IF the universe was created THEN...

[VVilliam]

...you are willfully resisting [won't buy into] my rational argument...

Make one, and see if I buy in. "I think this world is a simulation" isn't an argument. It's a speculation.

VV can turn that speculation into an argument if he can access information (I.e. scientific evidence) that reveals that the simulation is a simulation. Although he has asserted that such evidence is available, I don’t recall any example nor any explanation of the assertion.

I am waiting for more from VV with keen anticipation.

W reminds one and all that I am exploring the idea that a 'creation' is like unto a 'simulation' and in that, Christians are not exempt from being 'speculators' either, with their own claims of creation and creator.

Something to keep in mind while we all wait...watch...wonder...and work it out..

[commonsense]

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

What? Whoa. Wait a minute! The present devices of science cannot reach what is being simulated?

Then there is currently no access to any evidence that the simulation is a simulation.

Then that creation is simulation is a moot point, since there is no way to tell them apart.

[VVilliam]

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

What? Whoa. Wait a minute! The present devices of science cannot reach what is being simulated?

Well yes... at least none that we know about...

Then there is currently no access to any evidence that the simulation is a simulation.

Not from the scientific community...

Then that creation is simulation is a moot point, since there is no way to tell them apart.

No scientific way that we know of. There is no science that has shown us objectively that we exist within a creation /simulation. Does scientists refer to the universe as 'something which was created?" No they do not. Theists alone do this.

( so scientist who are also theists will probably refer to the universe as a "creation".)

But there is indeed a way in which one can tell the alternative from the universe - through subjectively experiencing the alternative and in that, examining what is found there in relation to what is found here...

[commonsense]

But there is indeed a way in which one can tell the alternative from the universe - through subjectively experiencing the alternative and in that, examining what is found there in relation to what is found here...

If I live in a simulation where flying purple people eaters have 2 eyes, how would I know that there’s another simulation where they have 1 eye?

Of course I could imagine a one-eyed simulation, but how would I know that the one I’d (smirk, chuckle) imagined is not the real one?

I could detect a difference between simulations, but only that.

[VVilliam]

But there is indeed a way in which one can tell the alternative from the universe - through subjectively experiencing the alternative and in that, examining what is found there in relation to what is found here...

If I live in a simulation where flying purple people eaters have 2 eyes, how would I know that there’s another simulation where they have 1 eye?

Of course I could imagine a one-eyed simulation, but how would I know that the one I’d (smirk, chuckle) imagined is not the real one?

I could detect a difference between simulations, but only that.

But it would be subjective evidence for you. That is the point.

The evidence of the 'dominant reality experience' you have, in relation to the alternate one you have adds to the evidence that your dominant reality is not 'all that can be experienced as 'real' as well as adding to the evidence supporting a 'creation' rather than it being 'the only universe which exists'.

[Immanuel Can]

I gave you a list of biblical characters who are reported to have had alternate experiences, and you have chosen to ignore that.

That's because all you asked me is, "Have YOU had any such experiences?" I answered that I had not, but that that didn't stop anyone else from having them: what part of that don't you get?

Were you on an "alternate experience"? Because seriously, dude...

[Immanuel Can]

...you are willfully resisting [won't buy into] my rational argument...

Make one, and see if I buy in. "I think this world is a simulation" isn't an argument. It's a speculation.

VV can turn that speculation into an argument if he can access information (I.e. scientific evidence) that reveals that the simulation is a simulation.

Right. That's what I'm hoping for.

Although he has asserted that such evidence is available, I don’t recall any example nor any explanation of the assertion.

That's the problem: he's already said he doesn't have it.

I am waiting for more from VV with keen anticipation.

Likewise.

[VVilliam]

I gave you a list of biblical characters who are reported to have had alternate experiences, and you have chosen to ignore that.

That's because all you asked me is, "Have YOU had any such experiences?" I answered that I had not, but that that didn't stop anyone else from having them: what part of that don't you get?

Were you on an "alternate experience"? Because seriously, dude...

Oh you want 'serious' Immanuel?

You are still using language as a limiting device and playing me with that.

Perhaps it is your natural 'type' of OCD which conflicts with the untidiness of my own use of words. The 'OCD' allows you a 'reason' not to 'get the gist' of what I am saying and thus obsess with the belief that words need to be used 'correctly' and 'in the right order' before you will play.

I on the other hand don't particularly care if you play with me or not, although my preference is that you will do, but it is you who are defining the rules of engagement ... and I who am not interested in playing by those rules...

But I am interested in finding out whether we can [together] develop some kind of middle ground we are both okay about.

At the moment it appears we cannot, because you will not. *shrug* .

