How do we define what is absolutely real?

[Magical Realist]

I used to think it was anything that is measurable. That this is what shows us what is physically or absolutely "in-itself" real. But now I have reversed that position. I now think it is whatever CAN'T be measured or quantified. And that it's really only what happens to us qualitatively, being neither dependent on our awareness of it nor independent of it. As in two or more identical or complimentary states instantiating at the same time. Like how thru seeing color happens outside us and inside us at the same time. Entanglement?

When you think about it, the only things we ever really are able to measure are quantities---magnitudes---amounts--which are not real things but mere abstractions. Things like speed and mass and weight and interval and distance and volume and size and so on. That when we say we are measuring time we are not in fact measuring it but only measuring the amount of duration between two arbitrary moments. That when we say we are measuring space that we are in fact only measuring the length between two arbitrary points in space. Once again, magnitudes. Abstractions. Nothing real at all. Time is only real because it presences itself to us by our being in it. Space is only real because it presences itself to us by our being in it. Realness defined as the phenomenal happening of the qualitatively-felt state of being real. Constant. Continuous. And absolute. The I=I before the A=A. Everything else falls out of that.

[Ostronomos]

Demonstrate that is the case.  It is rather hard to do when you do not understand what you are trying to refute.

I'll set the stage for a proof. Materialism is false simply because existence must distinguish itself from non-existence in order to exist. The concept of non-existence implies that space, time and matter form a triality that have their limits at the edge of existence or the boundary of the universe. Although in string theory, a boundary need not apply to a four-dimensional universe. However, it still suggests that our universe is indeed finite. Due to the logic of non-existence, we can deduce that the universe is finite and has a non-terminal or infinite and eternal metaphysical domain lying outside it.

I wrote this when I was in a meditative state of mind:

As I understand it, freedom and constraint are the two states that underly the systems. UBT or unbound telesis is the infinite possibilities that reality has a relationship with - not sure how close the relationship is.

For those unfamiliar with the CTMU concept of syndiffeonesis - and it has already been explained at some length - it captures the interplay of freedom and constraint in a relational context. Synesis is distributive, deterministic sameness with respect to a coherent antecedent constraint such as a definite combination of law and state (and corresponds to an algebraic identity), while diffeonesis comprises differences among possible consequential constraints. This reflects the fact that bound telesis is bound freedom, and that imposing a constraint on freedom, i.e. logically binding it and conspansively bounding it, cannot destroy the essential nature of that which is bound. This is why the wave function is the fundamental unit of reality in quantum mechanics; the multiplexing of possibilities in the wave function is just absolute freedom expressing itself (through symmetric diffeonesis) within the bounds of synetic constraints consisting of laws and states. The wave function expresses the freedom of UBT within a distributed mathematical constraint consisting of 2VL and Hilbertian operator algebra. It is by virtue of syndiffeonesis that we can speak of the intrinsic structure of a medium. UBT lacks syndiffeonesis because it admits of no coherent distributed (syntactic) constraint; from the viewpoint of 2VL systems which take "singular" form with respect to it, freedom is all that it has in any distributive sense.

http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000363;p=3