah. So you claim that you have seen reality as it actually is, and it's not this -- this is a "simulated" reality?

No. Rather I claim that I have experienced alternate realities. I do not claim that these are reality as it actually is.

So you have been "red pilled," and actually seen and been outside the Matrix, like a Neo.

My experiences were a superimposing of two different reality experiences simultaneously. One on top of the other. A combination. Interacting within both.

But nobody else has?

Plenty have.

[Immanuel Can]

What I actually said was I don't have the kind of evidence that one can show the others. I did not say that I have not experienced the evidence for myself.

Ah. So you claim that you have seen reality as it actually is, and it's not this -- this is a "simulated" reality?

No. Rather I claim that I have experienced alternate realities. I do not claim that these are reality as it actually is.

So you don't know what you've seen? You've seen a bunch of "alternate realities," but have no idea if any of them were actually reality itself?

[VVilliam]

Ah. So you claim that you have seen reality as it actually is, and it's not this -- this is a "simulated" reality?

No. Rather I claim that I have experienced alternate realities. I do not claim that these are reality as it actually is.

So you don't know what you've seen? You've seen a bunch of "alternate realities," but have no idea if any of them were actually reality itself?

More to the point, Because I have experienced these, it has lead me to understand that everything which can be experienced as real, is a simulation. The only absolutely real thing [if it can be called a 'thing'] is that which is doing the experiencing. Not that which is experienced [whatever universe it might be, no matter how real it is experienced as.]

So I do not think that simulations necessarily are 'fake' or 'illusions' any more than this universe is fake or an illusion.

We know that when we use immersive hardware and software to experience a human-made simulation that these are 'fake' and 'illusion' because we are not fully immersed in them to the point where we do not understand we are experiencing a simulation. We have memory of being a human experiencing a universe, while we are experiencing these alternate realities.

The universe as a simulation is obviously way beyond what humans are presently able to create - but scientists are working on that.

[Immanuel Can]

No. Rather I claim that I have experienced alternate realities. I do not claim that these are reality as it actually is.

So you don't know what you've seen? You've seen a bunch of "alternate realities," but have no idea if any of them were actually reality itself?

More to the point, Because I have experienced these, it has lead me to understand that everything which can be experienced as real, is a simulation.

That doesn't follow, logically. All that follows is that you haven't experienced reality, if it exists. But you can't say it's a "simulation," not only because there's no real thing it "simulates," but because you've already said you don't know the difference between reality and what you've experienced.

Any number of hallucinations, and any number of hallucinating people does not imply that reality doesn't exist; it just means they're personally hallucinating.

[VVilliam]

So you don't know what you've seen? You've seen a bunch of "alternate realities," but have no idea if any of them were actually reality itself?

More to the point, Because I have experienced these, it has lead me to understand that everything which can be experienced as real, is a simulation.

That doesn't follow, logically.

That depends upon the logic you are following.

All that follows is that you haven't experienced reality, if it exists.

You are possibly being confused by the illusion the simulation affords you to do so, within.

But go ahead - explain to us what this 'reality' would be like, if it did exist.

But you can't say it's a "simulation," not only because there's no real thing it "simulates,"...

Then what can I say it is? The Creators Mind? [CTM] Would that help you understand?

...but because you've already said you don't know the difference between reality and what you've experienced.

Then I will clarify;
I wrote "Because I have experienced these, it has lead me to understand that everything which can be experienced as real, is a simulation."

I also wrote "My experiences were a superimposing of two different reality experiences simultaneously."

So I do understand there are differences. The point is that both experiences can be experienced as real, by the one experiencing them.
So it can be surmised that if one was the product of the other [simulated] it is also possible that the other might also be a simulation.

There is a science on that - gathered data relaying individuals experiences of the layered "Universes" which go to a single source. Religions have many different names for it [and ideas on it] but my point referred to the idea that it is all simulated and the "The only absolutely real thing [if it can be called a 'thing'] is that which is doing the experiencing. "

Any number of hallucinations, and any number of hallucinating people does not imply that reality doesn't exist; it just means they're personally hallucinating.

And have been doing so before atheists came along to 'explain' their opinions about 'what is really going on' which of course is better for the atheists to do in order to keep their position intact.
Meanwhile life goes on all around them as they claim we exist within the only thing which is real.

[Immanuel Can]

More to the point, Because I have experienced these, it has lead me to understand that everything which can be experienced as real, is a simulation.

That doesn't follow, logically.

That depends upon the logic you are following.

Hmmm...you don't know what "logic" means, then. Logic has fixed rules...the above statement doesn't meet them.

But you can't say it's a "simulation," not only because there's no real thing it "simulates,"...

Then what can I say it is?

Your own impression...or plausibly, your own hallucinations. But since it has no "real" counterpart, it isn't a "simulation" of anything.

I will clarify;
I wrote "Because I have experienced these, it has lead me to understand that everything which can be experienced as real, is a simulation."

