The problem with this idea is that there is no concept of what "real life" might be if not ours. There is no philosophical argument for a "real life" outside of our experience. There is no evidential argument for a "real life" outside of our experience.

I suggest the problem is not whether or not we live in a "simulation," but rather how you define "simulation."

Big bang theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.

Genesis theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.

The biggest difference between these two theories (other than the timing of events) is that one insists that Source is intelligent, and one insists it isn't. Both rely on dogma and faith to support their assertions, neither take the time to apply the process of science to the question, both insisting all of the evidence to support their position already exists.

I suggest those respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.

Quantum mechanics suggests that our concept of "physical" that we get from our macroscopic perspective has nothing to do with the Fundamental Source and its Manifestation. In fact, QM suggests that we have no idea how the Fundamental can manifest itself, though Scientists run around saying that we do out of one side of their mouth and that we don't out of the other.

The concept of the Spiritual suggests that our concept of "physical" is insufficient to support all of the evidence.

The biggest difference between the two ideas is that our physical theories can't really say anything about what "physical" is or how it can manifest itself, and those who believe that spiritual phenomena exist believe that those phenomena are somehow fundamentally different than "physical" phenomena, and not just a different way that the Fundamental (Source) manifests itself. Both of these are actually completely compatible positions if the second were to just imagine that "spiritual" phenomena are just a different way that Source manifests itself in the "That Which Is" that we experience.

I suggest this separation in their respective stances is by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.

What is a "simulation" if what we see is just a manifestation of the Source from which it came? How can any existence be different than that?

Source can manifest itself in whatever way it wants as far as I'm concerned. It won't change the Reality of my existence one bit, though it might change my appreciation of Source and my own connection to it if I knew a little bit more.

Someday perhaps we might apply the process of science to it and we might know a little bit more. Depending on the evidence we find, we might even end the debate entirely.

I'm sure that "ending the debate" and all of the social consequences that implies, has nothing to do with why we don't apply the process of science to the question of an Intelligent Source.

The problem with this idea is that there is no concept of what "real life" might be if not ours. There is no philosophical argument for a "real life" outside of our experience. There is no evidential argument for a "real life" outside of our experience.

I suggest the problem is not whether or not we live in a "simulation," but rather how you define "simulation."

Big bang theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.

Genesis theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.

The biggest difference between these two theories (other than the timing of events) is that one insists that Source is intelligent, and one insists it isn't. Both rely on dogma and faith to support their assertions, neither take the time to apply the process of science to the question, both insisting all of the evidence to support their position already exists.

I suggest those respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.

Quantum mechanics suggests that our concept of "physical" that we get from our macroscopic perspective has nothing to do with the Fundamental Source and its Manifestation. In fact, QM suggests that we have no idea how the Fundamental can manifest itself, though Scientists run around saying that we do out of one side of their mouth and that we don't out of the other.

The concept of the Spiritual suggests that our concept of "physical" is insufficient to support all of the evidence.

The biggest difference between the two ideas is that our physical theories can't really say anything about what "physical" is or how it can manifest itself, and those who believe that spiritual phenomena exist believe that those phenomena are somehow fundamentally different than "physical" phenomena, and not just a different way that the Fundamental (Source) manifests itself. Both of these are actually completely compatible positions if the second were to just imagine that "spiritual" phenomena are just a different way that Source manifests itself in the "That Which Is" that we experience.

I suggest this separation in their respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.

What is a "simulation" if what we see is just a manifestation of the Source from which it came? How can any existence be different than that?

Source can manifest itself in whatever way it wants as far as I'm concerned. It won't change the Reality of my existence one bit, though it might change my appreciation of Source and my own connection to it if I knew a little bit more.

Someday perhaps we might apply the process of science to it and we might know a little bit more. Depending on the evidence we find, we might even end the debate entirely.

I'm sure that "ending the debate" and all of the social consequences that implies, has nothing to do with why we don't apply the process of science to the question of an Intelligent Source.

The problem with this idea is that there is no concept of what "real life" might be if not ours. There is no philosophical argument for a "real life" outside of our experience. There is no evidential argument for a "real life" outside of our experience.

I suggest the problem is not whether or not we live in a "simulation," but rather how you define "simulation."

Big bang theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.

Genesis theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.

The biggest difference between these two theories (other than the timing of events) is that one insists that Source is intelligent, and one insists it isn't. Both rely on dogma and faith to support their assertions, neither take the time to apply the process of science to the question, both insisting all of the evidence to support their position already exists.

I suggest those respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.

