For one thing, youve been speaking of Whitehead for several threads, so if you are resting in his view of organic philosophy a reconciliation of math/science and theology/philosophy - I must hasten to note that he was born in 1861 and thus, like Hegel (born 1770) and Nietzsche (born 1844) to whatever extent they address the physical, none of them had the insights of modern physics, cosmology, et al.
That of course doesnt mean the philosophers were ipso facto in error in whole or in part, but rather that they were not as informed as we are today and thus it falls to us or modern thinkers to put their insights in context.
There is also some dispute in the interpretation of Whitehead vis-à-vis theology as we can see here: Process Theism
Nevertheless, those who maintain that all that there is is an illusion or a dream (e.g. I am a figment of your imagination) have no basis for correspondence with math or science at all. It is a statement of faith much like the statement that God created all that there is last Thursday. Indeed, if Lanza's speculations were taken to the extreme, it would suggest that "reality" comes into existence as a result of the observation itself.
Einstein famously said that reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one but he was speaking of local realism in physics.
It seems we are always coming back to the epistemic divide. If all of science and math would adhere to Bohrs counsel, then it would limit itself to what it can say about the physical and nothing about the meaning of it. That would leave the broad reach to the philosophers who have the toolkit including the wisdom over the ages, to address the essence and to the theologians to put all of the knowledge in context with revelation, doctrine or tradition, i.e. systematic theology.
But of course that only works if the philosophers and theologians make an effort to understand modern math and science, e.g. Wolfgang Pannenberg.
Whitehead explained relativity to Einstein. Philosophy was a second career for Whitehead, after he retired from mathematics. He is hard to read, but he has to be read first hand since translations suffer from the usual failure to transmit meaning.
Oh thank you so much for mentioning Wolfhart Pannenberg, professor of systematic theology at Munich. He has been "dialoguing" with scientists of late! I highly recommend his fascinating work, Toward a Theology of Nature, 1993. It's simply a marvelous read!