Reality is...

SCSPL Computer Language

Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language was stated this way:

Now, SCSPL is based on concepts cybernetics, automata and extension of communication models (Shannon's) to come up with Telic Feedback and mechanisms of employing the so-called generalized utility to achieve maximal cosmic self-realization and refinement.

Put simply, computation is used to model discrete systems and in doing this, one has to study membership, subsets, unions, intersections, complement, difference relations, symmetric differences. boolean algebra, Venn diagrams, self-similarity (especially when looking at fractal systems) etc.
These are concepts Langan heavily uses in constructing the CTMU and principles like MAP, syndiffeonesis, unisections, MU and others come to mind.

Under automation, when one looks at context-free languages in comparison to Langan's arguments concerning 'emergence' like when it comes to the idea of telic - ie pre-informational, pre-nomological and pre-syntactical phase of reality and the idea of reality emerging from the UBT.
About protocomputationability and about constraints emerging from a realm that is free of them etc, there seems to be a link especially considering self-organization of cellular automata from initially 'disordered' states.

Here is another excerpt:

Empirical/physical realty is not the foundation in the CTMU model; it is a part of the self-simulation of SCSPL reality. Page 42 of Langan's A New Kind of Reality Theory paper states "in effect, the universe becomes a 'self-simulation' running inside its own contents."”

From "Logical Equivalence Between SMN and SCSPL".
It has been quite a while, I thought something happened to you, welcome back.

Now we can get back to seeing what reality is today. :wink:
So truth is strictly subjective and on an individual basis? Delusions in the mind of someone is real if they believe in them or if they see them?

Perception is either a seeing or a belief/perspective/delusion/etc.

When the seeing becomes available, the psychology changes the perception of the mind, so reality is renewed including the object-level reality, where matter and perception combines on the object level while matter and God is more on the seeing level, which is most fundamental as this is where matter is distinct from object. Is this what M=R means? If so, how does the idea of universal intelligence (God) become the a priori or alpha omega?
Should we accept that perception=reality? If so, what is merely perception alone? What about brain=reality or better yet, mind=reality? How do we define the mind with science and does it even have a quantitative dimension?
Perception is most definitely not reality. The human eye can only see a fraction of the light spectrum
So most of it remains invisible to us. It also can not see anything at the quantum level which is also a
part of reality. And as for the brain while it can only process what the senses experience that can still
be compromised by subjective interpretation. Then perception is not an infallible indicator of reality
Well you asked the question presumably because you do not know what the answer is
Nothing I have said is false and in fact it is supported by both physics and psychology
If perception were not reality then there would be no reality from which perception can perceive. And there would be no consciousness in which an observer can be worthy of the name.
It would be more accurate to define perception as a limitation of reality because what we experience
is not all of reality just part of it. And reality can be defined as observable phenomena. This includes
all aspects of it which we know definitely exist even if they are not generally perceived by our senses
Can we now conclude that the universe is the mind of God?

Perhaps the mind is simply the body. And beliefs, ego.

Perhaps it is not that the universe is either mind (mental) and body (physical), but also ego...

One too big for an atheist to comprehend.

Perhaps reality is a psychological veil over the senses that prevents us from shutting up about it. When in fact it is but a word that if, non-existent, would be of no consequence.