On 1, consider that as mobile, tactile organisms, navigating our environment, thus sorting signals from the noise and manipulating objects within it, is intuitional, but like perceiving the cosmos as geocentric, is it a function primarily of our own point of view, that we focus on ever more distilled forms?

How much do we become one with something, be it a tool, a book, or a lover, are we still "distinct," or are we "entangled?" Aka synchronized/on the same wavelength.

When we add things together, we have one of something larger, like ingredients of a cake become one cake. 1+1=2 really means that if we add two sets of one, we have one set of two.

Our minds like distinctions, while our intuition likes connections.

2) Would it be a useful hack, if your accountant just wrote in a figure and called it "dark money," whenever he came across a gap in the books? It would certainly make his job easier.

Supposedly when observations don't fit predictions, the theory is potentially falsified. Not saying it's always the case, but this is supposed to be science. Trial and error. Skeptical is good.

3) Redshift increasing proportional to distance is the obervation, not the model/theory. If redshift is an optical effect that compounds on itself, that would explain the curve in the rate that Dark Energy is supposed to solve. The problem with patches is that if you keep having to add more patches to fix the previous patches, it's usually a sign something basic has been overlooked.

I certainly appreciate your consideration of these ideas and expect them to be received critically. I don't vouchsafe for my own infallability. It's just that having argued these ideas for decades, I've ironed out some of the details.