You are logically free to conclude that everything YOU have experienced may be a hallucination. You have no way of saying, or of deducing, anything about anybody else from that. For even the "people" in your hallucination may not be real, and if they are real, you have no insight into their cognitions anyway.

[VVilliam]

I will clarify;
I wrote "Because I have experienced these, it has lead me to understand that everything which can be experienced as real, is a simulation."

You are logically free to conclude that everything YOU have experienced may be a hallucination.

Or a simulated reality. I will go with simulated reality. Hallucination implies things which are like when Christians claim 'the devil did it'.

Those are dark and mysterious implications, which cast shadows of doubt upon the unwary. They have their place in doubt, but handwaving isn't a good way to argue ones point.

People are real in that they are part of the action involved in this reality simulation. Some are aware they are within a simulation and understand what they really are...and others are not, or are afraid of the idea being true and poke fun at it and call it names in order to conceal the fear they have of it.

[VVilliam]

Any number of hallucinations, and any number of hallucinating people does not imply that reality doesn't exist; it just means they're personally hallucinating.

Just out of curiosity [since you brought hallucinations into your argument] have you ever experienced any in your lifetime?
If so, what makes you think you were hallucinating? [this way we can compare to see if we a speaking about the same thing] and if not, what makes you believe in hallucinations being the only reason people experience alternate realities?

[Immanuel Can]

I will clarify;
I wrote "Because I have experienced these, it has lead me to understand that everything which can be experienced as real, is a simulation."

You are logically free to conclude that everything YOU have experienced may be a hallucination.

Or a simulated reality.

Well, no, if you don't believe in "reality." You can't simulate a reality, if reality doesn't exist at all. So you can have a hallucination...no more. You may not care for that word, but it's apt in a way that "simulation" can never be. "Simulation" means "similar to," and since there is no reality for a thing to be similar to, there is no "simulation." Just a hallucination.

[Immanuel Can]

Just out of curiosity [since you brought hallucinations into your argument] have you ever experienced any in your lifetime?

No. But that does not mean other people have not hallucinated, of course.

A "hallucination" is something undisciplined by any reality. Since, as you say, there is no singular reality you recognize, there is nothing to which your 'simulation" can be compared or evaluated. It's incapable of being disciplined by any reality. So it's a hallucination.

[VVilliam]

Just out of curiosity [since you brought hallucinations into your argument] have you ever experienced any in your lifetime?

No. But that does not mean other people have not hallucinated, of course.

A "hallucination" is something undisciplined by any reality. Since, as you say, there is no singular reality you recognize, there is nothing to which your 'simulation" can be compared or evaluated. It's incapable of being disciplined by any reality. So it's a hallucination.

Your use of semmantics is noted. .

Obviously you fail to understand how all things experienced could be simulations and that is all I claimed.

I did not claim that what I experienced was nessasarily another simulated reality, but that it might be.

Nor did I claim that what I experienced was the source of our particular reality experience...only that it might be.

You are the one taking my words and adding your own twist to them.

There is no definition of the word hallucination which you have offerred as argument that my experiences fit that definition.

If you want to convince me that you are correct, you will have to quit with the semantics.

But if you are just arguing for the sake of the atheist position, only death will show you if alternate realties can be experienced as real. I am convinced through my experiences that we all will do so eventually. Perhaps when it happens to you, you will try to fob it off as some kind of hallucination...but that won't make it go away.

I think you would agree we have taken this argumant between as far as it can go

[Immanuel Can]

Just out of curiosity [since you brought hallucinations into your argument] have you ever experienced any in your lifetime?

No. But that does not mean other people have not hallucinated, of course.

A "hallucination" is something undisciplined by any reality. Since, as you say, there is no singular reality you recognize, there is nothing to which your 'simulation" can be compared or evaluated. It's incapable of being disciplined by any reality. So it's a hallucination.

Your use of semmantics is noted. .

"Semantics" is the study of the precise use of language in context. I should hope we all "use" it. So thank you.

I did not claim that what I experienced was nessasarily another simulated reality, but that it might be.

There's the "twist": I said it might be. I did not say it must be. I pointed out that you could not know, either way.

But if you are just arguing for the sake of the atheist position,

I'm not an Atheist.

[VVilliam]

I'm not an Atheist.

I did not hallucinate...

[commonsense]

IF the universe was created THEN...we must exist within some type of Simulated Reality.

What it is simulating is beyond our reach with the present devices of science.

Are we able to identify possible evidence which scientific research has uncovered within this universe which could point to the possibility we do actually exist within a creation?

If the universe were created, it is true that we may or may not live within a simulation. It is also true that if the universe were not created we may or may not be living in a simulation. Nothing more can be concluded from the universe’s origin.

But let’s assume we live in a simulation. We cannot have access to any evidence that would reveal the simulation as such, unless we are observing the simulation from outside the simulation. In other words we can only know that we exist inside a simulation if we exist outside the simulation.

Since we have no knowledge that our reality is a simulation, we only know our reality as the actual reality, our universe as the real universe. Besides, even if our universe is one of many universes, it is the real and only universe for us.