What my analysis amounts to has absolutely nothing to do with predicting a result. The results can be absolutely anything. It is no more than an analytical method of keeping track of old information and adjusting for the existence of new information as that information becomes available. That is why I refer to it as essentially analogous to the Dewey decimal system. It is no more than a mechanical procedure which guarantees that the whole total of the information being expressed is in an internally consistent form.
Using my procedure, Physics reduces to a very simple statement: "if you saw it a lot already, you will probably see it again". In other words, the only prediction made is that any new piece of information will most probably fit into the patterns I have already seen and described. Think of it as no more than a simple method of keeping track of patterns.
No one on this forum has even begun to comprehend the essence of a question I asked a long time ago. "How does one tell the difference between an electron and a Volkswagen?" It seems they "just know" without thinking about it (an example of thoughtless over dependence on one's subconscious)! The correct answer is that when the word "electron" is used, it carries with it a whole collection of attached concepts which your subconscious keeps track of. When the word "Volkswagen" is used it carries with it a completely different collection of attached concepts. Both cases are little more than definitions of or constraints on information or patterns of information considered to be in context.
When someone asks, "do electrons exist?", they are, in reality, describing a very complex set of related information and asking if that complex arrangement of information (or data, or concepts or entities) can be found in your mental interpretation of the universe. (The same is true if they ask "do Volkswagens exist?") You define these patterns because you find them useful to keep track of what you know.
Many of these patterns are figments of your imagination created to provide a scaffolding upon which to hang those complex sets of related information (related only because the collection happens often enough to be of interest to you). Often, these figments fail to be internally consistent with the complex set of related subconscious information required to specify what you are talking about (phlogiston for example) and they must be rejected.
Now that brings up an interesting question. Suppose a pattern created by your imagination happens to be internally consistent with all the related information required to specify what you are talking about? Does that mean it is real? That is the proof presumed by all physicists in their experiments. Actually, it is of no real consequence whether it is true or false. If it works, who cares if it really exists or not.
The only real consequence of such is that it might prevent thought about other possibilities. From that perspective, if we really intend to be good scientific investigators, we should be very careful about exactly what we have made up. I know this is an issue considered unimportant by the leaders but it is none the less an important issue worthy of serious thought.
Have fun - Dick
PS, It is only an interesting side issue to my work that it turns out that most of physics is true by definition. It is none the less a very interesting issue.