No, you are still a trace along only some of time. "Always" presumes the very flow of time that you avoid by seeing spacetime as a single "crystal." That crystal does not exist in the past and present and future, it contains them.

See also David Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality.

Dear Zbigniew,

I find this question as outrages. You may ask why?

Every question must specify in what context we are asking the question. Such a question without context is pure nonsense. Let's try to bring some order in this chaos. First let's ask the question about the intention. Are you asking it in a context of empirical science or in the context of our inner space we call "a mind". Even if we assume the objective existence of the "real world", which is a serious ontological choice, a lot of fundamental problems need to be resolve before we can even ask the question about our personal existence. Why? Because there is no consensus what every single notion you mentioned in your question mean. There is no universal understanding what space-time really mean. This is a rather convenient mental/mathematical model, the physicist use for interpretations of some of the experimental results. Modern physics mightily struggles with going beyond this stiff model and lack of in depth understanding of it stalls the progress in brings about esoteric ideas like multiverse, holographic universe, or wave collapse. All these popular notions testify in deep misunderstanding of consequences the strict belief in them would bring. Why? Let me give you only a few examples. If we believe in strict interpretation then an object that is travelling with speed of light, undergoes time-space dilation, which means that for such an object a direction of travel conveniently called x would be having x=0 and its time would be stretched to infinity. It means that there would be a dimensionality problem at such a speed. That looks like a paradox because we experience photons hitting us all the time. This is the absurd of literally applying some physical modeling of math in our heads. Additional consequence would be that the space-time would have to be continuous which means infinitely divisible. Defining a lower dimensionality objects, like point on the line, is difficult. After all Heisenberg uncertainty requires infinite energy to reach a size of x=0. SO before we ever reach the dimension of a point w would start creating infinity of infinities of new worlds. We however, know from direct experimentation that any matter or space cannot be infinitely divisible. Therefore all our modern physical laws describe mental models of reality that eventually have to break down. The same difficult suffer all modern theory of physics whether STR or GTR, QFT. There cannot be any singularities or event horizons because our dimensionality would have to be defined differently from our low-speed intuitions. There is many, many more internal incongruities of our modern set of beliefs we call physics.

But let us attack more seriously your angle of asking this question. In order to assign any sense to it, you would have to define meanings of life, consciousness, or existence. These words do not have any universal meanings. Think about life. If you think that you are alive than imagine yourself in any extreme situation like living without air, water, nutrients, or clothes in the cosmic space. Imagine yourself, being alive in absence of Earth or physical laws, like gravitation or electromagnetism. Even thinking about reality like this is beyond nonsense. Life is always relational and depends on context. Therefore, we do not have, because we cannot have any comprehensive definition of life. This is very much in line with Godels math incompleteness theorem. In order for something to be true you must have certain set of conditions fulfilled. In other words some questions cannot have answers in absolute sense. Therefore, questions about life and existence in general are only conditional.

Existence of the Universe is conditional, life is conditional and to make things even more tragic there is no universal understanding what space, and time really means. Every answer would depend on the mental framing we assume. Physical time would be different from biological time from geologic time etc. If a grain of wheat can be germinated after thousands of years the time was inherent to the grain or to the world. If one counts a length of life by allometric laws and use heart beats as a measure such a count would be in direct contradiction with a commonly agreed time. If one takes a tardigrade, dehydrates it, and takes it to cosmic space, time stops entirely. Tardigrade can be revitalized in the environment by simple dehydration. (If you do not believe this statement, such an experiment was performed on the space station, so search and discover). Things are even worse than these simple examples. There is almost no stable elementary particle with infinite life-time. Everything decays and stability is only conditional stability.

In such a context, and as I stated, everything needs a context. A question about immortality is a nice poetry metaphor without any well defined sense. I am afraid that you are travelling to some highly religious mental spaces that require only esoteric faith and nothing that has any sense or reason in our material world.

To avoid the charge that I am a staunch materialist, I have to admit that I am a religious person, and every single specific field of human inquiry to succeed requires initial faith, an article of belief. Physicists need a belief in external objective world, biologist must have a belief that there is a unified pattern that they can study with a physical experimentation, geologists must believe that the knowledge is transferable from place to place, and geographers must believe that maps correspond to the real world topography, poets must believe that there is a certain degree of universality in metaphor and mood transference etc. etc. etc. So we cannot exist without beliefs but let's be realistic in our political and science beliefs. Unfortunately, every 100 years a hiccup of unreasonability wins and people go amok.

