Existence of Everything.

Where on the continuium between naive realism
and epistemilogical certainty do you wish to be entertained?

You just need to remind him that doubting is already proof...now what he prolly means to ask is different...how much is everything ?

You have found a 'turd' and are here to apparently complain to all of us about the 'smell'. You can either drop it and move on or keep complaining about it, just know that by complaining you're only hurting yourself.

'Everything' is a concept which you have apparently 'subscribed' to. Instead of polling the world you should have taken a few seconds to question YOUR meaning of the word 'everything'.

Who you really are is 'everything', it only 'shows up' as possibility because you exist.

If you seek "proof", you're already on the wrong path. Neither existence nor non-existence is subject to formal epistemological proofs. Within two or three posts in cyberspace, the entire argument is doomed to become an exercise in semantics, nothing more. To put it another way, an insistence that everything sensible, i.e. subject to discovery by our senses, obviously exists is exactly the same as saying that nothing which is susceptible only to our senses exists. Sartre insisted that existence precedes essence but Sartre was a closet pessimist who probably regretted that he had no personal experience of "essence", hence could not comment on it.

That should have been the end of your post. Quit while you're ahead.

The name "Logicus" implies you have simplistic ideas about "proof" and "logic". I suggest you contemplate the celebrated Niels Bohr quotation...

Your sense can lie to you. Optical illusions, for example.

No. Humorously, it was the only username I could think of.

Everything could be a computer simulation. I want to convinced that everything I see around me isn't some sort of illusion.

Think ! In what situations is the word illusion used ? It is used where there is a mismatch between two information sources. (e.g. Visual image versus physical measurement). In situations of no mismatch (including those involving social agreement), there is no "problem" and the word is irrelevant.
So your speculative computer simulation hypothesis is irrelevant unless you have "misnatch" evidence. It falls into the same category as pseudo-hypotheses such as "everything in the universe doubles its size every second". (If the ruler doubles its size there will never be a discrepancy).

Now it may be the case that "different levels of consciousness" (in meditation for example) give rise to different perceptions from the norm. Buddhists argue for example that "self is an illusion". What matters thereafter is how such cognitive states inform subsequent action or thought of the experiencer. The meditator may for example give up certain "personal goals" in an analogous eway to an enlightened desert traveller giving up his track towards a mirage of nearby water.

A computer simulation in place of reality would be the ONLY REALITY...are you suggesting computer simulations are not themselves real or just that the world of appearances prolly can be reduced to binary codding n so its not real ?

...cause it really doesn't matter you know...even if it was the case the world was really made of binary code and extreme clever maths the resulting phenomena on which you experience the world as images colours sounds smells wouldn't become any less REAL...phenomena are real phenomena !

Unless I'm incorrect, your argument did not prove that everything is real. You just assume that if everyone agrees that it is not an illusion, then there isn't one. And in fact, that's not scientific at all.

That is what I'm asking you to prove. Not that the computer simulations could be our reality, but to prove if things aren't simulations.

I never said anything different. Read my first sentence.

I did. It didn't prove anything. It was an opinion, at least grammatically.

OK. Starting from naive realism, try this simple experiment:
Take (sterile) needle in dominant hand; grasp between opposible thumb and choice of digit.
Stab needle into opposite arm. Not covinced it is real? Stab harder!
If still not covinced, please do not involve vital organs.
I will admit my experiment to have been inconclusive.
No, I will not send band aids.

Of course it didn't prove anything. That's what I was pointing out to you, that a search for "proof" is an exercise in semantic self-abuse. Fachrissake, learn to read, willa?

Pain could also be an external being inflicting on you, making it look like you were the one causing it. I'm not saying that the things you feel aren't real. I'm trying to say that your environment is not.

I don't believe this can be done because your own thought process is included within the "everything" that you would be trying to prove.

However, someone might be able to convince you that "effective" reality (rather than "absolute" reality) exists by relentlessly poking you with a sharp stick until you agreed that effective reality is all that really matters. Inwardly you might complain that nothing was really proven because pain is just a feeling and it might all be a dream, but the point of the stick is the point of the stick.