Thanks. I grew up and spent much of my life raising and training racehorses, so my appreciation for nature exceeds my views on culture.
To me, physics is not getting too hurt, too often.
Trajectories.
A thought to consider though, isn't complexity part of the cycle, of expansion and consolidation? Where it builds out, until it breaks down and has to find some solid ground to start over?
Epicycles were brilliant math, as explanation, while the crystalline spheres were lousy physics, as explanation.
Might the same mistake be being made, with the inclination to see math as platonic?
Map versus territory.
Is space really three dimensional, or is that simply a mapping device, like longitude, latitude and altitude?
Given in a frame moving at the speed of light, the clock stops and the ruler shrinks to a point, wouldn't it follow that the frame with the longest ruler and fastest clock would be closest to the equilibrium of the vacuum, the unmoving void of absolute zero?
So the two non-physical properties of space would be infinity and equilibrium. Like a number line, from zero to infinity.
Now consider my previous point, that energy expands, effectively toward infinity, while form coalesces, effectively toward equilibrium.
If you are will to consider this so far, here is some real heresy;
