I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion, so it's kind of hard to respond. When you think about graininess, though, the fact that the universe is grainy at some level doesn't in any event necessarily mean that there is nothing smaller than that grain. There might be something smaller, but you can't discern it because of the graininess at the larger level.
I don't see why anything I've said is inconsistent with the two slit results. In fact, the two slit experiments are perfectly consistent with the notion that particles are waves in an elastic field. Waves would be spread out, and of course, would go thru both slits. It's the idea that particles are not waves that runs into problems with the two slit experiments.
What you can or cannot detect is irrelevant. If the universe isn't stochastic, than it's deterministic. If it's deterministic, stuff is made out of stuff. If it were truly the case that you are somehow limited by nature from seeing any smaller than some given limit, than you have just hit the heisenburg uncertainty limit, whether you are willing to name it or not. If it looks like a horse, and smells like a horse, and sounds like a horse, it's a horse.
I don't see why anything I've said is inconsistent with the two slit results. In fact, the two slit experiments are perfectly consistent with the notion that particles are waves in an elastic field.
Waves would be spread out, and of course, would go thru both slits. It's the idea that particles are not waves that runs into problems with the two slit experiments.
I don't understand what the argument is here. Are you going to describe 60-atom bucky balls as purely a wave phenomenon so you can avoid acknowledging the quantum nature of light?