Ugar,

You are right in many respects. Though I find science does tend to get wrapped up in the details.

One of my points of contention is the issue of time.

We are mobile organisms, so the fact we experience our situation as a sequence of perceptions would logically be an adaptation to navigation. Consequently we do conceive of time as the point of the present, moving past to future. Physics codifies it as measures of duration.

The reality is that change turns future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. Duration is the present, as the events coalesce and dissolve.

There is 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.

Different clocks can run at different rates simply because they are separate actions. Think metabolism.

Cultures tend to be about synchronizing everyone to the same habits, rules and measures, but the reason nature is so diverse and integrated is because everything doesn't march to the beat of the same drummer.

Time is asymmetric, because it's a measure of action and action is inertial. The earth only turns one direction. Entropy is a second order effect and not what is directly measured.

Energy is "conserved," because it is the present, creating time, as well as temperature, pressure, color and sound. Time is frequency, event are amplitude.

As present, the energy goes past to future, while the patterns generated go future to past. Energy drives the wave, while the fluctuations rise and fall. No tiny strings necessary.

Consciousness also goes past to future, while the perceptions, emotions and thoughts giving it form and structure go future to past. Though it's the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems processing the energy, feeding the flame, while the central nervous system sorts the information, signal from the noise.

So there is a tendency to think in terms of order and chaos, signal and noise, rather than energy and form, even though galaxies are energy radiating out, as structure coalesces in.

So you might say, I have some points of difference with current physics theories.

Though I find neurologists find the point about time interesting, because there isn't a canon built up around the nature of consciousness, as there is with physics models.

I would also agree that actual academic philosophers are also pretty close minded about any ideas that haven't already been debated for centuries, or at least decades.