Alan, (I am really sorry about the length of this, but give it a chance)
I just opened your essay page this morning and it said different things from what I had expected.
(Not being a Physicist) It would be remiss of me to say technical things about your model. But perhaps I can comment on a theme that motivates (you can correct me here, if you wish) your essay. It is your claim that..."On the contrary, it is argued here that pictures of real objects moving in real space provide the proper basis for physics, and that mathematics merely provides quantitative models for calculating the dynamics of these objects..." (Btw, I did read the whole thing.)
As I went through various observations I could make regarding your main thesis, it became evident that those would be the same that I made yesterday on Ken Wharton's essay page. Being the author of it, I felt sanctioned to copy certain parts of it here.
"...perhaps physicists' intuition ought to be given greater weight... The reason for that is that in the absence of patterns, paradigms, structures, etc. that make sense to us and which we can manipulate in our minds, physics may become a (proverbial) victim of its own success.
Here is how it would work. Say that things get so esoteric that only computers can generate theories and proofs (by now you know where this is heading), and humans can no longer see why any of it makes sense, nor can they follow the proofs. Computers may propose new theories, but those will still have to be tested against the real world. Given that there can be a myriad of computer-generated theories, and that we will not know which ones to follow up on first, it will present us with various quandaries. Experiments take time, and may only get more expensive in the future. We will not be able to afford to test all of the new theories, nor be able to pick only viable ones for experimental confirmation.
Unless we come up with a ToE to program the computer with before switching to autopilot, we will become dependent on the computer to divine the correct theory solely from mathematics. I am extremely skeptical about any claims that "mathematics alone" can figure out the universe without checking with it (the universe), and I am not getting on an airplane without a human pilot sitting somewhere near the front.
I would also like to draw your attention to a part of Sophia Magnusdottir's essay. You may have already seen it. She proposes that an "analog" method might obviate the need for mathematics in at least parts of physics, perhaps even those not well matched to known mathematics. An example might be adiabatic "computing" already in use. This could certainly work in principle, but since you will still have to measure at least the relative "scale" between the two systems (one being the subject, and the second being the solver) to get the result or prediction you are after, it may not provide all the tools to do physics.
Your central point appears to be unassailable. For at least any foreseeable time horizon, mathematics will be indispensable for physics."
I think all readers would benefit from going to Ken Wharton's essay page (and, for that matter, to Sophia Magnusdottir's).
This next part is solely to follow up on your response to Ed Unverricht:
Alan M. Kadin replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 21:33 GMT: "...Within my picture, all spin-zero particles must be composites of two particles with opposite spin, similar to a meson which is a quark-antiquark pair. That would suggest that what has been detected experimentally may not be the desired Higgs Boson..."
Alan, you have some company in your contention that the putative Higgs Boson might not be what it is purported to be. Now, you may not want to be associated with some of them, but they deserve a second look. Already, on Wednesday, 04 July 2012 13:41 (European time), almost immediately after the big Higgs announcement, Peter J. Carroll (on www.specularium.org/component/k2/item/58-higgs-or-not) made this statement (among others): "This particle could well consist of a composite entity like a top-antitop meson rather than a truly new fundamental particle."
Now, I have to warn you, you will be turned off by Carroll's other interests - but you ought to look for the "diamond." Carroll has some interesting physics, and less interesting "magic."
Now, for a more comprehensive argument "against the Higgs" you ought to look up Eli Comay's webpage(s). At the very least, you might discover that he is really smart.
It is easy to label those with whom you disagree "cranks." Yes, some people's systems are internally inconsistent, and/or not based on reasonably established facts about the world. But if a model or theory is internally consistent and not convincingly contradicted by "facts" (which can keep changing), the most one could say is that he/she was wrong.
Calling proponents of coherent and consistent ideas cranks would be like calling Bohr a crank should his ideas be disproved or simply superseded in the future. Bohr was a serious scientist, and I am quite sure he was sincere in his quest to find the "truth" about our universe.
En