See this is what I'm talking about as far as being too open-minded. Consider what it would mean for the universe to be inconsistent, particularly in relation to the astronomical observations that are the basis of this conversation.
All we can say is that the universe has been consistent so far, during the brief time we observed a small part of it given the instruments we have.
We update our model(s) so that it keeps being consistent and predictable to us (that’s human nature), but no model can be probably correct and complete.
You are not grappling with the full consequences of the universe being inconsistent. If the universe is inconsistent, science is dead. Why the fuck on HN of all places do I need to defend the idea that science is possible? Back to philosophy class, all of you.
Because you're being too narrow minded. Hubble Tension exists, the universe is not consistent. We take cosmological homogeneity as an axiomatic assumption and we keep being proved wrong.
The only thing we can say with confidence is that the base laws of physics appear to be mostly consistent everywhere we've looked in the last hundred or two years. But also only across relatively recent history. The laws of physics were very different early on. The electic and magnetic field used to be separate things and now they aren't.
None of this is incompatible with science as a concept.
Finding consistency goes hand in hand with modeling reality, and every model by definition 1) is wrong (incomplete/incorrect/unprovable) and 2) exists in your head only.
We don't know this either.
We are very limited in detection. Our energies are small.
How "standard" are standard candles and other references? Are the facts that stand as the basis for our theories even correct?
We are too primitive to be dealing in absolutes.