Keep asking question.

Bog

Karl Sipfle: [No, you are still a trace along only some of time. "Always" presumes the very flow of time that you avoid by seeing spacetime as a single "crystal." That crystal does not exist in the past and present and future, it contains them.]

Very interesting point of view. Could you develop it in a more specific way? If the crystal does not exist in the past and present and future, but it contains them, it seems contain also "always" presuming the very flow of time. Am I right?

But it could also mean that the single "crystal" forms something more (as it contains our specific past and present and future).

This "more" is multiverse according to D. Deutsch. And the latter contains also all the rest of physically realised "pasts, presents and futures". Within each of them you (or me) exist, you form only a finite trace along some specific time. The boundle of all such traces (which could be associated with you) is also finite. However, it can not be destroyed within this wider "crystal" of multiverse. In this sense you are immortal. The only remaining question is how you are experiencing time flow? It may be continuously experienced (as a sort of illusion) or your consciousness could form a sort of "wave" within this "crystal" structure resembling a phonon in a true solid cristal. Phonon is a physical realm. This "wave" could also be understand as an analogous physical realm. We could call it a soul or/and locally consciousness.

Hi Zbigniew Motyka

"If the crystal does not exist in the past and present and future, but it contains them, it seems contain also "always""

Yes.

But it could also mean that the single "crystal" forms something more (as it contains our specific past and present and future).

This "more" is multiverse according to D. Deutsch. And the latter contains also all the rest of physically realised "pasts, presents and futures". Within each of them you (or me) exist, you form only a finite trace along some specific time. The boundle of all such traces (which could be associated with you) is also finite. However, it can not be destroyed within this wider "crystal" of multiverse."

Right.

"In this sense you are immortal."

It is not a very useful sense, since you can only say that looking at the whole crystal from "outside" it, where there is no time (and the crystal does not even exist). Inside, you are back to time there, against which you are not immortal.

"The only remaining question is how you are experiencing time flow? It may be continuously experienced (as a sort of illusion)"

"or your consciousness could form a sort of "wave" within this "crystal" structure resembling a phonon in a true solid cristal. Phonon is a physical realm. This "wave" could also be understand as an analogous physical realm."

Your wave picture is very specific and very speculative.

"We could call it a soul or/and locally consciousness."

Mind is soul but this soul dissipates at death as does the body.

Article Consciousness, the Full Stack: Four-Layer Architecture=Langu...

Dear Karl,

The whole idea of multiverse is a capital nonsense only people who live in non-real world (read imaginary or inside their minds, additional read: empty heads) can conceive. It is an unfortunate misunderstanding of Classical Quantum mechanics. QM struggled since the inception with the adherence to reality. So the interpretational foundation is incomplete and just simply unrealistic. Let me give you two examples. When you go to the Casino to play roulette, do you expect that all outcomes will be realized or that you expect to loose? Why your expectation is formed this way? Because we usually loose by the laws of probability. Second example, if you kick a stone are expecting an exact outcome, for instance a broken window on a third floor? The interpretation of QM result in terms probability is not an accident and even Einstein must have to succumb to it despite his famous God doesn't play dice. World is stochastic and chaotic and only sometimes we are able to derive predictive answers. What it means is that solution in terms of "wave function" that is completely predictive and once the solution is obtained valid forever is only a crutch to derive the answer in the real world in form of probability not the other world around. Wave function does not exist in the real world. The probability wave does.

