The principle of bivalence, for example, is rejected not only by Dick but by many philosophers and logicians. That is why I favor a view that shows logical statements emerging from an undefined phenomenal reality. It is very simple and doesn't require all those 'complex structures' that you are advocating. An equation of a circle doesn't instantiate a circle, but it makes it possible for a circle to be instantiated. These collective truths partially correspond to mathematical statements and that is why we see correlation between physics and math.
True statements are simple.
They are statements that fully correspond with phenomenal reality and are fully coherent with each other. The exact definition of how all that works is complex, but the concept itself is very simple. It has terms such as dimension, basis, coordinates, metrics, etc to describe it. Mathematics spends a great deal of time describing 'space'. As always Paul, it's been fun.