My personal opinion is that you include in “reality” a lot of stuff which is very imaginative; however, if you contend that is the correct definition of reality I am willing to avoid use of the word. Certainly it is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the collection of all observable objects and their behavior.
The mental model I am referring to consists of the entire collection of observables of which one could be aware. I was under the impression that such constituted the actual information any valid scientific thesis is to explain. This is the mental model I refer to as the mental model of the universe underlying any scientific attempt to explain our experiences.
My point #1 consists of the statement that acceptance of that mental model, in no way constrains any explanation of anything. Your apparent refusal to accept that point appears to be based on your, in my head, rather strange definition of reality. I presume from your response that you are holding fast to the position that there exist valid scientific explantions of phenomen which are inconsistent with the collection of observables which one could be aware.
I really do not understand the logic behind your response nor do I understand your statements made in defense of that position.
>>Dick: This constitutes the actual information any valid scientific thesis is to explain.
Harv: Not for me.>Reality includes everything both known and not known.>It includes observables and non-observables.>Causes and effects.>All time dimensions and all space dimensions.>... etc etc.> And in my view, it includes God and a divine order that I believe exists as a result of his existence. Reality is everything. The direct observables that humans experience make up a very small small percentage of that realm.