In ordinary usage, ‘real’ is merely an antonym for ‘fake’. It’s probably best to collapse most distinctions involving the word ‘real’. The real question is, “Can you be wrong about a prediction?”, and then you can stipulatively label the thing that generates the experimental predictions “reality” if you’d like. The Simple Truth.
Yup. That link contains one of the simplest and most effective antidotes to non-realism I know of:
I need different names for the thingies that determine my predictions and the thingy that determines my experimental results. I call the former thingies ‘belief’, and the latter thingy ‘reality’.”
In ordinary usage, ‘real’ is merely an antonym for ‘fake’. It’s probably best to collapse most distinctions involving the word ‘real’. The real question is, “Can you be wrong about a prediction?”, and then you can stipulatively label the thing that generates the experimental predictions “reality” if you’d like. The Simple Truth.
Yup. That link contains one of the simplest and most effective antidotes to non-realism I know of: