This is somewhat clearer than your comments, and I appreciate your efforts in tackling these big questions, but I must say that your approach is absurdly presumptuous.

To say that "ultimate reality is existence" is just to play with words. It's like saying a cat is a feline or that a dog is a hound. At best, this is conceptual analysis. It's certainly not scientific or empirical. This is armchair speculation, which is fine, but it means your conclusions are largely semantic. They have to do with clarifying your intuitions, not the nature of ultimate reality--unless you can show that reality has to follow your semantic intuitions.

I never said existence is abstract. I raised the possibility of Platonism to try to get you to clarify your position. I said the words you're using in your analyses, such as "existence" and "change" are quite abstract, as in vague, and you're just switching the words around in armchair a priori fashion.

If you want to know my position, you can read some of my hundreds of articles where I lay everything out. Or you could ask me for a clarification. Your blanket statements and this talk of one-sided "reconciliation" are weirdly presumptuous.

If ultimate reality is knowable and concrete, as you say, why do you call it "existence"? Why not use a more concrete word to describe it? Why not give it a proper name, such as "Yahweh" or "Larry," if you're so familiar with it via your semantic intuitions and analyses?

Anyway, there are various actual scientific theories of how the universe might constantly reproduce itself. Roger Penrose has a cyclic model, and Lee Smolin has an evolutionary one. Maybe that's the kind of thing you're on about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection