This is a tongue-in-cheek piece that i wrote, um, 8 and a half years ago. I found it randomly blu-tacked to the inside of my cupboard and i cried with laughter when i read it. It is rather crude and seems to follow no real course athough i think i did a rather good job of addressing a question that has stumped philosophers for thousands of years (and, imho, will continue to do so for thousands more). I also touch on the anthropic principle (that the universe is the way it is because if it were not then we would not exist and/or be able to enquire into the nature of the universe). As far as editing goes, i have tidied up some of the grammar/punctuation but the majority of the document remains intact (it is assumed that there are only 4 spacetime dimensions). If nothing profound is gained, i hope you have a giggle reading it......
Reality Is.
Life, as it is commonly known, is simply a term to define anything we really don't know about (e.g. "That's life"). Death, therefore, is a term defining everything we already know about.
Reality is also a term defining the boundaries of dimension. As dimension and the perception of the dimensions (inc. time) are unique to the individual's thoughts and the state of them, reality is relative to the individual's thoughts, consciousness and perception.
Infinity and probability are basically a load of crap and were invented, also, as terms. But these just confuse everyone (except some 'experts' who just think they are not confused and actually believe in them).
Thought, as it is 'there' yet cannot be seen, touched or smelled could be defined as a dimension (i.e. it interacts with the first three, space, and also obviously the fourth, time). This leads to the conclusion that reality is relative to reality. Which, in turn, suggests absolutely nothing about everything (where nothing and everything have defined parameters in the relative reality).
As relativity is a part of reality (i.e. encompassed within), this leads us to know less about nothing. Knowledge is a part of thoughts, consciousness and perception. This leads me to the conclusion that what we know and think (and what we don't know or think) are irrelevant and reality can only be defined once it has a model to define to (which can only ever be itself).
So, my point is we know nothing of the nature of reality. We don't know what it is. But, what we know is irrelevant. Therefore, simply, and with no 'proof' we can say: Reality is.