Well, philosophy is known to ask questions for which there are no answers. As to (theoretical) physics, I think we should look at it first and foremost as a computational tool (similar to applied mathematics) which is the way it has been since Newton, then it becomes clear that physics does indeed help understand "how everything is" - in the sense that it helps us predict the results of experiments, and I am not sure if it even makes sense to talk about a "higher level of understanding" than that. A map is definitely not a territory, but it can indeed be (and will always remain to be) both "true" and "false" to a certain degree; similarly, no one in their right mind would say that physics is, should, or can be equivalent to the reality (aspects of) which it merely reflects.
> Similarly, the main question of physics used to be "how everything is", not how do we think everything might be.
I assure you, philosophy of physics is much more complicated than that, and a lot of senior physicists and leaders in the community are aware of these subtleties, and constantly argue about it.
Similarly, the main question of physics used to be "how everything is", not how do we think everything might be.
A map is not a territory, a model is not what is. It is that simple and infallible.