Marcoen
"Could you explain what you mean by "there is no way in which we can differentiate reality to the level at which it occurs".
The physical existence knowable to us (science is concerned with know, not belief, and know is the function of a physical process, not philosophy) involves physical occurrence and difference (ie there is alteration). Therefore physical existence is existential sequence, as that is the only way to encompass both. That is, there is a sequence of definitive, discrete physically existent states, which means only one (ie a reality) occurs at a time.
We know this because we know things change. But that is where our conception of what is happening goes wrong. We conceive of physical existence in terms of 'things', which then change in some way or other, but that is incorrect. Because we are conceptualising physical existence by virtue of superficial physical attributes, ie at a higher level than what occurs. Following the logic of existence/difference what ultimately occurs at any time is the physically existent state of something. This involves a vanishingly small duration and degree of alteration, which is only calculatable mathematically. Although I am never keen on making such assertions, there really can be no doubt that we cannot actually (ie in experimentation, etc, differentiate this). Or at least anybody who says they have needs to be treated with a substantial degree of scepticism. [Incidentally I do not think this is Planck either, because that is associated with light, remember we receive a light representation of what is actually occurring]. Put simply, chair, dog, etc are not entities which persist in existence in the same format, or with change, which is a contradiction. The superficial physical attributes by which we identify it persist. Chair, etc, is a singular physically existent state a any given time.
Now, if you have followed that you are probably thinking that this covers the ground of QM. Which of course it does, and properly, because there is only one form of physical existence, and existence does not involve any form of indefiniteness, which is what QM presumes. Just precisely how something can exist, but in an indefinite way, needs to be explained! And of course one of the rationalisations of this contradiction is then the role of observation, the problem with that being that what occurred happened before it was observed! The point here is that the logical outcome of physical existence has been misconceived, so it has become tainted as 'classical'/two-dimensional, and overtaken by the 'relative/indefinite' model, which is incorrect. That is, had the former been understood properly, then the latter would never have gained traction. But either way, the 'bottom line' of physical existence is not actually identifiable for real, only conceptually, which is acceptable so long as that is based on a valid model of physical existence.
Paul