En réponse à Andreas Johansson :

>Eh, no. It doesn't say anything about what other things there may be in
>the "real world" - the ego _could_ make up the entirety of it, but there's
>nothing saying it does.

Except that in order to populate your definition of "real world" of other 
things besides "ego", you have to *assume* their existence. And don't 
forget what you said (I paraphrase): the real world is what I *cannot* not 
believe it exists. Well, under this definition, "real world" *has* to be 
"ego", since it's the only thing one *cannot* not believe it exists. 
Whether it's populated with anything else is irrelevant. You gave a 
definition, I gave the consequence of it.

>What's your definition?

I consider the expression "real world" to be meaningless in most cases. The 
only times you will see me use it is as the expression "Real World(TM)" to 
refer to things I do when I'm not in front of the computer (in times when I 
simply live, I don't bother with the objectivity of reality or whatever. 
Even if this is a dream, I'm not aware enough of it to do whatever I want 
in it, so I don't bother trying :)) ). Otherwise, I don't use this 
expression and don't have a definition for it.

Christophe Grandsire.

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.