I think I have realised something fundalmental although simplistic as well. Anything we do is done within a model or system in the most general sense of the word. For example, we communicate with other people via a language which is a model. We describe nature in a quantitative way by using mathematics which is a model. Even our senses are capturing only a part of the universe. So what I am trying to say is that whenever we try to talk about what is real or fake in the absolute sense such as ontology and all that as if to claim what is really, really ... really true, independent of everytyhing else, is actually nonsense. What we can do is either define things within a model to be absolutely true (i.e. 1+1=2) or use models to describe and predict the world we live in such as measuring the speed of light and so on. But whatever model we use to measure these empirical quantities, we can never say what is really going on in nature because to do so would recquire a model and so you would be describing what is absolutely true in the model, not the empirical world. Even what I am writing now is done within a model but that does not matter its not like I have transended any model by stating this, its an intellectual observation although difficult to state and probably incomplete because I am restricted to the model I am using which is English although this model is general enough for me to talk about this. To sum up, any thinking is done in a model and you can't escape that. The type of model is arbitary, none is more special than another. One can only move from one model to another and so any claim is restricted to the model you are using. Any talk of transcendence, ultimate reality, God's thoughts, 'outside the model' etc. is communicated or thought about in a system such as English. This intrinsic feature rules out the plausibility of the above words.