Look at this question, it means there is you (subject), asking (process) about reality (object).
How about this kind of answer, reality is totality of all subjects, processes and objects? Which means, when you're asking about reality you implying you're out of it, because reality can't ask about reality itself, as it doesn't "know" anything at all. If it knew something about reality, it would mean there was something else besides reality, but that's a contradiction, because reality embraces everything without exception. Actually, I'm committing the same crime along these lines, as you can see.
The conclusion is, we can't talk about reality without being contradicting. I don't think it's a bad thing, but rather demonstrates we can't be logical, discussing reality.
>But Earth is resting beneath our feet. At least my feet, when I'm standing still. Sure, that's another very interesting question of choosing a reference point. So, why should we prefer one reference point over another? The answer the book gives, is simplicity. If we chose the model where the Sun was stationary and the planets were moving around it, that would give us a more simple theory to explain the observations.
You may be asking, "but why should we prefer more simple and elegant model over another one?" The only (and a very unsatisfying) argument I can see here is it is more practical.
