

I explained it multiple times and even made comparisons to help understanding the issue.
Right, you mean the multiple explanations and comparisons for why it makes no sense that nobody here has agreed with.
You changed the question. That is not what the question in the original post and the article is about. You crafted a new question with new rules, just to justify for you to have right in a discussion you do not understand.
Alright, I’ll admit it’s not the exact same question. But living in an imperceptible simulation would change nothing about our lives or the way we perceive it. In that sense, it doesn’t change anything about the actual meat of the question. From our perspective it would still be our one and only true reality, a true afterlife, yada yada. All this does it give another potential mechanism for how it could happen.
I understand the “issue”. I don’t even disagree with you, at least so far as an afterlife is concerned—according to everything we know, an afterlife is not possible. I do disagree wholeheartedly that a copy of you is not you, at least in a broad, all-encompassing sense, but I find the whole thing irrelevant regardless. The problem is your inability to engage with the hypothetical that it is somehow, magically perhaps, the real you and an afterlife is real… your unwillingness to do so is not thought provoking, just irritating.