There is an other part of your statment, what makes me wonder,

argued to be God — ThroughAGlassDarkly

what could it mean?
Argued by who?
a.) argued by God it self?
b.) argued by You?
c.) argued by me?
d.) argued by everyone?
e.) argued by a group of people?
f.) argued by no one?
g.) argued by no1.?
h.) argued by anyone?
i.) argued by who?
j.) argued, but why?

Or perhaps, it is God arguing to be?

So your theory is physical. But Physics on low scales doesnt work like your model. There is no definite position of particles until they are observed. Matter is not continuous in the euclidean sense. Now I dont want to pretend that I understand Physics but I think it is fine to say that your model does not describe reality.

I may get into trouble myself speaking about Physics, but I don't think any of this works against the theory. Our sensors may not be measuring the exact positions of particles, but perhaps the energy of the system in a physical location, or the probabilities for where something might come up in a probability function once observed. What we call physical could theoretically be anything. We can perhaps add a third axiom about sensors in that they measure a physical property, but we won't specify the exact property. The question is how we tie the physical property, the space the property operates in, and mental properties together.

We could go down the epistemological rabbit hole and ask all of these : ), but in the context of the statement it is the paper (and I guess myself) arguing it.

So you saying that, I‘m seeing these points because of that ‘‘paper‘‘ you mentioned?

Well, since nothing (space, matter nor time) at the lowest scale is continuous and the problem with the chessboard doesnt come up I think you have to at least reformulate your claim.

Matter/energy/whatever our "physical" substance is can be "Medium A". Space or whatever the space Medium A operates in can be "Medium B". The sensors are a property of Medium B. Medium B and Medium A overlap somehow, so the sensors have something to measure. I don't care if medium A is quantized or continuous. Medium B may be quantized or continuous (as I understand this is an open question in Physics with spacetime). Both cases are addressed in the paper. The argument is strongest when medium B is continuous, but even if it was quantized, there are problems. I don't see how you avoid a naturalistic Occasionalism, where medium B arbitrarily determines the placement of instances of medium A in relation to itself. I assume you cannot just negate the independence of both the physical properties of medium A (such as conservation of energy) or properties concerning the relationship of medium A to medium B (such as velocity and acceleration in classical mechanics).

Sure, assuming we can agree on a definition for "see".

I can not, not to see them, even when my eyes are closed.

What is your definition for ‘‘see‘‘?

It could just mean read and comprehend, but we always could go deeper. When you think about it, how do we know that our knowledge or senses like color make sense in themselves, and are not just some aftereffect from disjointed causes? I don't have an answer for that, but we have to do the best we can with the tools we have.

I'm curious where you got the eye picture. Is it a painting?

I found it on the internet while I was searching on pointilism. For the record, I do not know if it is a picture, or a painting.
I was looking for it, to show others, how i see everything, including nothing.

Nothing is an interesting concept, which seems to be explored in other threads, but yeah, it looked very pointilist.