Good question: Do I "prefer the unprovable proof or the hypothetical reality?"
Unfortunately, an "unprovable proof," or a "hypothetical reality" are, to me at least, self-copntradictory, hence meaningless - (as you meant them to be).
However, I suspect that "unprovable proofs" and "hypothetical realities" are acceptable to some. For example, in one version of an unprovable, unfalsifiable, hypothetical reality, I can't tell if I'm a computer simulation or if I'm in the "real" universe.
If it hasn't been proposed before, let me offer the "Norman Hypothesis." It's probably not falsifiable or provable, but I haven't let that slow me down.
In the Norman Hypothesis, there is no "real" universe. Turing Machine X simulates Turing Machine Y, which simulates Turing Machine Z, . . ., which simulates Turing Machine X.
But seriously, folks, I'm not mocking anybody who reads this list. You people have taught me a lot, and my over-taxed brain is full of sore muscles. I'm grateful, if annoyed I can't understand it with less effort.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*
Norman, I wonder which one do you prefer:
The unprovable proof,
The Hypothetical reality?