Okay. I get that. But I am picky and pedantic. For me 'simulation' is either redundant or an error. There is a mystical thought that says the centre is everywhere and the perimeter nowhere - its meant to bash your head around. And the problem we have with our experience of materialistic reality it that it is all mediated via the brain and nervous system. We don't actually know what is real.
So 'simulation' might be a useful word to convey some sense of this uncertainty. However simulation refers to a representation of a thing known. In fact we are better off talking about a 'representation theory' - as in we can only ever encounter presentations of the real.
Pedantry may seem petty a times. But not always.
"From 'the One' spring the many"... because within all possibility, the many
can arise from "the One." Does it hurt to be open-minded to the possibility that within the set of infinite possibilities, this occurred? The point is,
if it is possible, why not try the assumption on just like you might try on a new diet to see if it works? Do you have to know exactly how or why the diet works for it to work?
Do you have to know exactly how or why the diet works for you to try it
if you really want to lose weight? I know there are some folks who absolutely do and those are, for me, the hold-outs to materialism as a world view.
Is it possible that once we have
many with conscious agency, that, over time, ways can be developed to take the reality of movement (change over time) where the fact there be "many" implies 3 dimensions? So don't we have the basic framework that underpins our physical experience from just this first fruition within all possibility?