Even in modern-day quantum physics it's becoming increasingly clear that reality exists only as infinite potential, merely "collapsing" into a perceivable form upon perception. I'm not saying that the finite forms you've brought to the table don't count -- I'm saying that all finite forms are perception-imposed "collapsations" of the infinite reality, or the "noumenal realm", as Kant referred to it.
Also, Evan, if you (and I use this pronoun in its general, not specific, sense) carry about a notion of "reality" which allows for the idea that it could be suspended in non-reality, your conception of reality is still too tied to your finite, human experience of the infinite reality. The point, when worded, is simple: non-reality cannot exist. However, coming to terms with this simple truism involves imagination and mental effort to truly grasp. I'm not saying that I'm a genius and grasped the notion intuitively and immediately; when I first encountered Kant's formulation via SW's posts, I dismissed it. It was only after literally months of reflection that the undeniable strength of Kant's formulation became clear to me.
As Bryan Magee points out, while Kant was unaware of it, it was in this formulation that he had essentially tied Western philosophical thought with Eastern. The Buddhists, for example, spend years learning to, as Jung phrases it, "[empty the consciousness] as far as possible of its contents" in order to experience on some level that we, conscious beings unknowingly adhering within an infinite reality, are merely "the greatest thought thinking only of itself". (I forget whose notion I'm paraphrasing here. If someone could help there, it would be appreciated.) Because perception requires a reality to perceive and reality must be perceived in order to have a form, at some ultimate level which is unfathomable to us, reality and perception are one and the same. Our finite experience is reality regarding itself in a mirror.
I'll admit that it's my inclination to lay these points upon the table and allow people to regard them as they will; accuracy in speech is a help to an extent, but only to a limited extent. There's a reason why the Buddhists utilize koans rather than logic puzzles and treatises.
(Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that I consider Buddhism the "one true religion" or anything of that nature. Like any reasonable religion, Buddhism was founded by an individual or individuals who'd discovered a method to experience, to the degree that we are able, our place in the infinite reality. Do to the nature of speech- and/or writing-based idea transmission, this person or these people transmitted their ideas in terms and notions intimately tied to their cultural surroundings, "decorating" the original experience with thought-baubles which are not inherent to it. Also, over time their message was misconstrued and consequently cluttered with meaningless rituals, like any other religion.)