Kjetil,
Nice fundamental approach, nicely organised and argued, but not seeming to penetrate any new ground. However, I think it does so subtly. You refer to;
"elegant algorithms that explain everything with infinite resolution." and it does indeed seem to be the infinite resolution of the 'noise' between the 'wave peak' bits we use now that will provide the answers we need.
Also you say; "Every value that means anything for the universe is something rather than nothing." When applied to Godel's n-valued logic, this gives a Bayesian 'probability' distribution of values, that must mean something, not the nothing QM currently assumes.
I think you may enjoy reading my essay, and hope you do (I need the points)!). It constructs a realist ontology, is jargon-free (well ..'largely'!) and does have some rave reviews I could quote (ignore the off-putting Abstract).
Hope you get the chance.
Q; Is a spinning dipole 'donut' (torus), moving along its's axis (so describing a helix over time, corresponding to a 2D wave), a particle? or a wave?
Well done for yours. Best wishes
Peter