"locality". There are time and space, but things just do not take any values in these things until measured.

With Bell's inequality we would have to give up one of two things. Either locality [local action], or that things have values in time and space before measured. We can not give up the first so it is the second that must be given up. [The reason people think that because of Bell that we must give up the first is based on this ambiguity. Bell did show something but not what he thought nor what people think he showed.]  I should add that with Bell there still are time and space, but things just do not take any values in these things until measured.

See lectures by Gell Mann at Caltech and Coleman at Harvard for information about this. On occasion you might find this issue addressed in a QM book. I recall one from the Weitzman Institute in Beer Sheva. But the fact that locality is true is well known in the Physics world. See also the Reference Frame blog on "locality".

The thing that I find curious is the infinite mass and charge of bare particles. When interacting particles are fine it is the bare particle that always has this infinite mass and charge.

Though the way this is dealt with is by re-normalization, still that is a way of dealing with a problem, but which does not make the problem go away. 

So what this looks like to me is somewhat like Kant. Not that space and time are subjective but rather dinge an sich [things in themselves that we do not have access to.] And then mass and charge also. 

[Besides that most things seem to be at the core a kind of thing going back and forth [A WAVE]-a harmonic oscillator --makes me wonder, "what is doing the oscillating?"]