Yes Simon but I would treat “fundamental” and “thorough” differently. A model can be thorough by including many relevant factors, but that doesn’t make all those factors fundamental.
What I’m pushing back on is the physics habit of treating “fundamental” as meaning “smallest,” “indivisible,” or “basic ingredient.” I agree that something can be fundamental because it is structurally necessary, not because it is particle-like.
For example, I don’t understand consciousness as fundamental. I understand it as emergent.
That is actually part of my larger point: physics may have too narrow an idea of what counts as fundamental. It often looks for the smallest or most basic “thing,” whereas I think fundamentality may have more to do with the conditions, relations, constraints, and processes from which things emerge.
I’m also actively considering the idea that “Nothing does not exist”. In other words, the universe did not “come from Nothing,” because absolute Nothing is not a physical state. Nor is it empty space, a vacuum, a quantum field, or a potential. Those are already something. Nothing is only a theistic talking point.
So my current view is: everything that exists is emergent and evolves. What we call “fundamental” may not be a final substance or object, but the underlying generative structure that allows emergence and evolution to occur. The universe may not need to “come from Nothing” if “Nothing” is not an actual possible condition, but only an abstract negation.OK, it is just my theory which belongs to me :-)….Like my Block Universe ideas where “the future already exists except we have no memory of it yet”…..:-)
