The development is totally beside the point! What I have written down is the reasoning behind my model. What is significant is that I have designed a very specific model for modeling a set of numerical data. The model tells you exactly how to interpret a data set and exactly how to answer questions about that data set. There is actually no need for me to defend the model at all.
As I have said many times, my model is entirely general. What I mean by that term is that there exists no data set which cannot be analyzed via my model. All you need to do to disprove that statement is to conceive of a set of data which cannot be represented by my model.
(It has occurred to me that you do not understand how to analyze data with my model. If that is the case, you have to let me know.)
Having said that, the next issue is: is the model useful?. I say, lo and behold, a large percentage of modern physics falls right out. That is, I can define terms such that my model maps directly into modern physics and, when I do that, a lot of the "Laws" of modern physics turn out to be true by definition.
In your model of reality are those laws true by definition? If they aren't, you need to examine the consequences of your definitions more closely. Either your definitions are significantly different from mine or you have not taken into account all of the consequences of your definitions!
Furthermore, if your definitions are different from mine (which for the most part I doubt), you should be able to show how those differences manage to avoid the circular reasoning presented in my paper.
Finally, with regard to my opening position and the deduction of my model, I think I am simply over your head with my reasoning. I am of the opinion that my procedure is well thought out and that it leads inevitably to the model I have presented.
If you think that is not true, show me how you would propose developing a totally general model.
Have fun -- Dick