It is a pretty extensive list.
I've spent much of my life thinking about such things, as much of it has been engaged with fairly elemental factors, such as horses and farming.
Some of my questions would be;
Is time the point of the present, moving past to future, or is it change, turning future to past?
While conscious experience is a sequence of perceptions and culture is essentially narrative, this is natural for mobile organisms, needing to navigate their environment and communicate information to similar organisms.
Yet it seems the reality is the latter. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns.
There can be no literal dimension of time, because the past is consumed by the present, to inform and drive it. Causality and conservation of energy. Cause becomes effect.
Which makes time an effect, similar to temperature, pressure, color, sound. Frequencies and amplitudes. Time is frequency, events are amplitude.
Suffice to say, this tends to get me banned from physics forums, but has led to interesting discussions on philosophy forums. Such as the issue of determinism versus free will.
If the future doesn't physically exist and the process of determination only occurs as the present, it would seem the future remains probabilistic.
While an act of will free of cause would logically be equally free of effect and the entire premise of will is to affect, free will is an oxymoron. We are a small part of nature's process of selection.
About God, logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. The fact we are aware, than the details of which we are aware.
Presumably this father figure lawgiver is a device to instill respect for authority, yet conflating the ideal, which is aspirational, with the absolute, which is elemental, tends to create the assumptions one's ideals are absolute and that precudes live and let live, as the Other becomes a rebuke to one's own True God.
Since religion is more about answers than truths, so people can be part of the group, it really should have been the perogitive of the philosophers to examine the logic of such an influential concept, than just dismiss it as superstition.
Is space really three dimensional, or is that a mapping device, like longitude, latitude and altitude?
It seems that if all physical properties are removed from space, it retains the non-physical qualities of equilibrium and infinity. Infinity as there is nothing to bound it and equilibrium seems implicit to SR, as the frame with the fastest clock and longest ruler would be closest to the equilibrium of the vacuum. The unmoving void of absolute zero. So space would be the absolute and the infinite.
Which also gets me in trouble with physics forums.
I could go on, but these are some of the problems I encounter.
