Jim Choate is making a lot of strange statements, but I'm picking this one:

First off, EM fields are NOT QM.

Sure they are, in Quantum Electrodynamics, which is the quantum-mechanical theory of electromagnetism.

They do have some characteristics which 'bleed' over form the Quark level.

Quarks have nothing whatsoever to do with electromagnetic fields, except that they carry charge.

Also since EM fields are made of hardons [sic ;-)]

No. Protons and neutrons are hadrons. Hadron comes from the (Greek?) word for "heavy", lepton from "light". The distinction you're trying to make here is that matter fields are _fermions_, with spins an integral multiple of 1/2, and gauge fields (like photons) are bosons, with integral spin. Both hadrons and leptons are fermions.

and not leptons (which an electron is) may blow a hole in this approach since leptons do not follow the same sort of charge conservation rules as hadrons.

Charge conservation applies to everybody. Hadrons, leptons, everybody. Even your mother. Perhaps you're thinking of the fact that bosons and fermions obey different spin-statistics rules.

As to infinite precision and its non-presence....Beeep....wrong answer...

Electrons change state in zero time, this implies at least some form o f infinite precision (otherwise how does the system know the difference between zero and some small-o value?). I suspect this is another error based on the implied (and incorrect) implication in this line of discussion that hadrons and leptons use the same rules.

What? Not that this is the appropriate list for particle physics, but this kind of semi-mystical expounding on how quantum mechanics forces you to rethink all the rules is better science fiction than science. QM _does_ include some spooky things, but by and large they are subtle and limited -- for instance, the "faster than light communication" implied by spin-polarization measurements cannot be used to transmit information. It's a purely statistical effect, and it does _not_ violate relativity. Nothing I've ever heard of in QM invalidates assumptions one might make about computability or the properties Turing machines. Stuff like Roger Penrose comes up with in _The Emperor's New Mind_ is speculation, and he clearly labeled it as such in his book. Don't take it too seriously. -- Will