Dear Adel,
I had read your essay a while back but had difficulty following your arguments, so I decided to wait and hopefully let some of the "sink in" before reviewing them again. Unfortunately, I still do not understand how you get QM out of your simulations. Note, I do understand that, since your model is built up from random events iterated many times, you get a probabilistic model, but it is not clear to me yet that this probabilistic model is in fact QM.
Perhaps it will help if I give some suggestions to help make it easier for me (and possibly for others) to follow your arguments:
1. It is hard to follow what you mean with some of your assertions. Take as an example the first sentence of section 2: "Reality exists hence we say it is true." What is true? Reality? But the kinds of things which can be true or false are propositions. Are you saying that reality is a proposition? Or did you mean to say it is true that reality exists? But then your sentence is schematically just: "p, therefore it is true that p", which is logically equivalent to "p, therefore p" which is just a tautology (i.e. it can never be false). Do you see how this one simple sentence can be confusing? And it is not the only example.
2. I think you spend too little time explaining how some specific aspects of your model map to specific aspects of QM. For example, in section 2, just saying "The lines d0,d1 are interpreted as a particle which can be any number as the Compton wave length" does not help the reader follow how this relates to the Compton wavelength because your model from the outset seems too dissimilar. It would help if you said a little more about how you see your model as representing the Compton wavelength. Remember you have invested far more thought in your model than anyone else, so just because the resemblance is obvious to you, it does not necessarily imply that it will be obvious to anyone else.
3. I think you take on too much at once in your essay. Instead of covering all of QM, some aspects of QFT and Gravity, it would have been in my opinion more effective to cover just one or two QM examples in detail. By that I mean really describing how every single little aspect of that simulation relates to the QM situation it is supposed to model. If a person is able to follow that, most likely it will "click" how your simulation relates to other parts of QM as well. When people can really understand those first couple examples, they will be both more motivated to try to understand your other examples and more likely to actually do when they attempt it.
I can tell you from personal experience that there is a paradoxical psychological effect here at work which you may not be aware of but should be: The more you try to show that your model encompasses broad areas of physics, the less likely you are going to convince anyone that what you are doing merits attention. That is because the more sweeping your claims, the greater the skepticisim on the part of the readers, and the greater the likelihood that they will fail to be able to understand what you are doing because they do not see the big picture that you see. My suggestion would be to start small: Try to really get a person to understand just one or two examples well, then you can go on with the other parts. Just as an idea, you could perhaps make a short youtube video in which you show both what you are doing and in which the simulation runs, and then while it is running, you explain what is going on.
I will ask specific questions about your simulations at my post, since you posted there.
I hope you found my suggestions useful
Best wishes,
Armin