Florian Rivoal writes:
 > >What "world"?  What do you mean by "not comply to reason"?

 > world= reality, if this does have a meaning. Reason may not be an
 > absolute and unfailable rule.

> I can not explain, because i am saying that those questions may be
> (i don't say they are, just they may be) impossible to understand
> for a human mind. I mean our mind may not be capable of thinking
> accuratly. Don't ask me what definition of exist could match this. i
> did not say descartes was not inteligent enough to find it though i
> am, i say human mind may be unable to understand. So to me, any
> philosophical demonstration can concluded : it is reasable to think
> that..., but it can not concluded : i prooved that... Nothing is
> prooved since you have a least use one postulate: reason is
> unfailable.

But "existance" is a human term with a particular definition.  If
human reason does not hold in this nebulously defined "reality", I
don't think such a term has any meaning.  One must accept reason
before one can use such a term; if reason is abandoned, the question
"does my mind exist" no longer has any meaning.  To put it another way
- if it is possible to say that my mind doubts but does not exist,
then the word "exist" no longer has the same meaning.  If your mind is
doubting, then either it exists or "existence" is a false concept,
like a square circle.

Incidentally, you're spelling the word "prove" sensibly in accordance
with English spelling rules, which in this case (as so often) is a