Science deals with facts, philosophy with meanings and religion with values.
This is far too simplistic. Science deals with facts but not only facts. Philosophy also deals with facts as do some theologians. Philosophy deals with meanings but not only meanings. Religion also deals with meanings. Religion deals with values but not only values. Philosophy also deals with values.
You’ve made it quite clear you deal only with empirical facts and don’t care about what they might mean (“I don’t know, but not that).
You made this into a story about me! I was discussing the symmetry problem. You also make up a story about the symmetry problem and call it meaning. As I see it the problem is scientific and at least in theory will yield a scientific solution just as countless other scientific problems have.
That is to say, YOU miss the point of the whole philosophical endeavor; science is just a tool.
Science is a highly successful mode of inquiry. One without rival. You are using science to fuel your God shaped imagination.
As to the “whole philosophical endeavor”, I have written extensively about it on this forum.
Indeterminacy, entanglement, superposition, etc. have to be taken in as a unified whole.
They are not a unified whole, they are descriptive of the observed behavior of subatomic particles. You also make up a God shaped story about quantum physics and call it meaning.
Nevertheless, if the measurement problem really is insoluble, how can you deny that the facts underpinning physics is indeterminate?
I can understand why you hope it really is insoluble, but there is no good reason at this point to conclude that it is.
There is nothing underpinning physics. Quantum physics is still in its infancy. Physicists really do not understand what is going on, but they are not about to abandon physics in favor of miracles. For many our peek into quantum weirdness is cause for wonder.
Socrates said that philosophy begins in wonder. Wonder is more primary than meaning. Meaning is often the death of wonder. The focus shifts from that which engenders wonder to a story about it.
It all goes to the BIG question: what must be in order for what is to be as it is?
We have absolutely no idea of what if anything must be in order for what is to be as it is. You can make up stories but they do not actually tell us anything about what must be in order for what is to be as it is.
That question is avoided like the plague — “I don’t know but not that” is the only answer you proffer — and that’s not doing philosophy.
That is not my answer to your big question. My answer is to question the assumption that underlies the question - the assumption that there be some what that MUST be something in order for anything to be. I see no reason to make that assumption. The wonder is that there is anything at all. You can make up stories about what must be, but by doing so you move away from the true source of wonder, and it is right here visible to all right now.
There’s a problem with the narrative because the narrative tells us the universe shouldn’t exist.
There certainly is a problem with the narrative, but that is your narrative not the narrative told by science. Science says that the universe should not exist if the symmetry had not broken, but they have yet to discover what broke it.