Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous.

[robvalue]

Here is how I view things, as I discussed with Hammy. I attempt to abstractly model and label things, that's all.

Let's assume there is some form of objective reality. I call this reality 1. I don't even attempt to say "how real" this is. I find such concepts meaningless and circular. So I can deduce that two objects are both 1-real, they are as real as each other. I can't prove it, I can just reasonably demonstrate it to be apparently the case. My car and my table, for example.

My imagination is reality 2a let's say. Anything in it is as real as anything else in it. They are 2a-real. Again, I don't even attempt to say how real this is, or that it's more or less real than 1-real. It's just (possibly) different. I'm not saying it necessarily is different, either.

I say 2a because it's fairly reasonable to put some other guy's imagination on the same sub-level. Joe Bloggs' imagination is 2b-real. It's just a way of arranging it. It's not an attempt to directly compare them, just to note apparent similarities.

And so on. I find this is a useful way of labelling, and it doesn't fail under solipsism. If nothing is "real" at all, that is fine. If reality 1 turns out to be an "illusion", that's fine too.