Pragmatists make judgements about the utility and elegance of paradigms.
I agree completely because judgements about utility are logical value judgement.
The word 'reality' adds nothing to those judgements. It simply acts as a marker of contextual agreement between observers as to 'what is the case'.
The word reality is necessary to put the paradigms in the proper context to make more accurate value judgments. It makes the markers we observe more permanent and accurate because science agrees they are accurate and permanent as far as our judgements about what we observe today are telling us. (when I say permanent I mean the laws of physics and the nature of matter has not changed since a short time after the Big Bang.
There is no point in pursuing an argument in which fail to understand that your position is based on a number of idiosyncratic untestable axioms. You are clearly enthralled by the 'patterns' humans observe in nature,
It is hard to discuss observation with someone who refuses to recognize the permanence of certain markers and patterns that puts the information in context which then causes him to eliminate certain philosophical view points that can lead to a more complete understanding.
but you fail to take account that observation is active i.e. 'constructive', not passive. Different brands of theistic spectacles are instrumental in constructing different attempts at 'the bigger picture' aka 'explanation'', It is not a matter of 'logic'' -only a matter of choice of axioms.
Could you please observe a "3 car garage" into existence for me then?
My wife and are struggling to observe it into existence with our constructive observance.
If, you are so sure that, your "active observing" is constructing the entire universe into existence, a garage should be simple. That axiom could prove to be very profitable if you can follow building codes accurately.