[spot]

Ian, do you not think it might be more polite to allow people the space to explore their views without explosive bad temper like this being thrown their way? All anyone can do is to attempt to construct a coherent word painting. If you don't find it coherent then by all means explain why with factual support, preferably uncontroversial factual support. The one who makes most noise is usually the one messing the thread up.

You're stuck on a definition of "real", that's all - you're ignoring the issue of viewpoint. From inside you see one thing, from outside you see another, you're not looking at the same thing but you're giving it the same label. Obviously life's real from some point of view. Obviously reality is different from what you see if you look from another point of view. If there's one thing we've learned it's that there's lots of places to look from. If you describe a system from within the illusion as real then that's a perfectly valid use of the word "real". Why do you insist that, because other perspectives allow interpretations in which that "real" is only a fragment of the new picture, only the fuller picture can be discussed meaningfully? Every perspective has meaning. A flat image in the National Gallery isn't the real Madonna and Child but it's worth going to see, there are ways in which it can be called real.