> Is there any proof for this? It is not a question of proof, it is a question of language. The input to our senses is real by definition if this input allows

> Is there any proof for this? It is not a question of proof, it is a question of language. The input to our senses is real by definition if this input allows us to navigate and survive in the world. Any metaphysical hypothesis which posits this input is somehow not "real" (but the actual "real world" is unavailable to our senses) is simply useless and can be discarded by Occam's razor. Any hypothesis about the world which cannot be confirmed or falsified through observation is meaningless. Neither right nor wrong, just useless.