We don’t, but this world seems to be my most persistent illusion ~ hence it is worth exploring.
Nonetheless, it does not merit to be taken too seriously. One counterargument many people offer is that consequences are more “severe” in the real world. It wouldn’t be hard to engineer a video game with severe consequences — it is trivial to program a defibrillator to function when a person “dies” in an action video game. Just accept the “force feedback” wheels as a more complex proof-of-concept.
Life must seem very severe to an average citizen of North Korea, but that is every bit as engineered as the easier life afforded by the “developed” world, which is essentially arbitraging inadequately priced natural resources for the past two centuries. Imagine you’re in an island, and you’re cutting down all the trees for energy, and using the clean pond of fresh water also as a toilet & dumping ground. The world is essentially such a closed system, and if we priced these goods adequately our GDP might just go POOF!
But let’s go back to the answer: This world seems to be my most persistent illusion ~ hence it is worth exploring..
Distraction 1: Ergo, It is worth doing science – even if science is not objectively objective, whatever that means, I’ll take airplanes, imatinib, electricity, and wifi as sufficient proof of worth. If philosophers are merely making sociological observations regarding the practice of science, well, that’s a sad state of affairs (I’d really like to come back to this topic with a book level answer, although I have my suspicion that it is no more worthy of debate than convincing literal minded folk that water cannot really turn into wine and so on. The rigor might be wasted.)
Distraction 2: There is an also argument to be made within the above answer, for playing video games guilt free.