That said, where I think we are in relation to the platforms we each position our arguments from is that you haven't had any alternate experience and consider such to be 'hallucination' anyway...except in relation to the biblical stories [some of which I have mentioned] which you believe are true and would not describe these as 'hallucinations'

Am I correct in that assessment?

[Immanuel Can]

I am interested in finding out whether we can [together] develop some kind of middle ground we are both okay about.

Let's see if that's possible. But you could start with a premise it's even possible to make cogent...that would be nice. And to do that, you'd have to explain what a "simulation" means, in the context of a worldview in which, you say, you have no evidence for any basic reality, so there's nothing to "simulate."

It's as crazy as saying that something is a "copy" for a thing that has no "original." It's not possible. If there's no "original," then nothing "copied" it.

That said, where I think we are in relation to the platforms we each position our arguments from is that you haven't had any alternate experience and consider such to be 'hallucination' anyway...except in relation to the biblical stories [some of which I have mentioned] which you believe are true and would not describe these as 'hallucinations'

Am I correct in that assessment?

It does not matter at all whether or not I have personally had an "alternate experience." That doesn't change anything either way. I've never had a drug trip, either; that doesn't imply that nobody else has. It just means that "alternate experiences" are outside my experience, if they exist. But so what?

The reason I describe your "alternate experience" as a "hallucination" is because of what YOU have claimed about it: namely, that it was an "alternate experience," but you also say you don't have any certainty about any experience of a fixed reality it could "simulate," or from which it could be a departure. So it's just a hallucination, by your own description, not as a pejorative matter.

[VVilliam]

I am interested in finding out whether we can [together] develop some kind of middle ground we are both okay about.

Let's see if that's possible. But you could start with a premise it's even possible to make cogent...that would be nice. And to do that, you'd have to explain what a "simulation" means, in the context of a worldview in which, you say, you have no evidence for any basic reality, so there's nothing to "simulate."

Actually I don't 'have to' do that at all as it is not a 'problem' with others who are engaging me in this idea. They are happy to go along with the GIST of it.

It's as crazy as saying that something is a "copy" for a thing that has no "original." It's not possible. If there's no "original," then nothing "copied" it.

I have not claimed that there is no 'original' only that in regard to reality experiences of THINGS - there is need to include the recognition that there are overlapping similarities in the alternative which correspond with the idea that this is simulated from that.
Also it can be said that the alternate experienced might even be a simulation of this.
But the underlying correlation is that there is similarity and thus simulation happening.

That said, where I think we are in relation to the platforms we each position our arguments from is that you haven't had any alternate experience and consider such to be 'hallucination' anyway...except in relation to the biblical stories [some of which I have mentioned] which you believe are true and would not describe these as 'hallucinations'

Am I correct in that assessment?

It does not matter at all whether or not I have personally had an "alternate experience." That doesn't change anything either way. I've never had a drug trip, either; that doesn't imply that nobody else has. It just means that "alternate experiences" are outside my experience, if they exist. But so what?

I agree "so what?" Hallucination/Simulation/alternate experience/ = potato/potato it is the same thing, whatever it is called.

The reason I describe your "alternate experience" as a "hallucination" is because of what YOU have claimed about it: namely, that it was an "alternate experience," but you also say you don't have any certainty about any experience of a fixed reality it could "simulate," or from which it could be a departure. So it's just a hallucination, by your own description, not as a pejorative matter.

And in relation to the Biblical stories of alternate experiences, what makes these any different that your argument doesn't apply to those?

[Immanuel Can]

Actually I don't 'have to' do that at all

I only mean, "If you want to be rational and find that middle ground you're looking for." If you don't want that, you don't "have" to.

...it is not a 'problem' with others who are engaging me in this idea.

Then perhaps they don't understand the problem you have in even supposing it. Or perhaps they imagine they know what you're talking about...but if so, they couldn't really know, because the idea isn't even cogent. It literally CAN'T be made sensible...at least, not in the terms you've framed it.

I have not claimed that there is no 'original'

Perhaps not: perhaps the original still exists, but outside or your knowledge. But you've claimed that you have no evidence for any such thing, which results in exactly the same problem, namely, that you have no basic "reality" to which to refer when you allude to "simulations of reality." It means that, so far as you know, EVERYTHING is a "simulation," which is to say, for you, everything is no better than a hallucination.

[VVilliam]

Actually I don't 'have to' do that at all

I only mean, "If you want to be rational and find that middle ground you're looking for." If you don't want that, you don't "have" to.

...it is not a 'problem' with others who are engaging me in this idea.

