No, I'm just weary of the trivial and careless thought-processes you advance with the claim that they're deep or profound or something that scientists miss.

"There are two levels at minimum", you say, as if nobody else is thinking about this. What do you think the "classical limit" is, of not exactly this sort of thing? And then the trick is that sometimes you can bridge the gap, as with statistical mechanics or distribution of energy levels. Sometimes we haven't yet.

The problem is that the technique is so incredibly familiar and useful that nobody bothers talking about it as a separate thing. Nobody is trying to prove all true statements from within a system, either.