"in the clearly definable way we normally understand"
Misquoting me and replying to that is the strawman approach, though I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misinterpreted me.
That bit doesn’t add to the assertion that something isn’t real, or that there isn’t an underlying objective reality.
If something doesn’t exist in the classical objective sense, then it means that something doesn’t exist or have meaning outside of an observer. It’s not empirical nor measurable.
That’s not the same as saying that the building blocks are quite different from everyday experience. It’s still measurable, real, and well-defined. Just not in the ways that are intuitive.
Of course it adds to the assertion, I was careful to add it for that reason.
Again, assuming good faith (despite your original unnecessary "strawman" tone), I will assume you were just mistaken in your omission or misreading of it.
Just because something isn’t the way we expected doesn’t imply that there isn’t an objective, underlying reality.
And that’s the heart of what nonlocal deterministic interpretations try to answer.
Given the chance.