Does Buddhism claim that our World is an illusion? In other words is it a Matrix? Any proof for this? I wrote this article: Do people leave in Matrix? Information, entropy, time and cellular-automata.

The article tries to prove that the visible world is an illusion or a "dream".

My question here is, is "the visible world is an illusion or dream" the main topic of Buddhism?

Also, the article includes a proof of the existence of a Higher Conscience. Is that in direct relation with Buddhism (i.e. the topics discussed here on this site)?

Also, if you found any logical flaws in this article then please mention/list them.
&quot;My question here is, is &quot;the visible world is an illusion or dream&quot; the main topic of Buddhism?&quot;
No, it's not the main topic of Buddhism.
From the Pali canon point of view, it's also not a claim of Buddhism that the world is an illusion.
In contrast, the main topics of Buddhism are the nature of suffering, the nature of pleasure, the ultimate freedom of suffering, and the ultimate pleasure (born from the freedom of suffering).
It's visible from the sutras that the Buddha refrained himself from making many ontological statements -- statements about &quot;what is out there&quot; and the nature of &quot;what is out there&quot;. And some people seem to believe he refrained from making any ontological statements at all, which may induce the idea that he regarded the world as an illusion.
In general, however, his concerns with the world starts when a stimulus is &quot;perceived&quot; -- when sense data is contacted. The nature or reality of what lies behind what has been sensed is not dwelled on. Thus, generally speaking, the formulations of the World from the Buddha are in terms of the senses.

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the origin and the passing away of the world. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world.
[...]
“And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. [...]
-- SN 12.44

When he doesn't ignore &quot;the outside world&quot;, it's possible that he could be speaking in conventional terms instead of positing a view, as in &quot;there's a house behind that mountain&quot; (and not as in &quot;that house exists and it's real&quot;, in the ontological sense). When he speaks of characteristics of &quot;the house&quot;, his focus arguably lies in what is perceived by the senses and his interest is in how these perceptions affect us.
The closer he gets to an ontological view (i.e. when the nature of the &quot;house&quot; is of interest) could still not really be about trying to pinpoint the actual nature of the thing &quot;out there&quot; independent of observer, but about the perception of it, in particular, associated with three characteristics: being subject to change, it's unsatisfactoriness as ultimate protection of all suffering and, upon inspection, showing a lack of ultimate stable essence.
On the other hand, he is known to have &quot;proclaimed the world with it's devas, Mara and Brahma&quot; against those who proclaimed otherwise, which is an assertion about &quot;objective reality&quot;. Also, he taught a moral law which distinguish between sentient beings and non sentient beings which seem to imply some ontological distinction. But I think the interest to investigate the non-subjective actual nature of things is generally lacking when such knowledge does not benefit the path to terminate suffering.
Finally, since Buddhism regards mind as a sense (in the same category as taste and sight), then even in a universe where all interactions are confined within ones own mind, Buddhism still applies.