Sometimes the issue isn't nuance, but getting totally off track. In which case the imagination has total freedom. For example, a simple point I try making in physics discussions is that we look at time backwards. Since we are singular creatures, we experience change as a sequence of events and so think of time as this point of the present moving from past to future, which physics then distills to measures of duration to use in the various models. The reality is that it is the changing configuration which turns future into past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the world turns. This makes time like temperature, not space. Time is to temperature, what frequency is to amplitude. It's just with temperature we think of the overall average, even though it's composed of lots of particular velocities/amplitudes. With time we focus on the particular measures of frequency and cannot seem to discover the universal clock, but like temperature, it is simply a composite effect of lots of little changes. A faster clock doesn't move into the future quicker. It ages/burns more rapidly and so recedes into the past faster. When we go from a determined past into a probabilistic future, the assumption is either the future must also be determined, since only one outcome will occur, or that the past remains probabilistic and must branch out into multiworlds. Fact is, events are first in the future, ie. probabilistic and then recede into the past/determined.
Safe to say, the most educated minds are not going to accept the basic logic of this, because way too many nuanced and complex models would be trash.
Keep an open mind.