I suppose therein lies the problem i.e. there's not a day that goes by that I question exactly that "what is real".
It's an inherently null question, that can only be covered with "what you think is real", because anything else is going to smash the kaleidoscope.
Lemme paraphrase that. Say Anton and Klaus looking at a wall that is painted blue. Anton might see it as red, and Klaus might see it as yellow, but both Anton and Klaus are going to call that wall "blue".
There is no whole and absolute truth/reality, since everybody will see it from another point of view. Even empirical data needs someone to read the data. If I am not aware of the data, it does not exist (yet), not in my reality.
Another example, you're looking for your lighter in your pocket where it always is. You search it, it's not there, you start looking in other places, other pockets, until you're half-mad, then you reach into the first pocket and the lighter is there. Now the science would suggest if it
really wasn't there, then the particles making up the lighter must have temporarily relocated. Even if you're 100% sure the lighter wasn't there, you will never be able to make this someone else's reality, since the data is only available to you, and for many this is
impossible data, however in particle physics this is one of the 101 principles, this can and might even actually happen; and even if you wrote it down nobody would believe it, unless they knew the same issue.
We deal with objective reality to be able to communicate, but essentially cannot trust anything within it. I mean I know I'm going to call red red, but if I see it as blue, I will never know. I will just know that if I call it red, people will agree that it's red.
