The reality of reality

sooooooo I was having a debate about reality in which I presupposed that the reality of reality is an imaginary idea that we have constructed in order to make sense of a world in which reality doesn't even really exist.
The reality of "reality" is that there is no reality and there are no facts, only assumptions whose existence is dependent on the paradox of symbioticism (I made that word up, but you get the idea, and it SHOULD BE A WORD because YOU can use extrapolation to extricate its meaning from its root word [symbiotic], but I've had this argument already so I'll opt not to digress, even though I already have.....).
A fact is something that is self-evident, that is proven, that we know, and that we can use to form the core of our hypothesi, theories, principles, formulas, equations etc. We know that a fact exists and therefor we do not have to go through the painsaking process of proving that it exists. However, the fact of the matter is that a "fact" only exists when it is considered in realtion to other "facts."
Reality, which is factual, only exists in a perceptual sense.
For instance, we know that global warming exists because we see it happening, becuase we see glaciers melting and polar bears dying, but what if we couldn't see the effects of it? Then would it still exist? Would pollution still be causing the ozone layer to depleat? We only KNOW that it exists because of perceptual clues.
Likewise, did death exist before the first person died? Or did the act of dying only enable us to know that death existed because it BECAME a reality.
On the other end of the scale, does time-travel exist just becuase it isn't real now?

Schrodinger's Uncertainty principle can be used to prove this. According to the uncertainty principle, the momentum and the position of an electron cannot be simultaneously known given the fact that the electron is a perpertually moving object in space. If we know its momentum then we cannot know its position because it has since moved. If we know its position then we cannot know its momentum because we are calculating position according to a series of set coordinates that do not move.

I think that knowing this about subatomic particles enables us to deduce information about life in general because life as a whole is in a constant state of motion because we are made up of matter which is made up partially of electrons. I think if I remember correctly "What the Bleep do we know?" discusses this. We assume things are real because we need to be able to make sense of the world. We are living in a fictional universe that cannot be proven based on facts. (which is an argument for religion, but I won't get into that).

Another piece of evidence against the reality of reality is the observer effect. If reality is perceptual, if things only exist to us if we can see, hear, smell, touch, taste, or if we can learn about them, or read about them, then the mere act of "observing" them changes them.

also... this is cool.... in Star Trek, time-travel was plausible because they invented a machine called the "Heisenburg compensator" which was able to capture particles in motion (in essence, to know the position and the momentum of a particle) and transport them into another time.

another also, here's a quote from A Beautiful Mind that proves the futility of trying to put a finger on the reality of reality:

Nash made his own agenda quite clear. 'To me one of the best things about the Heisenberg paper is its restriction to the observable quantities. I want to find a different and more satisfying under-picture of a non-observable reality.' It was this attempt that Nash would blame, decades later in a lecture to psychiatrists, for triggering his mental illness- calling his attempt to resolve contradictions in quantum theory possibly overreaching and psychologcally destabilizaing."


sweet stuff.