If something is ontologically real, that means that not only does a model describe something that exists, but it describes exactly how it exists, on top of that.

The question is: “In the cosmic computer that stores all things,” or, “In God’s mind, where everything that exists actually has its existence,” – how is the thing represented?

Imagine I hold a pile of salt.

Here are five possible ontological realities, only one can be true:

We can think of the question as, “What is the absolute representation of the information?” Since there is a Reality, the question is: “What is it really?”, regardless of whether we can actually know it or not.


“Does it make sense to talk about a GlobalBrain?” The question led to “AreGroupsReal?” Which leads to “AreAggregatesReal?” Which can turn into (if we are not careful) a question about the OntologicallyReal. In the GlobalBrain discussion, I (LionKimbro) bring up the question of the OntologicallyReal, specifically to negate the idea– to say, “No, by Real, I don’t mean that.” That is, “No, I don’t believe that groups are OntologicallyReal, and am not advocating that position.”

Questions of consciousness often times turn to the OntologicallyReal, since experience (careful: WhatIsConsciousness?) is perhaps the only thing that we can know for certain is OntologicallyReal – it “self-informs,” in a way, regardless of what causes it.


The position that we do not know what is the actual nature of reality, is called “Ontological Anti-Realism.”

DavidChalmers wrote a paper by that name, arguing for this position.


I am afraid that this is a ShallowPage. But, it’s a tricky philosophical point, and I want to make sure that it’s absolutely nailed.

Further, I can imagine that this is something we might talk about.