That’s a good one, but this smbc has the simulation argument covered:
But seriously, when the headline asks “is it possible that we are not real” do you mean, “Is it possible that we are only grasping at the truth when we talk about what is ‘real’ and our concept of what we are trying to get at when we say something is ‘real’ will be refined over time with an improved understanding of reality through science?”
If so, yes. Otherwise, I leave it to Betteridge.
