The Universe can be objectively defined as matter in motion

Great opening argument. You touched on some of the most ground breaking theories in quantum physics. Let me start be addressing the fact that we most likely agree that the observable Universe consists of matter, and that that matter is in motion. I don't believe that to be debatable. Every thing we see is made of elementary particles, making up the atoms, making up the molecules and cells, and it is all moving. Even if it appears still, that is only because it is surrounded by matter moving at exactly the same speed. If you plotted your computer monitor in three dimensional (Euclidean) space at 8am, the coordinates of that monitor would be different at 8:01am. This is obviously because the Earth is moving through space, as is the Sun and the entire galaxy. So, assuming that we both agree that the Universe consists of moving matter, you decided to address a deeper aspect of this topic by defining the cause, or source of that moving matter. You proposed the very intriguing and much discussed Quantum Field Theory to define this source. QFT essentially describes an invisible blue print that guides the construction of the Universe. A vast web of electromagnetic framework from which all that exists is derived and guided. Let's go with that. I won't dispute the existence of fields or their profound influence on the Universe. What I dispute is that somehow these fields, these electromagnetic forces, do not exist as matter in the physical world. I believe that everything in existence, including force fields and energy, consist of matter. There is even a working theory claiming that the force of gravity consists of gravity particles. The Higgs Boson discovery and Feynman diagrams are also monumental is showing that even force has a carrier particle. So I won't dispute that QFT may be the primary source or creator of the elementary particles. What I am suggesting is that these fields are also made of matter, perhaps even smaller and more elementary than the elementary particles we have already discovered. I would also like to address my definition: Universe = Elementary Particles + Fundamental Forces. This was not intended to be my official formula to define the Universe. It was intended to be a more scientific way of saying, matter in motion. It is entirely my fault for not clarifying that. You are absolutely correct. Space is a part of the Universe. It's not just what the matter is in, space is also interlaced throughout and in between the matter as well. Although I am curious as to one thing. If there were no matter (or energy as you put it), only space, an infinite empty vacuum; would we consider that a Universe? Would we consider it anything at all? I also wanted to address your interpretation of E = MC2. You seemed to imply that this formula illustrates how energy creates matter. That energy is the source from which matter emerges. Con: "Energy is what produces matter. Without energy, there is no matter." I disagree. I believe the formula was intended to show that energy can be converted to matter, and that matter can be converted to energy. E = MC2 is a conversion tool that essentially states that 1 matter consists of very large amounts of energy, and that 1 energy consists of very small amounts of matter. I believe that energy consists of matter. That they are one in the same; and I don't believe Einstein's formula disputes that belief. I suppose the primary difference between our views is that you believe the most fundamental substance in the Universe is energy, whereas I believe it is matter. I believe this because if it doesn't consist of matter, what does it consist of? How does it exist? How can it be identified? How can it affect anything? What is it, if there is no IT? I look forward to your response.