Let's come back to the pure unadulterated nonsense of the multiverse. Multiverse as a direct realization of the existence of the wave function would lead to the Cantorian explosion where the continuous variable would be infinitely partitioned and infinity of such variables would explode beyond anything Cantor ever imagined. That would lead to a very serious consequences in the real world. One of these would be that the energy must have been infinity to the infinities large. This means that there is no reason for the world to exist at all, because everything already happened (like in this stupid crystal analogy). If you have access to infinite energy then there are no barriers that would keep our feeble conditional equilibrium, we call life, going and continuing. When you go to more sophisticated argument and use mathematical modeling like Rovelli or Ambjorn modeling of space they quickly discovered that only introducing strict ordering in their simulations (reminiscent of chronology in time) results in a model that has some semblance to reality. Otherwise you get mathematical chaotic nonsense. That is an indirect, circumstantial evidence that without at least one parameter with compulsory ordering, which cannot exist in multiverse, the Universe cannot exist. So, Happy Discussing, but please use your common sense to even the most crazy ideas of even the most distinguished scientists. By the way the physical time cannot be this parameter because from the Theory of Relativity the simultaneity is relative depending on the chosen inertial system.

Bog

Boguslaw Stec Some kind of Many Worlds does not require QM, only legit Metaphysics, as a natural possibility.

Things exist for you by virtue of all the relationships. To have no relationship is not to exist. That immediately suggests that our world might not be the only one.

In physics, one by one what was thought to be an absolute platform has proven to be relative; now we have quantum collapse occurrence being relative too a la Rovelli.

One solidly existing world is itself an assumption. The opposite case is not off in the weeds of weird.

And somewhat-connected universes is yet less drastic.

Far more fantastic is the idea that this universe just happens to be suitable to birth objects like us or anything like us. There are far more examples that would not. (Artificial life experiments have even shown that in silico. Most worlds decay into noise or seize up and freeze into something very simple.)

Hi Karl Sipfle : [ It is not a very useful sense, since you can only say that looking at the whole crystal from "outside" it, where there is no time (and the crystal does not even exist). Inside, you are back to time there, against which you are not immortal.]

But you've agreed with me that the single "crystal" forms something more (as it contains our specific past and present and future), haven't you?

The law of containment in set theory says that if something is part of something more (and the later exists) there exist also its components.

Do not you think that you are making ontological mistake while stating that something may only exist in space and time?

Your existence can be described in space and time, but these are merely formed as a space of events encompassed (ordered) with metrics. That is classical image of world depicted by classical (say subjective) physics.

But the true physcical world can not be depicted within this image. The realm has quantum nature. I.e. the objective world's structure is today depicted by quantum events (forming states with transitions between them depicted by some specific sets of operations). They occur specifically (and subjectively) only within some probability, and the later results from the overall picture of multiverse which (according to modern paradigm of physics - and this is simulataneously response to the question of specific context asked by Boguslaw Stec ) is nothing more but a physical representation of all (subjectively) only probable, but objectively preexisting (in multiverse) states (universes).

Such is contemporary physics, and until we will not develop some better, commonly accepted (on the level of some next paradigm) all the rest (including my notion of soul understanding as "phonon" transmitting itself through cristal lattice of multiverse) is a speculation. Our discussion here is devoted to the later, i.e. to some possible future outcomes of modern paradigm of physics, also. But most interesting today are all consequences (not fully today recognized) of the existing such a paradigm.

Why? Simply because they are justified by some existing basis resulting not only from mere theories but at first instance from theories as strongly as we can only imagine today supported by physical experience.

Dear Karl,

I am sorry, but I bail out. I said what I wanted to say and this is it. Playing with words is fine but existence of the world requires proof. Proof comes from experimentation. Experimentation means that we can have something that is concrete. Concrete means that a reasonable consensus will exist among reasonable people. (like, that it hurts when somebody smacks your face.) You are suggesting that unreasonable people have also some room to exist. They do by the definition of reasonable people which do not encompass entire population. Such pseudo-logical, pseudo-subsconsicus streams can be produced and they lead you to the same, absolutely nowhere. Metaphysics, by definition is meta. Ontology means that we believe something or not and this is our right and final choice. So I believe in Sun-dwelling dragons. And since existence of the sun is extremely difficult to prove then proving nonexistence of my dragons in an impossibility. By your logic they exist. Because they exist I have a superior consciousness because I am conscious of what you are not. And this abstract statement closes our discussion. Bishop Berkeley would be proud.

What it has to do with existence of the real world, with existence of the multiverse, or whether QM is at the base of it all, I am still not sure.

Keep discussing, for me this is the end. By the way are you sure that the ant or an individual cell does not have consciousness and as a matter of fact many of them.

