I still think you are trying to figure out what reality is, and I can tell you for sure that Dick's paper is not about what reality is. Not at all. If you read Dick's paper and get the feeling that he's making claims about reality, I can tell you with absolutely certainty that you are misunderstanding him.
I know it's not clear. I know Dick seems to be making claims about reality. And I have chided him for being such a lousy communicator. But the truth of the matter is, his paper does not describe reality in any way. If you don't want to take my word for it, ask him. I know he'll tell you exactly the same thing, because I'm just repeating what he expressly told me!
Now the fact that his paper does not concern reality does not mean it's irrelevant, and that for a very simple reason: it happens to look a heck of a lot like modern physics!
I'd like to see an intelligent person realize the consequences of that. To this day I have only seen intelligent people criticize his paper for the wrong reasons, and that unfortunately includes you Alan. For instance, I can't even remember how many times people have criticized him for defining reality as a set of numbers when that kind of criticism doesn't make any sense at all. It almost makes me despair when I see intelligent people denying someone their freedom to come up with arbitrary definitions. (don't expect me to explain what's so ridiculous about that; Dick has tried before and consistenly failed, and I don't have his patience)
Anyway, the bottom line, all I wanted to say to you is: if you think Dick's paper says anything about reality, that only means you didn't understand it.