Indeed. It could be turtles all the way down. That's just not very good bet, is all.
The imprecise stochastic nature of the small scale universe isn't a sideshow of quantum physics. It is the reason we see rainbows instead of monotone when light refracts through water. It is the reason the two-slit experiment works the curious way it does. It is the reason there's a Black Body phenomenon that allows us to measure the distance, composition, mass, and temperature of remote stars. It is the reason there is no Law of Identity in quantum physics. You can't throw the baby out without throwing the bathwater out. Stochastic assumptions underlie the math of semi-conductor physics. Throwing out stochastics ends quantum physics. If you manage to do so, it won't be a hiccup, it will a restart, and will have to use some form of deterministic mathematics if things are, as you say, elastic.
The Bohr picture of the atom wants for an electron to exist as a "cloud of probability" that can occupy two cloud grooves in two or more separate atoms simultaneously. How are you going to cope with explicit violations of a loss of the law of identity like this with some sort of "elastic" construct. The implication of "elastic" is that we aren't going to have to violate the law of identity. If we don't violate the law of identity, how will covalent bonds be explained?
Unless you plan to publish soon, this strikes me as a futile discussion--What you wish to gainsay is vastly underwritten by repeated fruitful investigations and outcomes--however unintuitive it may be, it's got a sterling track record that any "elastic" theory will have to beat to have any serious traction, and I don't think that's happening anytime soon. What we have may not be right, but it works, and, on the whole, we've tended to give scientific priority to what works.
I have to agree that they aren't going to go down this road. I don't really agree, though, that it's impossible to construct a theory that would work along those lines, particularly if that's how reality works. The physicists are content with the model they've got, and it may be another 400 or 500 years before someone decides to try to reinvent the wheel. By then, there will be so many bells and whistles on the old theory that any new idea will be met with an argument like "Well, what about that bell? Where's that bell in your model?" In fact, we are already at that point, as evidenced by your post. Comparing a newborn baby to an adult is a hard comparison.
I have difficulty understanding, though, how a scientist could buy into the notion of stochastic processes like that. What does it imply? It implies that certain physical values are determined randomly--no causal factor, no reason. That seems to undermine the very idea of mechanics. Mechanics implies causation. It also seems contrary to the conservation of energy principle. Something pops out of nowhere, for no reason. It seems supenatural to me. And these random processes don't seem to operate without limit. We don't see them operating on the macro level, for example. If a leaf falls from a tree, we can explain that by supposing that the chemical bonds became weakened. Since it happens primarily in the autumn, that's pretty good evidence that it's not random. And these stochastic processes operate within confined parameters, and only in areas that we can't come up with another theory to explain.