The problem with your article is that it is just based on reasoning in a vacuum. It is not based on any repeatably measurable observations, and it does not allo

The problem with your article is that it is just based on reasoning in a vacuum. It is not based on any repeatably measurable observations, and it does not allow you to make any predictions about anything, or to meaningfully fill in gaps in existing knowledge. It uses existing vocabulary from physics, but just for superficial discourse. Entropy, locality, the Heisenberg principle, etc are not just concepts, but equations and definitions one uses to measure and reason about the physical world, which your article completely ignores. Tldr it'a woowoo "science"/"philosophy".