Marcel,
While I disagree with you that time is fundamental, I agree with your other points such as the idea that if we can answer the basic questions of "Why is the universe here instead of not here?" and "What is it made of?", this is the starting point in a much more fundamental understanding of the universe and of physics. After all, if metaphysics is the study of being and existence, and the universe "be"s and "exists", then the laws of physics and of the universe should be derivable from the principles of metaphysics. I've argued this exact point in my FQXi essays and posts over the years and at my website and call this type of thinking either philosophical engineering or a metaphysics-to-physics approach. But, good luck on getting any academics to embrace this view. They, as well as most amateurs, basically ignore this idea and seem to focus on the top-down approach of taking what we already know and trying to go deeper based on that. Both approaches of course require testable predictions and experimental evidence, but I think the metaphysics-to-physics approach is worth trying. The top-down physicists and philosophers of science sure don't seem to be making much headway in their quest to answering the more fundamental questions. Anyways, good posts.
Roger
sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite