Thanks for this excellent question. It is due to the reductive physicalist understanding of spacetime prominent in classical and quantum physics --

a 1-level model of nature, the physical only. In recent years, holistic unified field theory was added -- a 2-level model. But these two views have not been reconciled (that is, classical relativistic gravitational spacetime, or 'Einstein locality,' has not been reconciled with the 3 quantized strong/weak/electromagnetic fields, GUT (and now also, the Higgs boson field).

Recent 3-level models from well-known theorists propose a field in-between finite classical/quantum fields and the infinite unified field. In the 3-level model, 'gravity' (and the conventional notion of spacetime) is one of the "foundational players" (your term) inherent in a deeper, more interdependent 'entangled', finite field within the 'universally entangled' infinite unified field. For example, a 3-level model (widely misunderstood) from Bohm and Hiley includes explicate/implicate/ super-implicate orders. My recent book published by Routledge, Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory, overviews cutting edge progress in 3-level models toward unification. However, my interest is a unified field theory that includes mind and consciousness (which 1- and 2-level models don't accomplish). The ancient Vedic account does the best of it I've found so far. If you want to get into the rational details, a good start is my ResearchGate.com pre-print 'The Scientific Method as Practiced: Its Successes, Limitations, and How to Progress Deeper' -- which includes an intro discussion of a 3-level model.

Thanks for considering this brief answer; I'd be happy to reply to questions.

Best wishes,

RW. Boyer

Carlo Rovelli in "Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics" (2017), in which he also outlined a list of problems and topics currently being discussed in theoretical physics. It can be seen that most of the questions relate to the field of philosophical ontology. And this list is incomplete. The first question on the list is "What is space?" Second: "What is time?".

It's time to realize that Quantum theory and General relativity are phenomenological (parametric, operationalist. "effective") theories without ontological justification / substantiation (ontological basification).

Lee Smolin: "All the theories we work with, including the Standard Model of Particle Physics and General relativity, are approximate theories applicable to truncations of nature that include only a subset of the degrees of freedom in the universe. We call such an approximate theory an effective theory."

David Deutsch: “The best of our theories show deep discrepancies between them and the reality they are supposed to explain. One of the most glaring examples of this is that in physics there are now two fundamental “systems of the world”—quantum theory and general relativity—and that they are fundamentally inconsistent with each other.”

Also, String Theory is a theory without ontological justification. There is no basic ontologically based structure.

To establish the ontological status of "space" and "time", theoretical physicists must "dig" deeper into ontology, to the most remote semantically distinguishable depths, develop the ideas of the metaphysics of the Whitehead process and rethink all the dialectical ideas of Heraclitus.

Fundamental science has "rested" on the understanding of space and matter (ontological structure), the nature of "laws of nature", the nature of "fundamental constants", the nature of phenomena of time, information, consciousness.

I remembered the philosophical testament of John A. Wheeler, "unsung paragon of science":

"We are no longer satisfied with understanding only particles, force fields, geometry, or even time and space. Today we require physics to have some understanding of existence itself."

To understand means “to grasp the structure” (G. Gutner “Ontology of mathematical discourse”).

To understand the existance itself means to "grasp" (understand) the nature of the primordial TENSION of the Cosmos. And for this it is necessary to "grasp" the primordial generating structure of matter - "La Structure Mère" (SuperStructure). That is, to build a model of the metaphysical triad "being-nothing/otherbeing-becoming".

Here we need dialectica ontologic.

G. Hegel: “The truth of space and time is matter.”

The paradigm of the Universe as an eternal holistic generating process ("paradigm of understanding") gives a new look at matter. Matter is that from which all meanings, forms and structures are born. Space is an ideal entity, an ideal limit for the states of matter. The ontological structure of space (absolute, ontological, existential) is rigidly connected with the absolute forms of the existence of matter (absolute states).

More than a quarter of a century ago, the mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov set the super-task of building a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World" - the creation of a model of the "Self-Aware Universe" (1996). In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set out in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning" (2018).

