"I think you misinterpret me. When I define "markets" I'm not talking about "money" but talking about "resources". Social resources aren't necessarily money."

I guess that was unclear due to the following from the beginning of your post.

"...I interpret human behavior as being based on economics..."

You state:

"It is not a fact that individuals exist."

While it is true we are a social species, we are also not eusocial, but quite variable in our acculturation. I note that I actually do not simply fit into the extant pre-defined categories, and undertake my own course based on my personal analysis of what is meet and proper.

While statistically I am insignificant, it remains true that such individualism spawns neologisms culturally, and this cannot be reckoned by extant social physics.

There is much good that can be learned from applying mathematics to big data. However, that application is hamstrung by nescience. We cannot apply analytical methods to data if we don't understand the actual real world reasons the data is as it is. We don't understand cognition, consciousness, and much else. What we assume about why the data is generated as it is critically affects how we interpret that data, and simply crunching numbers is nothing more than Sudoku.

Social physics necessarily claims to be more than mere number crunching of data, and this is obvious from the name of the field itself. It claims to relate those data to society, and we understand very little of society beyond that it generates data. Improved understanding of the genesis of that data is necessary before such analysis can be functionally applied to social physics.