The fact that there isn’t a single truth (ie, “Russell’s paradox”) means that science is consistent concerning how reality functions, but inconsistent (thus in practice an eternal carousel) concerning what reality is. That is, we can model how reality functions consistently (albeit always in at least two orthogonal aspects according to “the axiom of choice”), but we can’t clarify what it is.
The obstacle to clarify what reality is, is that such a clarification thus is a paradox per definition (according to Russell’s paradox), and that paradoxes are abstract contradictions, not real things. In order to be real things, A has to is true in B at the same time as A is false in B. This problem can be solved literally by imagining a process that contains A in B and in D (as particle physics does with “the mechanism” (ie, process) “Higgs particle”), but the problem with this solution is that it splits single A:s between B and D, meaning that a representation of single thing (eg, a painting of a pipe) equals the thing the representation represents (ie, a pipe), see Magritte’s painting “Ceci, ce’st ne pas une pipe”, when no thing can be both real and abstract at the same time, ie, can’t cross the boundary between reality and dream.
This matter is primarily not a question of what reality is, but rather of whether we can express what reality is using conceptualization. None-the less, the matter lacks a solution already on this level, because conceptualization is internally contradictory. We simply can’t express what reality is even if reality is unambiguous. However, at a more fundamental level, the matter is a question of whether reality is unambiguous or not, and, unfortunately, the answer appears to be that reality is ambiguous, and thus that we couldn’t have expressed what reality is even if conceptualization hadn’t been contradictory. The matter thus lacks a solution fundamentally. There simply isn’t any way to clarify what reality is.