Bog

Dear Prof. Boguslaw Stec . What a pity that you've decided to abandon our discussion even if it not started for well, yet.

For me the more, as I have a Polish neighbour in direct vicinity of exactly your surname, and I have (by induction) very positive attitute toward both of you. Also because my highly appreciated by me master and teacher of quantum mathematical physics was also an old fashionable supporter of the Copenhagen School. However, he had mere chances of knowing some others than, as there simply were no others (as Hugh Everett III works were simply unknown in general in those times). We would say today that then we have to do with former paradigm of physics and only discussed matters were between Einstein and this School. Nevermind, he had accepted my early attempts toward discretization of QM functional Feynan integrals approach to QM together with suggested by me interpretation (quantization) of integration through all possible discrete lattices approximating all possible curved spacetimes. It occurred possible and very promising approach for some regular class of such lattices. E.g., the searched than by physical community regularization of quantum field theory (so hard for continuous case except of QED) had been occurring in the most natural way as a consequence of such approach. However, the totalitarian regime (we both opposed then) had effectively broken these works in their very early stadium, before they could be (say) "monetarized":

Thesis Wybrane problemy całkowania funkcjonalnego w kwantowej teorii pola

We never had returned to them when suitable multiversal circumstances occurred. And it was no more necessary, soon. The works of Everett become widely known and David Deutsch rationalised them in an excellent way, reducing the mathematical divergences (you've mentioned) to a very compact mathematical picture of intertwinned (interfering in a very intensive way) universes within overall multiverse. It is no longer a tree with branches dividing eternally ad infinitum, but rather beautiful Borges'ian garden with many but very reduced (in my opinion finite because of fundamental Planck constant, and not only countable) number of paths.

Zbigniew Motyka Hi Karl Sipfle : [ It is not a very useful sense, since you can only say that looking at the whole crystal from "outside" it, where there is no time (and the crystal does not even exist). Inside, you are back to time there, against which you are not immortal.]

But you've agreed with me that the single "crystal" forms something more (as it contains our specific past and present and future), haven't you?

=== There's been no change in the description of the crysatal.

The law of containment in set theory says that if something is part of something more (and the later exists) there exist also its components.

=== You are assuming existence is absolute.

Do not you think that you are making ontological mistake while stating that something may only exist in space and time?

=== I never said that.

Your existence can be described in space and time, but these are merely formed as a space of events encompassed (ordered) with metrics. That is classical image of world depicted by classical (say subjective) physics.

But the true physcical world can not be depicted within this image. The realm has quantum nature. I.e. the objective world's structure is today depicted by quantum events (forming states with transitions between them depicted by some specific sets of operations). They occur specifically (and subjectively) only within some probability, and the later results from the overall picture of multiverse which (according to modern paradigm of physics - and this is simulataneously response to the question of specific context asked by Boguslaw Stec ) is nothing more but a physical representation of all (subjectively) only probable, but objectively preexisting (in multiverse) states (universes).

=== The probability waves predict in terms of space and time. QM does not make these go away. This line of reasoning is not tightly realted to where we were some paragraphs ago.

Such is contemporary physics, and until we will not develop some better, commonly accepted (on the level of some next paradigm) all the rest (including my notion of soul understanding as "phonon" transmitting itself through cristal lattice of multiverse) is a speculation.

=== You have images in your head that are specific, extra, and unnecessary. I'm not taking waves traveling lattices. I've just said that (the limit of) one's mind exists for only a portion of time. The crystal does not live in time, you're not immortal by being embedded in it.

Our discussion here is devoted to the later, i.e. to some possible future outcomes of modern paradigm of physics, also.

=== Our discussion was on whether we are immortal.

But most interesting today are all consequences (not fully today recognized) of the existing such a paradigm.

Why? Simply because they are justified by some existing basis resulting not only from mere theories but at first instance from theories as strongly as we can only imagine today supported by physical experience.

=== Human reasoning has become very abstract and generalized and in most cases imagines more than will be true. The same grounding in the familiar that bedevils us also is needed as a sense that avoids oceans of falsity. Quickly pondering on the nature of existence becomes of interest where it underlies our own existence. The arguments reveal that chunks of speculation may be true or not but determining which has no practical value and so those are left appropriately as footnotes.

