Not wanting to interrupt a good discussion but responding to Ken G above, I would agree that science always finds concepts (idealizations) that work, and perhaps that science attempts to explain the universe through these concepts. But I think when utility trumps ‘explanability’ there is a problem.

Slightly off topic by now, in the case of ‘particle/field is form of energy‘ versus ‘energy is property of particle/ field‘, the essential feature of the particle, field, energy, universe, etc. is motion. Everything moves! To me it would make understanding - and explanation - simpler if the word ‘energy’ were redefined as a ’universal fundamental’, namely the ability to move - and not simply to move some ‘thing’, but to move as in to create new events, paths, and systems (and - initial condition - spacetime itself). Then energy would be the ‘prime mover’, and fields and particles would be its creations. While that might or might not lead to a unified theory, it would lead to a unified perspective understandable by all. (Good wave/particle explanation above, though.)