If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

I completely agree with this statement.What I do not agree with is how you jump from this statement to saying that we can somehow know or identify parts of reality that are, indeed, "absolute."What is your method of doing so? Let me start with something simpler, again, I like your Mona Lisa example The Mona Lisa we look at is either real or it is fake.
If the Mona Lisa is real, then it is absolutely real.
(I totally agree so far).But... how do we know that the Mona Lisa is real (ie... not a fake)?Maybe we watched it get painted and mounted and hung in our house.
But then... we went to sleep.How do we know it wasn't swapped out without our knowledge while we slept?We would get up in the morning, it would look like the Mona Lisa... but it would not be the "absolute" Mona Lisa.How do we get around such a problem with reality?
How do we know if reality is "absolute" or not without being able to compare it against something to identify such a tribute?What if reality was an illusion? Then, yes, that illusion would be "absolutely real to us".
But that's not the question.. the question is how do we know if reality is 'acting like it's absolutely real' or if it's actually 'absolutely real'?I think the answer is that we cannot know.
I also think that the answer is practically useless. Who cares if there's no difference?I do not care.But, just because I don't care doesn't mean I start lying to myself about what I actually can know and can't know.

My position has been whittled down to the nub of trying to defend the idea that there is such a thing as reality. It surprises me that I should have to work so hard at it.It doesn't matter what reality ought to be like or if this one is an original or not. Even a fake reality is a real fake. If there isn't a reality then there isn't anything. We perceive something and that's all I need to know for sure. Apparently, it is all probabilities after that.

Sounds good to me. Kind of.
I do actually agree that "if reality is absolutely real, then it is 100% absolutely real."I would just say that our knowledge of such a thing is all probabilities after that.Which is more a reflection on the way we currently acquire knowledge as fallible entities then it is a reflection on the "realness" of reality.

Perhaps this belongs in the probability thread but how would one calculate the probability of a stone falling to the ground when released from a height?

One would just have to gather the data from all stones dropping from such a height over all time, past and future, and then see which made it and which didn't.Since we do not currently have that information, we cannot currently make such a calculation.I agree that it would be nice to be able to 100% know-for-sure such things.
Unfortunately, reality does not have to conform to our desires.

Building the bridge to the sun was a lot of work too.

Or......... every conceivable outcome happens in it's own individual universe. A plethora of realities all equally valid in it's own respective frame of reference. Or not.

If this is right then we wouldn't be able to calculate any probabilities.

Can you give an example of some truth that does not rely on a tautology at it's core?

I like beer.Its after 4 o'clock here.I get to go home soon.When I get home I'm going to drink a beer.All 4 of those are true.

Hi Catholic Scientist,
q\I like beer= Subjective
It's after 4 here. = relative
I get to go home soon. =wishful thinking
When I get home I'm going to drink a beer.= prediction

As I'm sitting here sipping this beer I'm going: Gee, that didn't make any of those false.But I did notice the smiley...

No they are not false but where does the truth come from? It comes from our definitions and all definitions are essentially tautological. If it is true that you like beer then it is only true because you like beer.

That's exactly true.
Can you name a probability that we are able to calculate?Of course, we can calculate probabilities of things within a system we control. Like drawing a certain card out of a deck of cards.
Without controlling reality (or, at least, knowing all the possibilities) we cannot calculate probabilities.We can calculate probabilities based on past performance... but they always include that little asterisk since we are currently unable to know the future.

The definitions allow us to make statements. Its when those statements become circular that they become tautological. So, my statement would have to boil down to "Beer is beer", or to be more like the law of noncontradiction: "Beer isn't not-beer".But simply being made up of defined terms does not make a statement a tautology.