Then perhaps they don't understand the problem you have in even supposing it. Or perhaps they imagine they know what you're talking about...but if so, they couldn't really know, because the idea isn't even cogent. It literally CAN'T be made sensible...at least, not in the terms you've framed it.

I have not claimed that there is no 'original'

Perhaps not: perhaps the original still exists, but outside or your knowledge. But you've claimed that you have no evidence for any such thing, which results in exactly the same problem, namely, that you have no basic "reality" to which to refer when you allude to "simulations of reality." It means that, so far as you know, EVERYTHING is a "simulation," which is to say, for you, everything is no better than a hallucination.

Of course, we both should understand that if you were to answer my questions regarding your own beliefs, it might be seen [we could most likely discover therein] that you also have this 'problem' you seem to think that I have.

So, if you want to find some halfway point and wish to teach [show] me how wrong I am, please do explain why the biblical alternative experiences are any more the better, that one should understand clearly they are not 'hallucinations'.

Then perhaps [in relation to you] I can find better wording to explain what you find so difficult to accept as they currently are.

(Your comments regarding those who get the gist of what I am saying, suggest you have a superiority complex as well as OCD)

[VVilliam]

Actually I don't 'have to' do that at all

I only mean, "If you want to be rational and find that middle ground you're looking for." If you don't want that, you don't "have" to.

...it is not a 'problem' with others who are engaging me in this idea.

Then perhaps they don't understand the problem you have in even supposing it. Or perhaps they imagine they know what you're talking about...but if so, they couldn't really know, because the idea isn't even cogent. It literally CAN'T be made sensible...at least, not in the terms you've framed it.

I have not claimed that there is no 'original'

Perhaps not: perhaps the original still exists, but outside or your knowledge. But you've claimed that you have no evidence for any such thing, which results in exactly the same problem, namely, that you have no basic "reality" to which to refer when you allude to "simulations of reality." It means that, so far as you know, EVERYTHING is a "simulation," which is to say, for you, everything is no better than a hallucination.

Of course, we both should understand that if you were to answer my questions regarding your own beliefs, it might be seen [we could most likely discover therein] that you also have this 'problem' you seem to think that I have.

So, if you want to find some halfway point and wish to teach [show] me how wrong I am, please do explain why the biblical alternative experiences are any more the better, that one should understand clearly they are not 'hallucinations'.

Then perhaps [in relation to you] I can find better wording to explain what you find so difficult to accept as they currently are presented.

Otherwise the impression is that you require this 'shielding' as a protection device and thus refuse to 'get the gist' because that will 'let your shields down.

(Your rather disparaging comments regarding those who get the gist of what I am saying, suggest you have a superiority complex as well as OCD)

[commonsense]

But there is indeed a way in which one can tell the alternative from the universe - through subjectively experiencing the alternative and in that, examining what is found there in relation to what is found here...

If I live in a simulation where flying purple people eaters have 2 eyes, how would I know that there’s another simulation where they have 1 eye?

Of course I could imagine a one-eyed simulation, but how would I know that the one I’d (smirk, chuckle) imagined is not the real one?

I could detect a difference between simulations, but only that.

But it would be subjective evidence for you. That is the point.

Agreed, but as a scientist I need objective evidence. Subjective evidence is taken on faith alone, on blind belief without justification. As a philosopher (at least for purposes of this thread) I also need justifiable evidence.

The evidence of the 'dominant reality experience' you have, in relation to the alternate one you have adds to the evidence that your dominant reality is not 'all that can be experienced as 'real' as well as adding to the evidence supporting a 'creation' rather than it being 'the only universe which exists'.

This is where I started: IF the universe was created, then [fill in the blank] ________.

This is where I am:

I am more than willing to allow that there may be multiple alternatives, simulations, creations, or universes (I am using these terms as roughly equivalent) even though I cannot access any scientifically verifiable evidence to this end, and that I exist in one of them.

I am happy to agree that one or more of these simulations may have been constructed by a creator. I accept that the creation or reality where I exist might not be the real reality, but it is my reality and I have no objective way of knowing whether my reality is the real reality or not, so I will assume or take it on faith that mine is the real reality.

Finally, I have no means by which to determine whether my reality was constructed by a creator or not.

That’s where I am. Now where am I to go? Where are you taking me and how will we get there?

[Immanuel Can]

...if you were to answer my questions regarding your own beliefs...

Which question is that?

I don't recall having expressed a "belief." I recall pointing out that your question was incoherent, but that's not any theory...that's just a function of what the words actually mean.

...please do explain why the biblical alternative experiences are any more the better...

You never asked me to do this, until now. Was this your "question"?

Can you give me an example of what you mean?