So can we say the universe is just 1 thing, and we have artificially
subdivided it for a more convenient representation?
Only after it was chosen the best answer I could understand the question, I think :)
The author want defend the idea of monism within metaphysics which argues that the variety of existing things in the universe are reducible to one substance or reality and therefore that the fundamental character of the universe is unity.
A consequence of this view is that everyday objects such as tables, chairs, cars, buildings, and clouds do not exist. While there seem to be such things, this is only because there are elementary particles arranged in specific ways. For example, where it seems that there is a chair, there are only elementary particles arranged chairwise, like a chair. The particles we call a chair maintain a more or less stable arrangement for a while, which gives the impression of a single object. Unlike the pluralist point of view that there is many subatomic particles, the monist point the view is that there is just one type of substance, or a plank size fundamental substance/particle for example. A way to allow for the heterogeneity we see in the world without contradiction is to regionalize instantiation properties, for instance, the same particle show red here and green there, and to has distributional properties. Or create the "everything theory" of fundamental physics, to tie all the known forces into a unity.
But suppose the monist world that create the universe for for us. If the monist makes her universe the object of scientific study, it will find that it behaves with the same complexity as the universe described by a pluralist. Thus what pluralist calls "different things", the monist calls "the same things." Understood this way, the distinction between monist and pluralist collapses and amounts to different ways of describing the same thing: a massively complex process that causes all the same monist's and pluralist's experiences. Presumably having made the case that the monist scientist is actually a pluralist scientist, the monist applies Occam's Razor, and suggests to the monist scientist to prefer the pluralist's standard external “reality” over something like a monist's "reality". This is because the standard pluralist "reality" fits all the data available to the scientist, and on the monist's hypothesis is impossible to find differences, rendering superfluous the more complicated wording to account for all forms of heterogeneity we see in the world. The "everything theory" of fundamental physics, to tie all the known forces into a unity does not yet exist. Monism is a hope.