Wow. I love that.

What follows is certainly some kind of logos that participates in this process of observation collectively.

Agreed. This process is a meta-web-log.

Unless we can refute time. Time necessitates ontology... but if time is refuted, i.e., remains a byproduct of gravity, then outside of gravity (past the boundaries of finite space) is a timeless present that does not require a creator.

I'm going to give myself some time to process this. I always appreciate your feedback.

I don't think tables and chairs are less real than atoms or particle states. I just think all of those things are the manifestation of one thing. If you had never seen a television before and you find yourself looking at two separate screens with the same fish -- filmed from different angles -- you might wonder what causes the fish on screen 2 to move at the exact same time the fish on screen 1 moves. Of course, it's the same fish, so there isn't really a causal relation going on.

I don't think we'll ever be able to predict everything that happens. But I do think that -- by definition -- a perspective with access to all the facts would be able to predict everything that happens. From that perspective there would be no such thing as chance, randomness, lawlessness, accident, etc. Can we achieve that perspective? Probably not. Can we forever move closer and closer to it? Why not?

...the definition of reality depends on who wants to know...

What you're expressing is the funcationalist point of view. That perspective has a lot of explanatory power. But it assumes that causality is a fundamental feature of reality. And I don't see how we can be intellectually honest and make that assumption.

My point about reality was that it's very subjective and fluid.

For reality to be subjective, then it has to be subjective from multiple perspectives. We have to wonder, how do these perspectives form? And what common thread holds them together? Most 21st century philosophers think the answer is language. Language is our information system. So while, in some sense, we feel that we can't know what another person's reality is, we all share the same information system. If we share the same information system, then we know -- with certainty -- a whole lot about another person's reality. So whether you want to go so far as to say that implies an objective reality or not, it undoubtedly implies a shared reality -- the intersubjective.

That's a fair assessment of what Copleston is trying to do. Let me try to defend Schopenhauer on this charge. From what I remember -- at the beginning of The World as Will and Representation -- he doesn't want to say that he has this experience of Being that he thinks is the ding an sich. He merely deduces that everything can be explained except that there is existence. So existence itself has to be handled differently from the chair and the table. It, as it were, underlies the chair and the table and everything we can possibly imagine -- including the imagination itself. So, Schopenhauer's notion of existence itself is purely conceptual.

So freedom of the will changes from simple choice to understanding of the hidden variable(s).

I think that confirms Petr Hořava's idea through a synthetic a priori judgment.

So we're not, as Copleston supposes, stuck with Kant's conclusion.