A word that seems to cause less consternation is the word 'universe' or 'nature'. We can define it as 'that which physics seeks to probe', 'that which physics seeks to describe', 'the subject of investigation of physics', or something along those lines. Even if we strictly define 'physics' as 'reproducible observability' it might be the case that there are limits to how far we can probe nature.Well yes. The problem is that the disagreement is about philosophy and not about physics. The indication for that is that obviously we still have not a clear agreement on the meaning of the words, particularly locality. For me locality is simply microcausality. For you obviously it has a different meaning. The same holds for "reality", which is even harder to define. For me reality is objective, reproducible observability, i.e., what can be tested by experiments.
The universe itself is not, or at least does not appear to be, reproducible. To what extent the entirety of the universe is observable is a matter of debate.