When it comes to our worldviews, each of us perceives things from either a physicalist or spiritualist perspective. In other words, some people believe that spirit and mind play a role in their day-to-day experiences and even some in the supernatural, while others believe that nothing exists outside of physical phenomena. These philosophies, shaped by our perception, guide not only how we see the world but also how we make decisions and navigate our lives.

Because of these differences in worldview, people might have conflict over what constitutes reality. From most perspectives, we tend to call reality that which we can perceive with our primary senses—sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell—the tangibles of the world. And this is what ends up being so difficult for physicalists to reconcile: that there do seem to be phenomena that are not tangible. Don’t they exist, too?

From a purely physical perspective, we can look at x-rays, microwaves, and gravitational waves to see what is outside our bodily senses, but that exists nonetheless. Did these phenomena not exist before our discovery? Well, this is yet another valid theory, but that is for another post altogether. To stay on point, many phenomena exist outside our ability to perceive them with our bodily senses; thus, they reside outside our defined reality.

So, what do we call this realm outside of our reality, which exists but is undetectable by our physical bodies alone? What do we say of these phenomena, which are likely “out there” but that we have yet to discover through either theory or empiricism? We say they exist in actuality.

Actuality is a metaphysical thesis that accounts for extra-sensory existence beyond reality. In some sense, we know it is accurate, as my example above illustrates. Still, there may be controversy in our establishing this potentiality for the existence of other metaphysical phenomena, such as God, Spirit itself, Intelligence, a Force, and so on. Again, one’s predominant worldview – physicalism or spiritualism – will determine whether one sees this extrapolation as probable or poppycock.

We might say, “What you see on the surface of this particular problem may be reality, but in actuality, there is a deeper meaning.” This is a spiritualist worldview.

A physicalist, on the other hand, might say, “There is no deeper meaning – a spade is a spade – work to solve your problem and move on.”

Neither view is right or wrong, but it may lead to different approaches. Whereas one may lead to deeper self-reflection, the other may lead to more direct strategized thinking. One is problem-focused, the other, growth-focused. Again, there is no right or wrong, just different styles and perhaps different outcomes.

I happen to be a spiritualist thinker. I believe there is more than we can perceive with our senses. I have never cared too much about what one calls it, as I appreciate the human propensity to utilize symbols. But I believe the human mind attunes to a limited amount of information at any given time, despite the universe’s complete wholeness of everything (and more!) that our limited intelligence can comprehend. The human mind continues to evolve, so, of course, we will awaken to greater awareness of the universe’s actuality. But even then, because of the universe’s potentially infinite nature, we will always have to speculate on the discrepancy between our perceived reality and actuality.