Philosophical theory with an empirical prediction

I have a philo­soph­i­cal the­ory which im­plies some things em­piri­cally about quan­tum physics, and I was won­der­ing if any­one knowl­edge­able on the sub­ject could give me some in­sight.

It goes some­thing like this:

As an anath­ema to re­duc­tion­ists, quarks (and by “quarks” I just mean, what­ever are the fun­da­men­tal par­ti­cles of the uni­verse) are not gov­erned by sim­ple rules a la con­way’s game of life, but rather, like all of meta­physics goes into their be­hav­ior.

The re­duc­tion­ist ba­si­cally re­duces meta­physics to the sim­ple rules that gov­ern quarks. Fun­da­men­tally there is no other iden­tity or causal­ity, ev­ery­thing else is just emer­gent from that, any­thing we want to call “real” that we deal with in or­di­nary ex­pe­rience, does not have any meta­phys­i­cal iden­tity or causal effi­cacy of its own, it’s just an illu­sion pro­duced by tons of atoms bounc­ing around. If the uni­verse is akin to con­way’s game of life, then I don’t think the things we see around us are ac­tu­ally what we think they are. They don’t have any real iden­tity on a meta­phys­i­cal level, but rather they are just pat­terns of par­ti­cles in mo­tion, gov­erned by math­e­mat­i­cally sim­ple rules.

But sup­pose there ac­tu­ally is meta­phys­i­cal iden­tity and causal power in the things around us, well the place I can see for that, is that the un­known rules gov­ern­ing quarks, are not math­e­mat­i­cally sim­ple rules, but liter­ally that’s where all of meta­physics is con­tained, quarks en­tan­gle to­gether ac­cord­ing to high level con­cepts cor­re­spond­ing to the things we see around us, in­clud­ing a per­son’s iden­tity, and have not the math­e­mat­i­cally sim­ple causal pow­ers like con­way’s game of life, but the causal pow­ers of the iden­tity of the high-level agent.

The em­piri­cal ques­tion is this: do we ob­serve the fun­da­men­tal par­ti­cles of the uni­verse be­hav­ing ac­cord­ing math­e­mat­i­cally sim­ple rules, or do they seem to be­have in com­plex/​un­pre­dictable ways de­pend­ing on how they are en­tan­gled /​ what they are in­ter­act­ing with?

Ad­ding an ex­am­ple to clar­ify:

The be­hav­ior of the quarks cor­re­sponds to the iden­tity of the things we see around us. The things we see around us are con­sti­tuted by quarks—but the ques­tion is, are these quarks be­hav­ing mind­lessly as billiard balls, or is their be­hav­ior the re­sult of com­plex rules cor­re­spond­ing to the iden­tity of the thing they form?

In other words, sup­pose we’re talk­ing about a liv­ing ant, are the quarks which con­sti­tute that ant be­hav­ing ac­cord­ing to sim­ple math­e­mat­i­cal rules like billiard balls, and the whole con­cept of there be­ing an “ant” is just an illu­sion pro­duced by these par­ti­cles bounc­ing around, or are these quarks con­sti­tut­ing the ant ac­tu­ally be­hav­ing “ant-like”?

Is the causal be­hav­ior of the ant de­ter­mined by the billiard-ball in­ter­ac­tions of quarks bounc­ing around, or does the causal be­hav­ior ac­tu­ally origi­nate in the iden­tity of the ant, with the quark in­ter­ac­tions be­ing de­cided ac­cord­ing to its na­ture?

What I’m say­ing is that there meta­phys­i­cally is such a thing as an ant, when quarks “get to­gether as an ant”, they be­have differ­ently, they be­have ant-like. Given there is a lot of un­known on ex­actly why quarks be­have the way they do, why is this ruled out: that when they “get to­gether as an ant”, they be­have ant-like?

Ba­si­cally the idea is, when it comes to the in­ter­ac­tions of the quarks con­sti­tut­ing the ant with the quarks con­sti­tut­ing the things the ant in­ter­acts with, the be­hav­ior of those in­ter­ac­tions is de­ter­mined not by sim­ple, uni­ver­sal rules of quark be­hav­ior, but by the rules of quark be­hav­ior that are in effect “when the quarks are an ant”.

To fur­ther clar­ify this ex­am­ple:

This is framed in gen­eral terms, be­cause I don’t ac­tu­ally know any quan­tum physics, but I’m talk­ing about the fun­da­men­tal phys­i­cal par­ti­cles (“quarks”, for lack of a bet­ter term), and their be­hav­ior at the quan­tum level—be­hav­ior which we don’t fully un­der­stand. So one could say in gen­eral terms, some­times the quarks “swerve left” and other times they “swerve right”, and we don’t ex­actly know why they do that in any given case.

So the ques­tion is, sup­pose the be­hav­ior of quarks in gen­eral is not de­ter­mined by sim­ple, uni­ver­sal laws of quark be­hav­ior, e.g. “always swerve left 50% of the time”, but rather, there are meta­phys­i­cally real and phys­i­cally mean­ingful “quark groups”, like if a bunch of quarks are en­tan­gled to­gether in a group con­sti­tut­ing what we’d ob­serve to be an ant, then quarks in that quark group be­have differ­ently. So for ex­am­ple, the quarks in that “ant quark group” might always swerve left when they in­ter­act with an­other quark group of a differ­ent kind.