I am no quantum physicist, and even less of a philosopher. But I have a question.

Is it impossible to define reality in terms other than relative, that is, without relating to perception?
What is reality?
Are pictures real? Sculptures? What about stuff on TV screens?

Physics calls reality a state in which events occur, an event being something that has a position in the universe defined by four co-ordinates: three for space, and one for time.

Pictures exist. But their subjects are in two dimensions, and so are not real.
Sculptures have three dimensions. So they exist, and they are real. But what they represent is not.
They are not real because they do not have a temporal association with the universe. A sculpture of a man does not move, or age, or change with time. A sculpture may age, but not its subject.
Depictions of real things are reality immured in a facsimile, which in turn, is real.

Things on TV screens are two dimensional, they’re disqualified.
What about a sort of ‘three dimensional’ image? If I could project a holographic image, with sources of subliminal light placed all around, seen only when they intersect, and thus produce, say, a disc, which would technically be three dimensional, would it be real?
Ok, temporal association. Let me extend this, and postulate a sort of holographic TV. Would that be real? They would have three dimensions, and temporal association, of a kind.
(Incidentally, plays are real.)
No, they wouldn’t, because a projection of a tree is not like other trees.

So, real things are those that must not only have an independent three dimensional existence and have a progressive association with time, but must also conform to all the characteristics of others of their kind.

You see? You can’t tell if something is real, unless there is an original thing of its own kind for it to be compared with.
Reality is just an accident of perception.
If that is so, reality can only be a statistical concept.
‘This’ is reality because the frequency of people who call ‘this’ real is maximal.

I once read this case study of a man with schizophrenia who said that that he could hear the voices of ghosts. He had dialogues with his great-grandfather (who was dead, and whom in fact he had never seen), with Napoleon, and with his dead son.
He is what is called an ‘incorrigible’. He has been in a psychiatric ward for years, because he has remained obdurate in adhering to his own version of reality.

Who knows? Maybe he had it right all along, and we just couldn’t tell.