PROVE to me that the world is, in fact, real at all.

[godblog]

What cannot be deceived is the FACT that I know I AM from personal experience and observation.
I may not know what where how why I AM. But I know I am. PersoI believe I am a singularity consciousness (1) in a universe of nothingness (0)
Vibrating 100100
What I see - angstroms vibrating energy
What I hear/say - decibels vibrating energy
What I think consciousness vibrating energy
Atoms are a PERCEPTION of subatomic electromagnetic VIBRATING ENERGY.
I think - firing synapses therefore I am.

[Belindi]

What cannot be deceived is the FACT that I know I AM from personal experience and observation.
I may not know what where how why I AM. But I know I am. PersoI believe I am a singularity consciousness (1) in a universe of nothingness (0)
Vibrating 100100
What I see - angstroms vibrating energy
What I hear/say - decibels vibrating energy
What I think consciousness vibrating energy
Atoms are a PERCEPTION of subatomic electromagnetic VIBRATING ENERGY.
I think - firing synapses therefore I am.

There is a perception of self. All perceptions can be deceptive.What you are claiming to know (including self, angstroms, decibels, consciousness, firing synapses, vibrating energy, atoms, ) is perceptions.
Read and understand Descartes's thought experiment :
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/13881 ... -the-self/

The above is basic to doing modern philosophy. When you understand the method of doubt, then we can discuss self.

[godblog]

I thought I at least inferred everything you said
My opinion in short is.
We are a singularity consciousness (1) in a universe of nothingness (0) vibrating 1001100 and creating everything you image-
Nothing exists except I think therefore I AM
-consciousness- everything else is a creation of my consciousness.

[Pattern-chaser]

I thought I at least inferred everything you said
My opinion in short is.
We are a singularity consciousness (1) in a universe of nothingness (0) vibrating 1001100 and creating everything you image-

What does "1001100" mean to you? It means 0x4C to me, or 76 in decimal. So what is "vibrating 76"? And what does it have to do with the putative reality of the world, the topic here?

Nothing exists except I think therefore I AM
-consciousness- everything else is a creation of my consciousness.

You seem to be declaring your support for solipsist views here, is that right?

[Tegularius]

Proving it either way changes absolutely nothing. The logic of this is tantamount to requesting an illusion to prove whether it is, in fact, an illusion or real. An illusion can't "prove" anything about itself or anything outside itself. It's an 'eternal recurrence' type of question forever forced to reset itself. If the illusion is continuous, it's real enough equal to any definition of 'reality' we care to apply. In effect, an illusion which questions itself is one that has breached itself into reality.

[godblog]

We are in the process of creating a better more enjoyable “illusion” otherwise we face a very.
Very BORING AND LONELY existence forever because energy cannot be rested or destroyed- THINK about it very seriously
COVID Ukraine pollution sestruction of natural resources
Are all teaching us we need to —- love others- to enjoy our existence-

[Kamizan]

So, here's the challenge: prove me wrong.

This is not a challenge that Kant, Schopenhauer or Wittgenstein (to name but three) would have taken up, well understanding that quality — which includes reality, morality and aesthetic value — are immune to proof. Only someone who doesn’t experience quality would even consider asking for proof its existence.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, here's the challenge: prove me wrong.

This is not a challenge that Kant, Schopenhauer or Wittgenstein (to name but three) would have taken up, well understanding that quality — which includes reality, morality and aesthetic value — are immune to proof. Only someone who doesn’t experience quality would even consider asking for proof its existence.

Welcome, Kamizan!

Yes, indeed. Pirsig had some interesting things to say about Quality too.

[Belindi]

So, here's the challenge: prove me wrong.

This is not a challenge that Kant, Schopenhauer or Wittgenstein (to name but three) would have taken up, well understanding that quality — which includes reality, morality and aesthetic value — are immune to proof. Only someone who doesn’t experience quality would even consider asking for proof its existence.

Welcome, Kamizan!

Yes, indeed. Pirsig had some interesting things to say about Quality too.

I agree. Well said Kamizan!

[Baby Augustine]

It can easily be done but YOU have to know what 'real' is for your own understanding.
Unless you yourself have a distinction of real and unreal, you are not really asking a question.

I used to tell students "Even a mirage is a real mirage" What is real for me as a Christian is of course different from non-Christian since I see something intended in everything real not just the thing itself. But to ask whether something is real makes me ask "are you saying you are not real?"
Because once you have a conviction of your reality you at least have a way of discriminating 'You' from sensible inputs.

You will say 'it can be a mirage" and I will say " Even if so, it is a REAL mirage"

[Pattern-chaser]

It can easily be done but YOU have to know what 'real' is for your own understanding.
Unless you yourself have a distinction of real and unreal, you are not really asking a question.

I used to tell students "Even a mirage is a real mirage" What is real for me as a Christian is of course different from non-Christian since I see something intended in everything real not just the thing itself. But to ask whether something is real makes me ask "are you saying you are not real?"
Because once you have a conviction of your reality you at least have a way of discriminating 'You' from sensible inputs.

You will say 'it can be a mirage" and I will say " Even if so, it is a REAL mirage"

If you are a philosopher, perhaps 'YOU have to assume what 'real' is for your own understanding'?

[d3r31nz1g3]

Considering this hefty individual mockingly pooping on a toilet...

Prove to me the world is real and it's not "simply just that guy pooping on a toilet".

That's because IT IS that guy pooping on a toilet.

[Bahman]

The following probably comes off as something I seriously think or ponder, which I do...

But think of this as a thought experiment in epistemology. The experiment is a classic one: solipsism. Prove to me that the world is even real at all considering the following:

The world is absolutely and incomprehensibly massive. It consists of millions of square miles. There are 8,000,000,000 people in it, which is eight thousand orders of individual millions. In Japan alone, which appears very small and slender on the world map, there are 120 individual groups of a million people.

To top it all off, all persons defecate and literally fart. I get the impression that human farts are existentially mocking me with intelligent intent. As in, the world is somehow fake all around me despite being physically present and absolutely perfectly realistic, and the "farts" seem like a mocking signature that it's all not real to me.

As in, I think "farts" themselves are intelligently "designed" with the intent of mocking me comedically.

Furthermore, scientific reality and the world leads me to believe that my person originates from my mother's womb, where she literally defecated me out of her vagina next to her anus. Despite full awareness of the scientific reality of evolution and reproduction, I am somehow suspicious of that fact alone.

These factors, which may sound immature if you don't catch my intent, lead me to believe I am living in an insane hypnotic false reality.

So, here's the challenge: prove me wrong.

Bare in mind, most immediate forms of evidencing I will consider to be "part of the hypnotic deception, where it's all simply just the farts".

I can answer your question if we can agree on the definition of "you". If by "you" you mean an agent with the ability to experience and cause then it is obvious that there are things that you experience but you are not responsible for the cause. Therefore, there is at least another agent that causes a part of what you experience which that part is not caused by you. In fact, I can show that another agent experiences too since causation is not possible without experience.