Accidentally drunk too much coffee, need a fresh perspective on an aspect of Phenomenon/Neumenon tha

Why do we assume that atoms, electrons and subatomic particles - the fine structure of our percieved reality, are in fact a Phenomenal representation of the structure of the neumenon and not a structural framework unique to the the Phenomenon?.
What if beyond certain scales the foundations of the Phenomenon and Neumenon differ to the same degree that a photo-realistic painting does from a photograph?. As we have the advantage of knowing that our experiences are based in the Pheonomenon, where does the assumption that beyond the ranges of our own natural perception the Phenomenon must still accurately reflect the Neumenon come from?
Surely there must come a point at which the accuracy of the Phenomenon deteriorates and the difference between Neumenon and Phenomenon increases? and if so, eventually also a point where one is percieving a Phenomenal reality that is not representative of the Neumenal at all?

I hope I've explained my thought process here well enough, I tried talking it over with a few people at work but I couldn't make them understand what I meant, I'd had quite a lot of espressos and this just kept going round and round in my head. I think I might have got carried away because of all the coffee and been wildly gesticulating with quite a massive knife too so maybe it wasn't the best time to start raving about 'reality maaan'.
I'm not even confident that my understanding of the words Phenomenon and Neumenon are correct, I haven't read much about philosophy other than Walden.
Here I intend them to be understood as meaning:
Phenomenon: what is observed of the world be experience but is assumed to be our minds fabrication designed to represent the....
Neumenon: a true reality existing outwith our perceptions, imperfectly reflected by the phenomenon.

discuss.

Basically you are asking how we know if an objective universe exists at all "out there," and how we know all of this stuff would exist at all if we weren't around to witness it, right? Ie why we assume an objective reality exists at all when all we have to go on, are subjective experiences. Tell me if I have you wrong.

We evolved (regardless of whether you are a creationist or not), we evolved based on external influences. These external influences gave us the ability to interpret them through our senses, using the brain as the central processing center of the information.
The processed information is what I am guessing you regard as "phenomenon."

Outside our interpretation there exists the universe as it is and you are saying that our perspective deviates from this true perspective, a God like perspective, free from bias, conditions and lack of understanding.

I believe that outside the source of all creation (whatever that may be), that there is nothing that can perceive the universe as "Neumenon" (hopefully I am using this word correctly) because of the grand mysteries of the universe.

All living creatures on this universe are based from the circumstances they were created, their perspective is made ideally to interpret their surroundings.

I do believe that our perspective as phenomenon can indeed reflect the neumenon very accurately. But to accurately reflect it you must either be all informed or accept that you don't know everything. Just be. It is the ultimate goal of religion and the new age movement to be able to understand the truth of our reality and act accordingly. To spread love.

Dude..... you can NEVER have too much coffee!

"Ooooooo, a Neumanon! How interesting..."

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7377da277720.jpg[/atsimg]

Can I just say I've never quite seen this effect from coffee. I'm more fascinated by the origin of this thread than the content (which admittedly I can't make heads or tails of).

As to the content, all I can say is (using your definitions) when a mortal insists he knows the Noumenon, run.