Brian Josephson: “Physicists' immersion in search of their 'theories of everything' has led them to an oversimplified picture of the natural world. To a picture that can work very well in situations used to test physical theories. But this picture is completely incapable of clarifying and helping to deal with such problems as observation, the meaning of the observed and the processes of thought.”

A. Einstein is right: “God does not play dice with the Universe.”

Another metaphysical maxim: God created the Universe/Eternity/Infinity according to the Logos (Meta-Law, “Absolute Law”, Law of absolute forms of existence of matter). Numbers are the work of man. And God didn't need "curved space." Space is an ideal entity.

Brief comments on Vladimir Rogozhin's answer to Feb. 11 question about GR:

Re: the points on ontology, agree. Here's an excerpt from my book 'Pointless' (mentioned in my answer to the GR question): "Some quantum theory interpretations have an epistemic emphasis due to ontic issues being so challenging these days in physics. This is because the understanding of an 'object' has become increasingly refined, abstract, and hard to image. We have gotten to the point in the currently accepted experimental means to gain knowledge that it is difficult -- and very costly -- to probe theorized deeper layers. So it is quite challenging to identify what really exists at deeper levels -- if anything real as a deeper substance of nature 'down there.' This has led to an emphasis on mathematics, and an epistemic focus, without the needed validation in an ontolologically based empirical physics. Contemporary physics reflects this lack of coordination of ontology and epistemology." (p. 24)

Re: 'effective theories," agree.

Re: Deutsch quote, agree.

Re: Wheeler quote, sort of agree but there is not a deep understanding of "particles, forces, fields, geometry, or even time and space" either.

Agree very much with your 'triad' but don't leave it as 'metaphysical; rather, to connect matter to mind and consciousness in an inclusive model within physics.

Re: Hegel quote, it's backwards (just the opposite), and the same concern with the statement [M]atter is that from which all meanings, forms, and structures are born."

Re: Nalmov, agree (and detailed explanation in 'Pointless').

Re: B. Josephson, agree; and he is now emphasizing that biology is requiring physics to address causally efficacious mind, and consciousness (great).

Re: Einstein quote: I've said "God can play dice if it is useful." But indeterminism and probabilism are due to measurement limitations -- not fundamental.

Re: your "metaphysical maxim" statement, please consider ''curved space' in the much more encompassing context of the Vedic 'self-referral' dynamics of nature (detailed discussion in, e.g.,' Pointless.')

Thanks for considering these comments.

Bob

Dear Bob,

Thanks for the comments and link!

Re: "Contemporary physics reflects this lack of coordination of ontology and epistemology." (p. 24)

Great. I agree completely.

Regarding your other comments: I’m thinking.

But the basic thing is the problem of the essential structure of the “physical (metaphysical) "firstbeginning.”

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor Yu.S.Vladimirov notes in the article "PRINCIPLES OF METAPHYSICS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS" (p. 10., Journal "METAPHYSICS" No. 1, 2017):

https://lib.rudn.ru/file/Metaphysics%20#1_23_2017%20print.pdf

Thanks, Vladimir, for the additional information. I think the 'triad' you referred to is quite different from the '3-level model' I mentioned. It may take considerable work to bridge them -- involving progress from physicalism through idealism to the completely holistic Vedic 3-in-1 account that includes 'matter, mind, and consciousness.'

Re: "the problem of the essential structure of the "firstbeginning," this gets to the core of the issue and involves the difference between the 'reductive' approach prominent in modern science and the holistic approach in ancient 'Vedic science' -- discussed in the paper I mentioned (and much more extensively in the book I mentioned). If you are willing to at least start with the paper, our discussions would likely advance much more efficiently.

I might add that the three paradigms you mentioned might be considered, very abstractly, as related to three fundamental properties that structure nature in the 3-in-1 Vedic account (and the structure of the "firstbeginning:" 'single vacuum' (in the sense of ZPE) to the principle of energy, or 'creative operator;' 'single geometry' to the principle of mass, or 'dissolution/destructive operator;' and 'single system of relations' to the principle of order/intelligence, or 'maintenance operator.' It may be challenging to get the significance of this correspondence, but perhaps you will quickly find some sense of its relevance.

Thanks again, and best wishes,

Bob (RW Boyer)