Dear RJ,
A fascinating and nicely argued case for, in some ways, the logical conclusion of Wheelers proposal. Slightly unexpectedly I did find, at one level, great agreement with your argument. Certainly all we 'see' is information, which consists of quantum fluctuations. As 'matter' also only ultimately consists of quantum fluctuations then there is certainly an argument to put, which you did well.
I certainly find your conclusions such as; "that time does not slow down, only the rate of physical processes vary" agreeable, but would suggest that also 'apparent' time periods derived from information emitted by a clock in co-motion can be changed, giving the false impression of the clock running slower or faster. Then simply Doppler shift of the 'wavelengh' containing the information.
I use slightly different definitions to distinguish it from bit in my own essay, but indeed can't see any fundamental grounds for insisting there are 'lumps' of 'stuff' distinguishable from complex 3D fluctuations at the smallest scale. I've previously characterised this as simply 'change' or 'motion', but of course that is anyway the foundation of the bit. I certainly also agree there is no reason to preclude a 'medium', or 'condensate' as I prefer to call it to distinguish it from condensed 'matter'. I've also shown only the 'absolute' quality had to be rejected, not the Local) background itself (last years essay).
I think too many just score on what they 'agree with', which misses the point. Consistent and well argued 'out of the box' thinking deserves encouragement per se. I hope you agree mine, though quite different, also uses that approach. I believe I find some important truths. You also make some interesting further claims, including FTL, which I've also derived as both apparent and relative, but not as a propagation speed. I look forward then to perhaps looking over your book once I've recovered from all this essay reading!
Best of luck.
Peter