I'm not interested in inventing a particle called the magiton, or arcaton in order to make magic a type of energy that we can observe in the world...
Don't need to, but making magic a quantifiable entity is especially important in a computer game setting, since if it isn't quantifiable for the computer it might as well not exist. Internal consistency is also quite important just so it makes sense. If magic follows set laws, it makes the handwave of 'researching' spells go down much more easily in addition to making extrapolating the effects of unknown spells possible. What can be quantified can be analyzed, and what can be analyzed can be planned for, and if plans can't be based on knowledge, even extreme extrapolation, then it is hard to call a strategy. Magic that can be analyzed in a scientific manner is essential, even if the underlying science is not explained.
However, I must note that if any of those rules were violated (except for the matter in two places one), the system would be horribly imbalanced for game use, so.
Magic is magic. There is no reconciling it with science. You can create rules to artificially restrict magic, but that is not science.
Agreed, it's the analysis of magic that is science, and I think pretty much everybody here wants a system that allows analysis based on some fundamental rules that allow further investigation, and I think that that is what really matters to the game.