Advaita Vedanta has an answer to your question. According to AV, "Brahm Satya Jagat Mithya." which means Brahm (or Brahman) is the only reality and the world we see is an illusion. Brahm is the all pervasive infinite indivisible motionless fundamental substance of the universe which is of the nature of Spirit from which entire universe is made up. When Brahm begins to move, it becomes energy. Brahm cannot be detected but the energy can be detected by the human senses. Computer you see is made up energy and therefore you can see. Molecules, atoms and electrons of the computer are in continuous motion. But underlying the computer is Brahm. Same apply to all living things.

Advaita Vedanta and the Big Bang, Prabuddha Bharata, vol.118, No.4, pp. 288-293, (April 2013).

Vivekachudamani of Sri Sankaracharya and Swami Madhavananda

http://www.advaitaashrama.org/Content/pb/2013/042013.pdf

http://advaitaashrama.org/Book/Detail/218

thank you for your answer. how do i know there is Brahm? 

however I did not find my answer. as i got by your answer the computer i see is an illusion which means this is what my mind makes up, there is no compputer out side only Brahm.  am i right? 

The book Vivekachudamani describes the procedure for knowing Brahm which is not very easy to do. Most people fail. Very few succeed. Sri Ramakrishna had knowledge of Brahm. What is called Brahm by Hindus is called Allah by Muslims and Father in heaven by Christians, Jehova by jews and same is experienced by Buddhists in Nirvana who do not believe in God.

The difference between Brahm and computer is like that between the Ocean and the ice in the ocean. Both are water. In that sense computer is real but not permanent. Where as Brahm is eternally permanent.

"Sri Ramakrisha The Great Master" by Swami Saradananda, (tr.) Swami Jagadananda.

"The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna." by Mahendranath Gupta, (tr.) Swami Nikhilananda.

Above books available across the world at Vedanta Society bookstores.

http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/links/centers.html

http://www.chennaimath.org/istore/product/sri-ramakrishna-the-great-master/

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Sri-Ramakrishna-Abridged-Edition/dp/0911206027

Mojtaba, in the Western tradition you will have to start with Immanuel Kant. Perhaps more accessible is René Descartes, who famously asked: "What if this nice, hot stove wasn't real and the feeling of heat was generated by an evil spirit who wants to deceive my sense?" (I paraphrase from memory). Check out his "Meditations on First Philosophy" which should be downloadable for free from Project Gutenberg or Open Library or something. When I describe Descartes as more accessible than Kant, that doesn't mean he is all that accessible himself! Kant is hell to read and almost impossible to really understand, but still the foundation of modern Western philosophy.

Kant sets out his Theory of Perception in the Critique of Pure Reason.[1] The core premise of this theory is that there are two aspects to the world of reality, the noumenal and the phenomenal. First, there is the world of reality in which exists ‘the thing in itself’ or as Kant originally expressed it, ‘Das Ding an Sich’, or the world as it really is.[2] It is from this noumenal world that our perceived phenomenal world is created. Our senses relay to our minds details about this reality which are mediated by those same senses, as well as by what Kant refers to as our a priori, or innate, pure intuitions, which are added together to produce the phenomenal world created in our own minds. The most important of our pure intuitions is space and time which we need to add in order to successfully operate in the phenomenal world. That is to say, we, using our mind and based on how the mind itself functions, add space, three dimensions, and time, past, present, and future to form a cohesive world in which we are able to practically function. This understanding Kant himself refers to as a ‘Copernican Revolution’. He has moved from the original position, that the world we experience is ‘something that is given to our mind’ passively, to the revolutionary position that the world, our phenomenal world, ‘is determined by’ our own mind, it is actively ‘created’.

[1] World Heritage Encyclopedia, Immanuel Kant, World Public Library, accessed 12th August, 2016

http://www.worldlibrary.org/article/WHEBN0000014631/Immanuel%20Kant#Other_work

[2] R. Blumenau, ‘Kant and the Thing in Itself’, p. 2.

i didnt get that dear Ken how you got it obvious that phenomenon exists? my question is I see a computer in front of me, right , I am sure I see this computer but how come I should know that there is some thing and after that there is an exactly a computer?   i know Kant says that there is a computer but this computer is not exactly what there is because this computer we see is located in space and time which are noeumenal world. 

Hi Mojtaba, no space and time are what we add to the noumenal world of the thing that exists in and of itself to produce in part the phenomenal world of our understanding. Time and space do not exist in nature we have created them in order to function. In nature no tree is left of the other tree until we add space to it so we can describe and interact with what we perceive.There is a laptop in front of me right now and it exists in and of itself in the noumenal world. But my perception of the laptop is mine alone because it is received and filtered through my senses as well as my psychological conditioning which gives shape to what i see before me. In other words it is creation of my own mind not a direct perception of the reality of the noumenal world of the thing in itself. And no two people can ever see the same thing the same way. Try this as an example. I see a stick in the grass, in other words I see a stick I believe exists in and of itself. But then the stick moves, it is not a tick it was a snake which actually existed in the noumenal world but because I stand between the noumenal world of actual existence and see the world as the phenomenal world because I add my own perceptions, my own beliefs about what i see as well as adding space and time my phenomenal world does not in fact align with what actually exists in and of itself in the noumenal world. Hope that helps, it is not easy to get your head around to be sure, cheers, Ken.

thank you Ken but let me recap what we discussed, we see phenomenal world through noumenal world, and what we perceive is not exactly the real world but phenomenal world. how do we know there is a reality? and how come if i say i see a computer but in reality there is a table that i perceive it as computer?

Mojtaba it is hard to get to grips with to be sure. How do we know there is reality? Well we know because we perceive it, of course it all could be an illusion of reality but if the illusion is perfect we would never know would we it was not real? Whether reality is the result of an evil genius or we live in a matrix or we live with an actually space and time reality is actually a mute point. What we perceive is OUR reality created by us ultimately by our own perceptions and no two individuals conceptions can ever be exactly the same. 

If the essence of the observer invariably shapes its observations, then the answer to your question is an unequivocal 'no'. Consequently, your question is also asking if the essence of the observer invariably shapes its observations. Obviously there are instances in which the essence of the observer does shape its observations, so it is the variance that is in question.

Dear Haris  you mean an spherical ball I perceive could even be something else,  an ellipsoid ball or something else?  am I right?

Dear Shahbazi,

I was originally thinking along the lines of how different animals have the ability to sense phenomena that other animals cannot. For example, I cannot smell things that other animals can. And how do we factor in mental illness that allows people to perceive things that others insist are not there. Or how does synesthesia fit into the mix. Each of our views is shaped by our essences. Whose view is closer to 'exactly what there is outside' and who decides?

In a quantum mechanical sense, consider the differences between an observer who measures a specific electron as spin up and its theoretical counterpart (in a different world, a different history, or with a different mind) who measures that particle as a spin down electron. At the time of the measurement these observers are physically identical so there is nothing about their essences that differentiates them except for the measurements they make. But, neither of these distinct observers is observing 'exactly what there is outside', since neither measurement is privileged over the other.

The privileged perspective belongs to the observer of the intact superposition of every possible state of every possible quanta in the universe. This perspective provides the observer with direct access to every possibility, everywhere at every point in time.