Felix, I'd be surprised if you, as a naive realist cat, did not have homunculi on your cortex, as I've never heard anything to the contrary.
Your confessed naive realism presents big difficulties for our "intersection" on interpretive issues. My mind-body book is a patient study of it. For here, I think we should focus on the uninterpreted calculus of this theory of physics, since it is simpler than Newton's theory or any other, which means we can handle it easily.
I don't bear the burden of my theory all alone. Rafael Sorkin has reformulated General Relativity in terms of "causal sets," which are the same as my time sequences. He doesn't know how to diagram any particles, and yet he already feels that he is hot on the trail of the Theory of Everything. The following link takes you to a nice summary, by Mr. Sorkin himself, of what causal sets are and how they serve physics. I see, by searching "causal sets," there are many new links that come up. I might have to do some more reading myself. -- Carey
http://www.einstein-online.info/en/s...s/causal_sets/