Constantin,
Neither me nor most physicists believe in action at a distance in physics, perhaps because we are mind wired to believe in a causal world (which is most of my claim, that we live in an algorithmic rule-based world). Action at a distance was sometimes a common mistake some centuries ago when people thought, for example, that explanations about electromagnetic phenomena implied action at a distance among objects, meaning that nothing between happened but that things exchanged information somehow 'magically'. What we have witnessed with the help of science, however, is that everything seems connected to everything else in some sort or another, and scientific research has unveiled most of these connections in the form of unifications as I evoked before (e.g. light and electricity, or the movement of the planets and falling objects on Earth).
You continue assuming things that are not acknowledged by everyone (nor by most thinkers) and so I cannot really imagine a cloud of particles which does not interact with anything else, yet I never said that things don't have mass if they don't interact with anything else, but rather that mass as a magnitude (information) only makes sense when there is interaction with something else. Which seems to make perfect sense even in the equations (a body's mass determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by the gravitational field of another body).
For example, the current quark mass is a logical derivation from the mathematical formalism of Quantum field theory and not from a descriptive origin but as a result of an external calculation. At the end particles are regarded as excited states of a field so the interpretation of particle mass is only a partial description of the model itself. I'm not, evidently, an expert in quantum mechanics and my informational interpretation of quantum phenomena is only a little aside interpretation of my algorithmic view based in nothing else but the application of information theory to what I think is the equivalent of single bits in physics: elementary particles, if one wants to map them in a one to one relationship. This view has also the advantage of unifying one with the other instead of replacing one as more fundamental than the other, which has triggered much of the debate on whether matter/energy or information is more fundamental.
When you say "The process of measurement cannot create energy/matter", I may agree although, unlike you, I would need to think further about it. I think measurements generate or unveil hidden information, in what exact way the do, I do not yet know. I think claiming that 'a lot of particles fly in the Universe without interacting' is quite a bold statement. Modern physics bet on the contrary, that particles lie over something else. For example, string theory seems to suggest that particles 'touch' each other even if they seem not to do so, by way of having a greater dimension than what they seem to have, and somehow interacting in higher dimensions. The main assumption is that everything interacts with something else, and what I'm saying seems perfectly compatible with this, that if you isolate the smallest particle then it will not carry any information, perhaps not even of itself and therefore measurements lead to what we think are random values or spooky behaviors at that level of reality.
Thanks.