An exercise in simulations helps understanding on this. Almost immediately you must choose some chosen directions and add them in or nothing remotely interesting will develop. The rules must be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Karl Sipfle [You have images in your head that are specific, extra, and unnecessary. I'm not taking waves traveling lattices. I've just said that (the limit of) one's mind exists for only a portion of time. The crystal does not live in time, you're not immortal by being embedded in it.]

We all have images in our heads that are specific, extra, and absolutely necessary for us to understand surrounding world. We are not AIs which were created by us to simulate the cognitive processes which only learn to effectively interact with their (artificially introduced as a set of data) environment to fulfill some specific complex tasks WITHOUT necessity trully understand anything at all.

All past and contemporary physical explanations are based on a very restricted set of very simple and to some degree reciprocal analogies. All are based on the cultural language we worked off for millenia. Even the language of our mathematics is as you said "specific, extra, and unnecessary". It is! And exists as such: As something specific, with extra added ideas of numbers, points, spaces, measures and/or topologies etc. All this is "unnecessary" as there could (less or more equally well) occurred historically some other language tool based on some other ideas, well enough fitting to reality.

You may not taking waves traveling lattices, but such phenomena are commonly treated as real and properly describing behaviour of matter vibrations within solids. You may say that they are not real, as only real picture behind them are collectively excited vibrational movements of atoms within their average locations within rigid enough crystal. In such a way crystal literally does live in time, ergo the phonon (or your soul per analogiam) is immortal by being embedded in it and reflecting again and again from its bondaries with precisely defined (by the phonon vibrational period) cycles of time.

You may treat yourself as an illusion while you are propagating through such lattice while its vibrant atoms (elementary events including your thoughts you are experiencing in a given second) are again and again excited within a period of time ca. 100 years locally. But you are (your energy is) not vanishing anywhere. It is all your heaven and hell you are experiencing within multiverse (in all quantum variants you agreed for and/or are forced to aprove).

All these images are only analogies, but because of perfect mathematical descriptions of well known phenomena in 3 dimensions in solids you can extend them also to 4 (of general relativistic spacetime events with specific set of properties, where time and space intervals you are experiencing depend on your place in it) to 5 (of quantum boundle of curved interfering spacetimes) where you as a phonon may (most likely because of exactly such complex enough structure) experience free will (as there occur much more opportunities and presently unknown as yet undiscovered mechanisms of it) enabling you choosing your own impact on the final shape of this multiverse.

Another analogy. You may see multiverse as a flok of birds taken in a moment of time (as a rigid cristal) on which you may look from different sides by rotating it. But they (the individual birds acting unisono with slight variants) can equally well change the morphology of the flok with every beat of their wings (every return of your phonon through the structure of such "liquid" cristal which responds on your brain modelling of your actions before you decide to act in some specific way.)

BTW. Even if it is mechanism of adaptation enabling them avoiding predatory attacks (alike our conscious planning and modelling within our brains allow us to survive in surrounding reality), it is very likely that this mechanism is enhanced by some mental prize similar to our enchantment (ecstasy) which we share while admire beauty of the world and recognize the results of our common positive efforts to make it (depended on us part of multiverse) better ordered and justice.

Of course still we are (too often) causing tremendous disasters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWQNHJL90v4

Working Paper Discrete network of all possible events - Introduction

The attached here 2 illustrations are taken from BBC short movie:

Ten Million Starlings Swarm (7 Tonnes of Bird Poo) | Superswarm | BBC Earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVko9jyAkQg

Karl Sipfle [You have images in your head that are specific, extra, and unnecessary. I'm not taking waves traveling lattices. I've just said that (the limit of) one's mind exists for only a portion of time. The crystal does not live in time, you're not immortal by being embedded in it.]

We all have images in our heads that are specific, extra, and absolutely necessary for us to understand surrounding world. We are not AIs which were created by us to simulate the cognitive processes which only learn to effectively interact with their (artificially introduced as a set of data) environment to fulfill some specific complex tasks WITHOUT necessity trully understand anything at all.

=== No argument to that, but you have images in your head that are specific, extra, and unnecessary. The trick for us is to grow thought past them as best we can. The biggest realizations come when basic assumptions are found to be questionable.

