Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but reality exists independent of belief or acceptance. However, a belief in whether or not a person can change that reality at some future point, I think is a more accurate description of the quality you're describing.
While generally you are of course correct, this is not always the case. Some facets of reality have been willed/believed into existence. Nations and social orders are real, but only exist as long as people believe in them. For example, when in 1991 people stopped believing in the existence of the USSR, it was erased from the objective reality in a very brief span of time.
It can be similarly argued that the modern income/opportunity distribution owes its continues existence to the fact that enough people believe that it exists and is lawful.
Do you object to the notion that the USSR, like any country, was in a way an imaginary entity, or to the notion that it mainly ceased to exist because the its citizens decided to imagine something else and actually pulled it off?
> When you go too far up, abstraction-wise, you run out of oxygen. Sometimes smart thinkers just don’t know when to stop, and they create these absurd, all-encompassing, high-level pictures of the universe that are all good and fine, but don’t actually mean anything at all.
