Are we living inside a virtual world?

It may seem like an odd question at first glance, but the more we think about it, the more plausible it may be. Our daily actions really are just impulses going back and forth between our brain and our input sensors (eyes, hands, ears, etc), with the help of which we create an imagine in our minds.
But, can we be certain that things are the way they seem?
Can we be certain that the things we see and touch actually exist in physical form, in the real world?

Let's find out.

If we make the assumption that our brains are connected to an advanced supercomputer, that plugs in between our brain and sensory inputs, processes our electric impulses that go back and forth in fractions of a second, how would we be able to tell which signals are coming from our hands and which are being simulated by the supercomputer?
To visualise this better, imagine wearing a virtual reality headset, and while you are moving around in the virtual simulation, the supercomputer is giving your brain identical electrical impulses as your hands and feet would. The result is quite shocking (no pun intended), as you would have absolutely no way of knowing if your actual feet outside the virtual reality are moving or not.

For all we know, we could be laying somewhere, and while we think we are moving, we are actually physically still, but it is only the projection of ourselves that is moving in the virtual world and our mind.

If this were the case, how can we be certain that this is taking place?
Well, this is where it gets complicated. Assuming we actually are inside a virtual world, physics and various laws of thermodynamics can't really help us prove this, as they are within the bounds and limits of the virtual simulation. So there really isn't any scientific way to prove (or disprove) this, all we can rely on is something called Ockham's razor.
Ockham's razor is a philosophical principle, which dates all the way back to Aristotle, but was frequently used in medieval times by the philosopher William of Ockham. Simply put, if we have two hypotheses, the one that is ''simpler'' must be the correct one, as it is more probable.

Think of it like this:

We have a box that has a button on the outside. When we press that button, the lightbulb on the box starts glowing. So we can imagine two scenarios:

1. the button is connected to a battery and the lightbult, and once pressed, forms an electric circle, which in turn makes the lightbulb glow. Simple.

2. the button is connected to a battery and an electric hand inside the box, and once pressed, it enables the electric hand to move towards a second inner switch, which is the one that actually determines whether the lighbulb glows or not. Unnecesarily complicated.

Well, Ockham's razor solves just that. Because the first explanation is straightforward, and thus, more likely, it must be true.
The same principle can be applied to our virtual world dilemma. The explanation which involves a supercomputer, the stimulation of our electric impulses and all that jazz is overly complex. It's easier for things to be just as they are, and that is real. So, knowing this, if I grab an apple, and can feel it in my hand, with the help of Ockham's razor I know that I can feel it because the apple is (probably) real.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the matter, and as always, give a follow if you enjoyed my shower thought ;) .

-johnsons