Sure, I suppose that at some subatomic level of resolution all real things begin to look the same. But at the scale we humans exist and practice film photography or digital imaging, reducing it all to the level of a Higgs boson doesn't really provide much of a useful framework within which to draw meaningful conclusions. Or even meaningful opinions.
I mean, if the essence of every object is defined solely by the Standard Model particles it contains, then boys and girls and cows and mousetraps are all the same. Of course, at our human level of scale and experience we know that not to be the case. Certainly for the boys and girls...
So I'll leave you with the following illustration,
I'm sitting out on my backyard deck one afternoon when the US Government calls. They want to test an atomic bomb. For reasons never fully understood, they have decided my backyard is the best place to perform this test.
However, before they come over they give me a choice. They can achieve the exact same test results by either setting up a supercomputer in my garage and running a software-based virtual explosion, or they can build a shot tower and hoist up and detonate a real plutonium bomb core.
Since I will be allowed to watch the test from my deck, they ask me what is my preference?
All protestations to the contrary, there is a difference between virtual descriptions of real things, and the real things themselves. The description is an abstraction of the real thing. The real thing is... well, The Real Thing.
Further, I believe this very distinction is fundamental to the difference between a digital image (a virtual data file) and an analog photograph (a physical negative). As always, YMMV.
Thanks for the excellent discussion, sir. Very enjoyable. I will continue to respect your differing point of view on this topic. Should you feel it necessary, the floor and the last word are yours...