The Un-reality of Reality
or is it the reality of un-reality
There is no observer independent concept of reality. Reality must always be interpreted from the vantage point or through the prism of whoever or whatever is observing it. Thus reality on its own can not exist without it being perceived and interpreted by an observer.
A case in point: If one goldfish swims inside a curved (circular) fishbowl, and another swims in a linear (rectangular) fishbowl, their view of the "reality" of the immediate world outside of their respective fishbowl would be substantially different. Could one goldfish "say" that its view of the immediate reality outside of its spherical fishbowl is truer or more factual than the view of his cohort inside the linear fishbowl?
Physicists like to talk about the concept of a "model dependent realism". The concept posits that a world picture or physical theory is a model that follows a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observation. This is true even on the sub-atomic realm (quantum mechanics) where a particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity unless and until those elements are measured by an observer.
From the above discussion, it would seem reasonable to infer or assume that the physical laws in the sun-atomic world also operate in the much larger cosmic world.
So what would this mean to our conception and perception of Existence. It is undoubtedly difficult to tease or separate Reality from Existence. To some, if not most folks (who are neither clueless or naive) reality and existence are one and the same thing, so much like what Einstein said about mass and energy. To exist means to be actual, factual, and true. All of these are the same parameters that we define and measure physical reality.
It is of course true that on the purely individual basis, what might be real to one may not necessarily be real to another. From that perspective reality is subjective. Existence on the other hand is always observably objective. One either exist or one doesn't in so far as one and all the other material entities in the cosmos are affected by the laws of physics.
I believe that despite the subjective/objective nature of reality/existence respectively, there is obvious unity in that duality, because they confer truth to one another.
Is it too far out-field to assume that the events that led to the formation of animate and sentient entities that now populate the reality that is the universe had meaning and purpose? These purposefull beings (observers) are able to perceive and interpret reality (be it sub-atomic or cosmic), thus imparting reality to a universe that otherwise would not have been real were it not for the perception and interpretation by those entities.
Would it be logical to think that the creation and subsequent evolution of those entities were not pre-ordained by the laws that govern the universe..... that these laws, from their inception, to formulation, to effectuation could not have on their own, produced what those animate and sentient beings now perceive as the reality of the universe including themselves.
Some physicists posit that it is in fact NOT logical to think so. In arguing that there are no miracles, they say that those laws were selected (by whoever....call him God) because they were the only ones that made "sense". Since miracles are non-sensical from the point of view of those laws, the whoever selected these laws could not possibly go against his own laws.