Interesting comments patriot. I had a few thoughts about what you said.
Several have hinted at the idea that time does not exist and great scientific minds have also suggested the same as well throughout history. It seems though that most scientists now believe that it does indeed exist at least in the physical world because we know that the universe had a beginning and that it happened at a comprehensible, determinable time unit ago, pick your unit. To ask if time exists is not completely unlike asking if matter exists. Entropy and the disintegration of molecules is another pretty good indication that time in the physical does exist. Lastly, fast forward about 100 billion years (time units) and the fact of a receding universe will be the norm, as well as eventual collapse. We now know scientifically that this physical universe had a beginning and will have and end if no miraculous intervention takes place.
Carroll is not one of those who suggest that time does not exist. He falls into the category of analyzing how it works, and tries to answer some of the questions you posed.
The next natural question from a human perspective is, what's beyond the physical that began this universe or the multiverse, if the hunch is even valid? If the universe is only physical, then how does matter come from non-matter and how is design complexity and fine tuning, explained? If the universe is only atoms randomly banging off of other atoms, without purpose, then why the apparent purpose and order of it all. How does consciousness spawn from non-consciousness and how does morality come from non-morality? If morality is only physical then morality is also an illusion since physical matter by its very nature is prederterminism.
Einstein's theories in a nutshell show that in fact energy is matter and vica-versa, and that time was a regulating factor in the equation. Matter came from energy after the big bang, but the big bang wasn't the beginning, it was just part of a cycle (according to Carroll). I've always thought it was cyclical myself. It's small minded to conclude that there was nothing before what we can't postulate.
In other words, if I'm simply cosmic dust, then I have no value, no purpose and no moral constraints. To suggest that I possess any of these is to assume that something finite as assigned me value, assigned me purpose or assigned me moral boundaries.
You literally are cosmic dust, there was no carbon until many suns burned long enough to create enough of it to form planets and eventually life. So, we are all literally star dust. I don't know why you would think you have no value just because your body is composed of carbon.
Regarding Carroll's work, what's important here is not just the empty question of whether or not this universe is the final or second to the final "container" of physical matter. For me the question is what's the more likely explanation for the observable and theoretical universe, that it came randomly out of nothing or that some kind of consciousness directed it somehow? This line of thinking is actually more tangible and testable than trying to grasp the possibility of a mulitverse.
The question of God is important, but understanding the natural universe as you yourself has said only brings you closer to whatever is truth to you. Furthermore, who is to say that your idea of God doesn't use these cosmic tools. As far as whats more likely believable, the idea of God making Physics more simple to our small minds by saying, "I just created all this stuff" is only simple if you don't think about where God came from.
We have the book of nature that displays orderly design and physical laws, which are intelligible by conscious, rational minds. Most of us have a sense of life beyond our physical body or what could be called the sense of life beyond death. If not morally handicapped, we also have a sense of absolute right and wrong and if we say that there is no right or wrong but live daily as if there were, we're deluding ourselves. If life is just an illusion of value, if consciousness is only physical, and if we're just non-directed, constructs of cosmic dust then it doesn't really matter if we're here or not, in which case is there any real reason to remain alive?
I have a sense of the metaphysical, but I get the sense that you are defending values that are not under attack by this theory. I have never understood why people think that science precludes the existance of a spiritual realm. We can have both, and they are in agreement, even if it's hard to see it.
Fortunately most of us do have a sense of worth or purpose even if not all of us actually seek to recognize a non-physical director of things. Not only are we capable of loving other human beings but we're even capable of loving other living things which is inexplicable by a physical only world. In any case, I hope to have triggered the acknowledgment of our sense of things beyond the physical since physicality is clearly just one element of reality when we dissect things logically.
I have always thought that science and the metaphysical are the same, and any perception that they are at odds with each other is only due to ones lack of perception in either of the two areas.
Scientific exploration into the mysteries of life should only re-enforce all of the values that you are defending and illuminating.
Censuring science in the name of morality has been attempted many times throughout history by good and honorable men who in their ignorance were foolish and shortsighted, because censuring the mysteries of creation, as if it could not defend itself with it's own truths, or did not hold value and truth, is unnecessary and immoral in itself (and usually badly botched and counter-productive).
Science cannot replace spirituality or morality, it is only a tool to reach logical conclusions in the natural world. The natural world, as you said, is the book of life.