That makes me curious what your version is, JB.
I am a structural philosopher, which means my discipline is understanding structure (whatever the subject matter is).
Do you mind sharing your version?
--
The real problem is easy to show.
It occurs as soon as people start using tools to comprehend reality. One such tool can be scientific calculations on a blackboard. This way, one can capture reality in an artificial manner, and yet that is where something very important can get missed.
The simple example is drawing a human face on a piece of paper (using a tool), and then drawing just a single eye, a Cyclops. With that drawing, we see immediately that the drawing is not realistic. With the mathematical calculations on the blackboard, however, it is far more difficult to see the lack of that missing eye.
As soon as we use a tool, there will always be two models, two ultimate structures available. One of them will fall short of capturing reality fully, and we will need to accept (belief!) that it is correct if we do not recognize there is an alternative available.
Believing in science is similar to having the devil sit in the pope's chair. Scientists should always reject abstracts that need to be believed as being real.
That is in short why Einstein's Spacetime is not the full answer. Einstein did not incorporate the Big Bang motion itself. He started with the behavior of matter moving through space, but he did not end with the behavior of matter moving through space. He changed the storyline midway with the introduction of an abstract, namely Spacetime.
--
1 + 2 + 3 = 6, we can all agree.
Yet 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 = also 6.
Both declare a different structure.
1 apple + 2 oranges + 3 bananas = 6 pieces of fruit, nothing to it.
But if 1 = grandpa, 2 = mom and dad, and 3 = three children, then 0 is a person who has died and how that death still affects these six people.
The math can be made the same in ultimate outcome, but one model captures reality in an abstract manner (a piece of fruit is an abstraction away from the real details of apple, oranges, and bananas), while the other model describes a real situation in a realistic manner (alive is a positive integer, not alive is 0).
How we approach zero fundamentally changes the model (somewhat).
Thank you for your reply.
