[quote=“wysinwyg, post:180, topic:11575”]Unless you assume up-front that the Matrix can’t be discovered from within, one’s best method of finding out that one is in the Matrix is application of the scientific method. SM is a means of testing assumptions, not an assumption in itself.
If you want to argue the point further I’ll make a new post for that discussion.[/quote]
Well, having been down this road many times, rehashing an argument that’s been pretty much settled (in my opinion, anyway) since the early 1600s, I’d rather agree to disagree. 
I believe you are claiming to be able to discern true objective reality based on the cogitation of a meat engine capable only of subjective experiences through use of the scientific method.
In contrast, I’m saying that in order for your claim to be a logically coherent argument, you need to state premises and steps leading to your conclusion; this is inherent in the scientific method itself. I further claim your base premises are known to you through faith, not through proof, because any proof of them must in turn rest on additional premises. The only thing you can prove without depending on inherently unprovable premises is ergo cogito sum (I can think, therefore I know that I personally exist). The existence of anything other than your own thoughts is based on unreasoned intuitive faith that the world you think you know (sanskrit maya) in some way represents non-illusory phenomena.
I’m perfectly willing to let you believe whatever you want, and you can find millions of pages of argument for and against my position very easily! So I’d rather not argue it, but I do thank you for offering the opportunity. The twin cores of the scientific method are skepticism and an open mind.
