[deleted]
Hi Cristinel, I enjoyed your essay when I got into it, rather than just taking a quick look. It is full of interesting ideas that you have clearly explained. I think the question you ponder, about whether fundamental is most foundational; And how foundational should be considered when seeking the fundamental, is good. It seems to me that though material things ultimately reduce to far simpler things, maybe it isn't that 'material essence','quark stuff' and maybe even still potentially differentiate-able existence within that (not yet known), which is (at least by itself) fundamental. In the sense of the 'vital ingredient" in allowing or providing the means for the happening of physics. Or that which is causal for the majority of physics. You are talking about the particles themselves as fields whereas I have been thinking about the matter being differentiated from the ubiquitous existence and there also being fields within that. Affected by and affecting the matter and fermion particles.
Another section that particularly resonated with me was that about the number of particles of the standard model. It was a subject I had thought of writing about. As I wonder whether all of them exist naturally. As for some, they have been observed (or evidence of them has been observed) under extreme conditions. Which makes me think that they have come into being because of those conditions. There is perhaps also a desire to have a particle for 'everything'. I was thinking about perhaps irreverently comparing the classification to the deities of Terry Pratchett's Discworld. Two I found in particular are Anoia, the goddess of things that get stuck in drawers and Nuggan, in charge of paperclips. (Never mind if it seems irrelevant, it amuses me.)
Getting to Indra's net at the end, mind already boggled, I thought it was fascinating, and bizarre, not as I see it, the way forward. Though it was an incredible journey and I'm grateful for that. Well done. Kind regards Georgina