You have a wonderful sense of confidence in your hypotheses, doma.
Why am I not surprised that medicine falls within your purview along with physics and economics? ;-)
I think I've got the pattern here. Here's how it seems to work.
Nothing that most everyone else believes is true. Science, which is based at any time on the latest set of tested, measurable hypotheses, is untrue because all received knowledge is a conspiracy. Science is akin to faith rather than a distinct process based upon observation. Where science appears to be true, it is because the world is an illusion.
Whereas any untested or speculative proposition you promote is true because you declare it so, regardless of the quality of the evidence. Anyone who has a view which is rejected by the vast majority of folks who have expertise in a subject is more likely to be true in domaland precisely because it is rejected by experts.
The thing I like about your model is that you are seeking a kind of unification to make sense of your universe. The thing that I find difficult is that anything you wish to be true must be, and anything which doesn't fit is nonsense. In a persuasive theory, I think you would have to work a lot harder on the things which don't accord with your ideas, rather than simply dismissing them.
Science with its observations makes a big obstacle for you. People like myself are bound to think that a model which is tested and then evolves and survives is going to deliver truths more reliably than untested assertions.
For myself, I am more comfortable trying to think of a theory which encompasses what we think we know about the universe and that tries to perceive what the next step of understanding might be. It is pretty hard to build a theory of everything which conforms with the world of our senses. And anything beyond that realm is not so interesting to me as outside the zone of the senses there be dragons.
| 
