We should probably call it something like “causalism”: using the word “real” to mean “that with which we could, in principle, interact causally.” I include the “in principle” because there exist, for example, galaxies that are moving away from us so quickly they will someday leave our light-cone. We see their light today, and that’s a causal interaction with the past galaxy where it used to be, but we understand enough about object permanence that we believe we have solid reason to infer there still exists a galaxy moving along the trajectory we witnessed, even when we cannot interact with it directly.
By hypothesis, it isnt the real reality. Effectively, you are defending physical realism by abandoning realism.
Pretty much, yes.
We should probably call it something like “causalism”: using the word “real” to mean “that with which we could, in principle, interact causally.” I include the “in principle” because there exist, for example, galaxies that are moving away from us so quickly they will someday leave our light-cone. We see their light today, and that’s a causal interaction with the past galaxy where it used to be, but we understand enough about object permanence that we believe we have solid reason to infer there still exists a galaxy moving along the trajectory we witnessed, even when we cannot interact with it directly.