Answer C: None of the Above

Descartes is famous for breaking down certainty in the reality of the world by introducing the idea of Cogito Egro Sum, that is, "I think, therefore, I am." His first and second meditations were works of philosophical art. The first mediation rejects the perceived world as merely perceived and therefore possibly false, and the second meditation establishes that there is only one thing for certain, and that is that I exists because I am doing the experiencing. However, Meditations III and beyond look like finger painting compared to his previous reasoning. Meditation III in particular looks like a child put it together with Scotch tape and Elmer's glue. Unfortunately, it is off Meditation III that he continues with the rest of his work on proving that the world is real outside you (and not an illusion). Because of the sloppy reasoning of his third meditation, I am stuck with the puzzle of the observer existing certainly, and the rest of the universe being up for grabs. I addressed this question before, and I stand by everything that I said; however, I mentioned only two possibilities. To put them succinctly, Possibility One was centered around the idea that the universe exists independently from us, the observer, and Possibility Two was mainly focused on how you and only you exist in certainty. But I never mentioned Possibility Three (mostly because it hadn't come to me at that point).

Possibility Three: It Doesn't Matter (Neither)

Now, this may sound like a no-brainer. Of course it doesn't really matter, life goes on. Yet this is a special case, just bear with me. We assume that in our universe (or our perceived universe, as you'd like to call it), there is nothing that will empirically convince me with certainty that my experience is real in that the universe exists outside of me. In other words, there is no proof that the universe that the universe itself is real or fake. Nothing that you can observe anywhere will convince you beyond a doubt of either possibility.

Hold that idea in your mind, and let us pretend that there was something that indicated the reality of the universe. Imagine there was a ball that was red if the universe was real, yellow if it was not. Only the ball changed depending on the answer, and the answer would change nothing but the ball.

Now, obviously, there is no such ball in the universe. Because there is no such ball, that means that there is nothing in the universe to indicate whether or not it is real. This also means that there is nothing in the universe affected by whether or not that answer is true. Therefore, regardless as to whether or not it is real, the universe remains the same, because there is no indication, no proof of either possibility.

I just wish to point out that this is different from saying "who cares, it doesn't matter." This is saying that "it has no measurable or empirical effect on my consciousness one way our another, other that academic curiosity; which is not proof, but rather something directly affected by empirical evidence masquerading as proof." In short, this proves that it doesn't matter, rather than dismissing it as unimportant to your life because the question ranks so low in your philosophical priorities.

So there Descartes. It has taken me months upon months of trying to climb out of the hole you dug but never appropriately bridged. Finally, I have reached the cusp of enlightenment once again, and I want you to know, you were very little help. The ladder you tried to provide with Meditation III was shoddily made. Hopefully, I was able to provide my universe with a more concrete answer.