And so usernamexxxxx knows what i mean by wasting time: if you are correct and nothing can be proven (how do you scientifically prove this? --who knows, but it would be more practical to figure this out instead of arguing in circles....) then living your life on this assumption will garner you nothing, while buying into the lie(?) that can't be unproven will garner you experiencess you wouldn't have choosing the non-route.

To solve this problem, Place called attention to the "phenomenological fallacy"—the mistaken assumption that one's introspective observations report "the actual state of affairs in some mysterious internal environment."

Proof only exists in purely axiomatic systems (e.g., mathematics). Empirical systems have but evidence, since observation must be assumed to be veridical (should one aim to avoid solipsism). Therefore, you have not proven  anything (that genuinely corresponds to the observable universe). Furthermore, your hypothetical is so far abstracted from reality that its meaningful connections to reality, if any, are not at all apparent (which, according to your criticism of my use of language, is entirely the fault of yourself).

Regardless, I have shown that - at least, within the context of your hypotheticals - reality has to be framed around money (perhaps, via a plutocratic hyperreality) for it to be anything but an instrument of augmenting the abuse of scarcity to one's (perhaps, a plutocrat's) advantage.