Well my approach, as someone who is not a physicist but respects the scientific method, is to first ask what is meant by reality. If reality is intended to describe an absolute essence of all that there is then I would say yes. Science has described many of the physical foundations, to an extent, of all that we perceive. Purely on that basis, we could state that our notions of reality are nothing more than working assumptions that are perceptual abilities gather together and form working algorithms for our function within the physical realm.

But I’d like to go further, for the purpose of argument. For me there’s a kink here, that kink is “our perceptual abilities”, that which our senses respond to. What if, and for me that’s an assumption, there are physical planes outside of our perception? That is, outside of characteristics of energy, multiple dimensions, infinity of space and universe(s). Everything that any physicist may discover will be necessarily within the confines of our perception.

Let’s try, for a moment , to think outside of the limitations of hot and cold, fast and slow, light and dark, cause and effect, stimulus and response, causality, quantity. These are our perceptual LEGO blocks. Can we determine an essence that we cannot perceive?

Let’s assume for example that time equals, is the same as, gravity and that space and time exists as a totality. What is the physical foundation of space and time? And what is the foundation of that foundation? What ever the question, what ever the search, it will be limited by our senses. We always will be as the gnat crawls across the pages of War and Peace, looking for food, lacking the capability to experience literature.