"There's nothing wrong here Paul.  Nice stuff.  But why should matter be discreet - and what is energy?  And flowing fields of WHAT?  Your vision begs more questions.  Nothing wrong - but we could skirt this forever - first proposing this and then proposing the next thing.  Surely it needs to be based on something that - in its essense is, at least, verifiable."

Typo.... discrete, and not discreet, as in "individually distinct"... Good catch, I completely missed that one.

Good questions:

The term "Energy" is used with the same abstract meaning as is used to describe a photon as a discrete packet of "energy". I know the term as used is vague at best, but it cannot be helped. Energy is used in my post to refer to individual quantized packets of the ultimately basic building blocks of both what we determine as "particles", as "photons"  and also as "fields". Therefore when referencing any measurable effect, you can look at the super-macro, macro, micro, or sub-micro, and ultimately be referencing the same "stuff" as being the material connecting all visible and measurable effects. Technically, due to scale of reference, both my conception and yours could be true at the same time, as I am looking at the problem using a different scale of reference.

The verification statement you made is absolutely true. But as you said, the macro tends to describes the micro.... which is evidence by inference. Beyond a certain point where accurate measurement fails, and direct observation is impossible, inference is the only tool available. Either by studying the comparably quite large and applying the concepts gleaned to the quite small, or through logical chains (if this is true then this HAS to be true as well).

Yet, considering this, no theory about such is directly verifiable, and all utilize inference as both a base for logical discernment and for evidential qualification. Not one person has ever directly measured an electron. Not for mass, volume, or any other base physical aspect as every single aspect you can mention is far too small to be detected on an individual level. Inference however allows the conceptual method for measurement, measuring these things through secondary means. Even the charge value of an electron is assumed, as it was given an arbitrary charge quantity initially to create a base for comparison.

The question naturally follows, as you quite well asked, "where do we stop"?

Well, if direct measurement is the criteria, then truthfully we all must throw away the proverbial notebooks and go back to Newton for a refresher.

If direct inference is the criteria, then we can ride this logical train to the last stop.

If indirect inference is allowed, then we can all go to Escher land. (Personally I'll get off the train at this point.)

A logical chain is direct inference.... so therefore how much of your own theory infers logically from the action, interaction, and behavior of something else?

The fact that I put it forth as mere speculation or at best a working hypothesis is due to the fact that the concept was derived logically by inference, as was yours.

That is also why I referred earlier to the fact that I consider both of our concepts as being equal in both possibility and probability, simply because neither concept can provide or be proven by direct measurable reference.

EDIT ADDED:

By "indirect inference" I refer to things which infer another, but not considerable as directly.

Pure abstract mathematics not actively measuring or quantifying real but instead imagined effects (speculative mathematics) for example can infer the existence of a thing that does not exist, as the mathematical outcome may be real, but has to be interpretively applied to reality by the mathematician and can therefore easily be a misinterpretation.

Philosophical, religious, and personal bias based inferences are all examples of what I mean as "indirect inference". There are no measurable or quantifiable reference basis for logical physical assumptions to be made.

Yet many choose pick and choose what defines "inference" often classifying "indirect inference" as "inference", and vice-versa. If quantification and qualification by inference is disallowed, then science itself would in effect be "knocked back to the stone age".

Paul Andrulis