I'm not sure you're on solid ground assuming that there is a "real nature of real things" beyond known time and space and sub-light speeds. As a passage in a recent piece I read on Schopenhauer pointed out:

        Thus, for  anything  to be empirically  real, it
        must  be spatial, temporal, and causal.  Yet  space,
        time,  and  causality   cannot   be  proven   to  be
        empirically  real themselves! If space is thought of
        as an empirical entity, the insoluble problem arises
        whether it is finite or infinite. In the first case,
        there would have to be something 'outside'  space, a
        metaspace, which  is an absurd  notion;  but  in the
        second  case  it could  never  be differentiated  of
        anything  and would therefore  have no identity.  If
        time  is finite, there  would  have  to be something
        'before' and 'after' it, which again is absurd;  but
        if  it is infinite, it would  take  an  eternity  to
        arrive at the present moment, which therefore  could
        never come about.  Finite causality would enhance an
        unimaginable  'first  cause'  of all  events  in the
        universe, while  infinite  causality  poses, mutatis
        mutandis, the same problem as infinite time.

Given that the very foundations of causal logic (cause --> event) assume our ability to differentiate in time and space, it does seem as if the most interesting aspects of physics are operating in areas where open-mindedness helps.