Yes, but the stick could be a simulation, and something else is actually poking you.
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.
Then your argument serves no purpose in this discussion. I'm looking for proof. If you cannot offer it, then there really isn't room for you here. Apologies for being a bit cold.
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.
My question, or rather, request was to hear an argument for the existence of things. I am not certain, but it seems like he did not offer anything.
Yes. That is the whole point of the argument. You're version of, "reality" would be the stick. What I'm trying to state is that it isn't a stick, but a simulation of something poking you.
Science and philosophy are closely related. Science focuses on how, and philosophy focuses on why. They require each other to be efficient. At least you agree to that, hopefully.