> And the way I use "real" (and I think it is the same way the article used it), is whether something has any grounding in our universe (some pattern as you sai

> And the way I use "real" (and I think it is the same way the article used it), is whether something has any grounding in our universe (some pattern as you said before). Many of the things you described as "real" don't have grounding in our universe, i.e. things like "chair". It's possible I misunderstand your usage of the term "grounding". > For example, wormholes are possible following the theory of general relativity, but we don't know if they are "real", e.g. can there actually be a wormhole in our universe. If we do end up finding one, then they are real. If we however find conclusive evidence that they cannot exist in our universe, then they are not real, but only an artifact of our (incomplete) theory of general relativity. Sure, but how does that apply to spacetime? We know, so far as anything can be known, that space and time are two different perspectives of the same thing. Relativity described it, and we have measured and the effects it predicts with startling accuracy. Here's a question: It matters if wormholes can or cannot exist regardless of if the current model permits them or not. Does it matter if spacetime fits your definition of "real" or not?