Is 'reality' Actually 'reality' ?

Not for everyone.

Bad boy . . . changing the thread title.

Sorry. I realised that the title wasn't completely relevant to the rest of the post. :/ sorry.

Reality whatever it is, figment or not, it is no more and no less real then the "real" it has been so far...whatever real addresses as a word, is there !

Whatever the case, figment or fact, Reality is simply whatever is the case. My guess is that General Reality is too much, too exotic and too subtle for us to grasp, but its infinite expressions are realities (rather than fantasies) so far as we "realistically" perceive and interpret them; as such they will work for us. Remember, desert mirages are real mirages so long as we recognize them to be mirages and don't try to bathe in them.

Hmm, I think off hand that I was a few years younger then 13 when that idea hit me but better late then never I guess.

Sorry I could not help myself, in any case as it is not something that you can test in any known way so beside as an idea for writing fantasy it is a pointless waste of time.

Unless you enjoy chasing your tail and from your postings so far that seem to be something you do happen to enjoy so more power to you.

Next we will cover how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I don't have a tail... :/ and ok good for you, I also had this thought when I was about ten but obviously not as deeply as I am thinking about now as it is quite an indept thought and something that can't really be answered.

What is that you cannot test I wonder ? Are people gone mad ???
Whatever is real is the very measure in which you can question what is to be real...

...what people actually wonder about without noticing is not reality itself but its direction...

lets make it more explicit as I suspect you did n´t understood a word...
..if you were to live in a dream questioning what was to be real, then the dream itself would be the real which you would be questioning...

You need to get something straight. Any word like "reality" (or "fact" or "right" from your other thread) only has value as a token of social exchange in specific contexts. Even your own internal conversations are aspects of self socially negotiating with other aspects of self. So the word "actually" in your title is meaningless because there is no ultimate negotiating position. Those who might advocate such a position fall into three basic groups, religionists, naive realists, and philosophers suffering from seminaritis.

The question is irrelevant. It is like asking, why is up, up and down, down. The problem with the question is not because you are asking it but because the way you are asking it borderlines incorrect perspectives. Just like saying up is up and down is down.

To break back into a very overly used term, reality is relative. But whom is it relative to? Us. Since we can not step outside of our reality nor avoid being in it, it is absurd to talk about it. Therefore the only reason we have the word reality, is to have a basis for talking about it as we know it.

So talking about our reality being the figment of another being is absurd because that being would be inventing so much information that really bizarre or strange occurrences would tend to arise or an inconsistency would occur. The fact that so far we have not found any inconsistencies except in religion, we can safely assume that our reality is not the product of another beings imagination.

Are you done trying to slip god into reality yet?

..."safety" being a function of specific context.

Whatever you suspect of imagining you might have the same problem. Everything supervenes on something. That you or the everyday world disappears when examined from a different scale, perspective, or theory-bias is no grounds to assume that your existence is any less valid than what is conceived or inferred from those points of view.

I'd say that if you are here to percieve in the first place, what you percieve will be what can be percieved. How you percieve it depends on how your consciousness is made up. What you chose to put emphasis on and to build systems of understanding to account for this experience from depends on cultural and social "programming", and it is only relevant within the cultural and social environments it grows out of. This is an ongoing process we all participate in.
So reality is indeed reality. But that is not to say that anything we think it may or may not be has any meaning beyond what we create for ourselves. The truth isn't really "what is", but rather, as fresco would say, "what works". What doesn't work simply isnt..

The only instrument we have to answer this kind of questions is logic. Whatever it is - reality is self-consistent. No one have ever caught the Universe doing strange things like breaking the laws of physics.

No. The question may be unanswerable.

No. Wave-particle duality experiments for electrons renders that false.

No. "Laws of physics" are constantly revised and delimited by new evidence.
They are pragmatic models, not divinely set in stone.

You mean Nature is consistent. Following the "laws" of nature merely means just that. It does what it does. The "laws" are not statutes that Nature "obeys." The laws are regularities that we observe and record, and then expect them to continue as expressions of Nature's consistency.

I agree with all your remarks. But I still hope the Universe is quite logical, noncontradictory and understandable substance at least there are no reasons by now to think opposite.

If we were to call the universe Krishna it would mean that the universe is the most logical and the most illogical, contradictory and non-contradictory, and as incomprehensible as it is understandable. Works for me.