Quantum mechanics suggests that our concept of "physical" that we get from our macroscopic perspective has nothing to do with the Fundamental Source and its Manifestation. In fact, QM suggests that we have no idea how the Fundamental can manifest itself, though Scientists run around saying that we do out of one side of their mouth and that we don't out of the other.

The concept of the Spiritual suggests that our concept of "physical" is insufficient to support all of the evidence.

The biggest difference between the two ideas is that our physical theories can't really say anything about what "physical" is or how it can manifest itself, and those who believe that spiritual phenomena exist believe that those phenomena are somehow fundamentally different than "physical" phenomena, and not just a different way that the Fundamental (Source) manifests itself. Both of these are actually completely compatible positions if the second were to just imagine that "spiritual" phenomena are just a different way that Source manifests itself in the "That Which Is" that we experience.

I suggest this separation in their respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.

What is a "simulation" if what we see is just a manifestation of the Source from which it came? How can any existence be different than that?

Source can manifest itself in whatever way it wants as far as I'm concerned. It won't change the Reality of my existence one bit, though it might change my appreciation of Source and my own connection to it if I knew a little bit more.

Someday perhaps we might apply the process of science to it and we might know a little bit more. Depending on the evidence we find, we might even end the debate entirely.

I'm sure that "ending the debate" has nothing to do with why we don't apply the process of science to the question of an Intelligent Source.

The problem with this idea is that there is no concept of what "real life" might be if not ours. There is no philosophical argument for a "real life" outside of our experience. There is no evidential argument for a "real life" outside of our experience.

I suggest the problem is not whether or not we live in a "simulation," but rather how you define "simulation."

Big bang theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.

Genesis theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.

The biggest difference between these two theories (other than the timing of events) is that one insists that Source is intelligent, and one insists it isn't. Both rely on dogma and faith to support their assertions, neither take the time to apply the process of science to the question, both insisting all of the evidence to support their position already exists.

I suggest those respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.

Quantum mechanics suggests that our concept of "physical" that we get from our macroscopic perspective has nothing to do with the Fundamental Source and its Manifestation. In fact, QM suggests that we have no idea how the Fundamental can manifest itself, though Scientists run around saying that we do out of one side of their mouth and that we don't out of the other.

The concept of the Spiritual suggests that our concept of "physical" is insufficient to support all of the evidence.

The biggest difference between the two ideas is that our physical theories can't really say anything about what "physical" is or how it can manifest itself, and those who believe that spiritual phenomena exist believe that those phenomena are somehow fundamentally different than "physical" phenomena, and not just a different way that the Fundamental (Source) manifests itself. Both of these are actually completely compatible positions if the second were to just imagine that "spiritual" phenomena are just a different way that Source manifests itself in the "That Which Is" that we experience.

I suggest this separation in their respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.

What is a "simulation" if what we see is just a manifestation of the Source from which it came? How can any existence be different than that?

Source can manifest itself in whatever way it wants as far as I'm concerned. It won't change the Reality of my existence one bit, though it might change my appreciation of Source and my own connection to it if I knew a little bit more.

The problem with this idea is that there is no concept of what "real life" might be if not ours. There is no philosophical argument for a "real life" outside of our experience. There is no evidential argument for a "real life" outside of our experience.

I suggest the problem is not whether or not we live in a "simulation," but rather how you define "simulation."

Big bang theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.

Genesis theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.

The biggest difference between these two theories (other than the timing of events) is that one insists that Source is intelligent, and one insists it isn't. Both rely on dogma and faith to support their assertions, neither take the time to apply the process of science to the question, both insisting all of the evidence to support their position already exists.

I suggest those respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.

Quantum mechanics suggests that our concept of "physical" that we get from our macroscopic perspective has nothing to do with the Fundamental Source and its Manifestation. In fact, QM suggests that we have no idea how the Fundamental can manifest itself, though Scientists run around saying that we do out of one side of their mouth and that we don't out of the other.

The concept of the Spiritual suggests that our concept of "physical" is insufficient to support all of the evidence.

The biggest difference between the two ideas is that our physical theories can't really say anything about what "physical" is or how it can manifest itself, and those who believe that spiritual phenomena exist believe that those phenomena are somehow fundamentally different than "physical" phenomena, and not just a different way that the Fundamental (Source) manifests itself. Both of these are actually completely compatible positions if the second were to just imagine that "spiritual" phenomena are just a different way that Source manifests itself in That Which Is that we experience.

I suggest this separation in their respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.

What is a "simulation" if what we see is just a manifestation of the Source from which it came? How can any existence be different than that?

Source can manifest itself in whatever way it wants as far as I'm concerned. It won't change the Reality of my existence one bit, though it might change my appreciation of Source and my own connection to it if I knew a little bit more.