I think you're falling victim to what a professor of mine recently called "the problem of 'if' in science." It's something theoretical scientists have to be careful of, and I'm sure his definition of it is more than a bit subjective, but he's right as far as his point goes. The "problem of 'if'" happens when creative, imaginative people get carried away with the ramifications of a possibility before determining the truth of that possibility. The major problem in science is that you end up wasting lots of potential research time determining what something means far before you've determined if it's even true.
A little speculation is fine - it keeps the excitement flowing. It makes people amped up to be a part of a project, or to work on increasingly incomprehensible mathematics. If the speculation takes over, however, then all of your work is aimed at something that (like most science, actually) may turn out to be flawed so fundamentally that it doesn't matter.
Thus your theory. It's an intriguing though about the ramifications if matter has a certain consciousness of itself. If we allow that, to use your own statement of fact. Yet, you've no prima facie evidence that your fundamental assertion is true beyond your own sense that it may likely be so. I agree with you that the what-if is quite interesting. Until, however, you devise a way to test your core assumption, well - you've not got much but wild speculation, no matter how grounded in your version of reality it may seem.
What these guys are trying to point out is that the difference between a crackpot 'theory' like, for instance, homeopathy and reality is the validation of the core assertion behind the theory. QM isn't really at all what you think it is, and without a thorough understanding of things like Heisenberg, concepts like a 'quantum probability foam' seem awfully esoteric. The Two-Slit experiment and the collapsing waveform based on observation are well-known, and these days, fairly well understood - even if, like gravity, we don't know the mechanism, we can predict behavior based on the influence of the phenomenon. Scientists aren't just measuring their own instruments, as you've asserted.
It's good that you don't believe them. In fact, it's so important to say this that I should say it again:
it's good that you don't believe them.
Go and find out. Learn the math. Really see what they're talking about and what predictions have been made. Your characterization of the theory is typical of laymen - QM is neither intuitive nor intellectually easy. Taking it on, trying to understand it, to see why it has gained prevalence despite the brain-bendyness that has made scientists twitch for generations and to fight it at every turn? That's incredibly valuable.
Unfortunately, your own current theory, as I've gleaned the edges from reading what I have in this thread, rests on a fundamental assertion that - scientifically - is utterly unproven, if not completely falsified. The ramifications - the what-ifs - that you're presenting are incredibly fun to speculate upon, certainly, but your baseline asssertions cannot be given a free pass.
Look at String Theory, for example. It is elegant, mathematically. It sews up all of the problems between QM and the Standard Model so neatly that it would be an utter shame if it weren't true. Scientists are utterly excited about it because its ramifications are far-reaching - it would mathematically explain everything from the Big Bang ('brane' theory!) to Entanglement, the cause of the speed of light limit to a new unified field equation that could - in theory - let us harness gravity the same way we do EM radiation these days. Thrilling, no? The reason, however, you've not seen more scientists jump on the bandwagon is that its core assertion - that matter's fundamental particle is actually vibrating strings of intradimensional probability - is absolutely untestable. Unverifiable. If you /allow/ that this is true, then you solve the Unified Field problem. You discover the shape of the universe.
Fortunately for all of us, no one gets a pass on 'allowing' things in science. The LHC - one of the great scientific endeavors ever attempted by man - will either prove or disprove the Standard Model in the coming decade or so (by the hopeful discovery of the Higgs Bosun and Supersymmetry). If it does not, then we will have learned that everything we know is wrong, and String Theory has a chance.
Now. Your theory? Neat notion. How do you propose to verify that matter has knowledge of itself? Neither I nor anyone else - nor even should you yourself! - should accept your speculation until you prove the bit that we have to 'give' you for that speculation to be true. So. How can we do that?