Ok. I'm not sure what angle you come at this from, whether you disagree with my presentation of this (if you know the Quantum Electrodynamics), or some formulation I'm making (if you're not familiar with QED).

If you ARE familiar with QED, I would appreciate it if you point out my error.

If you're not, then I would be interested in knowing what you mean by "both levels of abstraction".

I personally think the Many World Interpretation (MWI) is the most consistent interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM). In this interpretation, "electrons" are merely an area of space where the electron field is in an excited state. And in atoms (larger than Hydrogen), it's a bit more excited than where there is just a single electron.

Other QM interpretatons have exactly this math, but hypothesises about wavefunction collapse (which is not needed for the theory to work).

This is the main reason I don't consider individual elementary "particles" to have identity.

There is another, too, that may be more intuitive: In QED, especially in Feynmann diagrams, positrons behave exactly like electrons moving back in time. (This can happen for instance in photon-photon scattering within optical materials).

Now if you simply think such statements don't bring new insights (and you don't know QED), then I suppose this is right, at minimum for you. Which is completely fair. I also find these things really hard to grasp, and that's after spending an fair amount of time wrestling with it in my 20s.