All past and contemporary physical explanations are based on a very restricted set of very simple and to some degree reciprocal analogies. All are based on the cultural language we worked off for millenia.

=== Sure.

Even the language of our mathematics is as you said "specific, extra, and unnecessary". It is!

=== No. But I likely agree with much of what you're trying to say with this.

And exists as such: As something specific, with extra added ideas of numbers, points, spaces, measures and/or topologies etc. All this is "unnecessary" as there could (less or more equally well) occurred historically some other language tool based on some other ideas, well enough fitting to reality.

=== Our capacity to generalize and abstract is key.

You may not taking waves traveling lattices, but such phenomena are commonly treated as real and properly describing behaviour of matter vibrations within solids.

=== For that.

You may say that they are not real, as only real picture behind them are collectively excited vibrational movements of atoms within their average locations within rigid enough crystal.

=== Point not relevant to the discussion.

In such a way crystal literally does live in time,

=== Right, the one we have been taling about doesn't.

ergo the phonon (or your soul per analogiam) is immortal by being embedded in it

=== A declaration only and an incorrect one.

and reflecting again and again from its bondaries with precisely defined (by the phonon vibrational period) cycles of time.

=== No. You seem to be mixing ordinary crystals with the arbitrarily named one we have been discussing.

You may treat yourself as an illusion while you are propagating through such lattice while its vibrant atoms (elementary events including your thoughts you are experiencing in a given second) are again and again excited within a period of time ca. 100 years locally.

=== This you have issued out of nowhere. Presumably spontaneously evoked by relationships in your brain.

But you are (your energy is) not vanishing anywhere. It is all your heaven and hell you are experiencing within multiverse (in all quantum variants you agreed for and/or are forced to aprove).

All these images are only analogies, but because of perfect mathematical descriptions of well known phenomena in 3 dimensions in solids you can extend them also to 4 (of general relativistic spacetime events with specific set of properties, where time and space intervals you are experiencing depend on your place in it) to 5 (of quantum boundle of curved interfering spacetimes) where you as a phonon may (most likely because of exactly such complex enough structure) experience free will (as there occur much more opportunities and presently unknown as yet undiscovered mechanisms of it) enabling you choosing your own impact on the final shape of this multiverse.

=== Well, free will is just your selecting as you must based on your nature as a product of the universe from which you were born.

Another analogy. You may see multiverse as a flok of birds taken in a moment of time (as a rigid cristal) on which you may look from different sides by rotating it. But they (the individual birds acting unisono with slight variants) can equally well change the morphology of the flok with every beat of their wings (every return of your phonon through the structure of such "liquid" cristal which responds on your brain modelling of your actions before you decide to act in some specific way.)

BTW.

=== What is the point you are making?

Even if it is mechanism of adaptation enabling them avoiding predatory attacks (alike our conscious planning and modelling within our brains allow us to survive in surrounding reality), it is very likely that this mechanism is enhanced by some mental prize similar to our enchantment (ecstasy) which we share while admire beauty of the world and recognize the results of our common positive efforts to make it (depended on us part of multiverse) better ordered and justice.

=== You are citing feeling, the defining characteristic of consciousness.

[Me: The law of containment in set theory says that if something is part of something more (and the later exists) there exist also its components.

Karl Sipfle: === You are assuming existence is absolute.]

Not necessarilly absolute. (I didn't say this.) But in some sense - yes. Otherwise, we could not correspondent here one with another. The existence of some form of multiverse of worlds (spacetimes) is necessary to give effect in the form we have before our eyes. But specific spacetime is not absolute as it is more arbitrary (random) than an imaginary realm given forever. Even the multiverse is not such with a necessity. It is unnecessary to assume that it is absolute. It would be such, if anything possible would have physical representation within it. And it clearly is not so. We all the time decide what we actually do, i.e. what we admit as possible. What shape of world we create. It means that we are generally choosing from potentially existing universes only such which we want to be real. We are shaping multiverse via our conscious modelling within our brains to choose aur acts of creation of only these of them which are acceptable for us. We can readily imagine worlds composed exclusively of persons such as Khingiz-Khan, Hitler, Stalin or Putin. But even then there would remain some conscious choises reducing any other possibilities within their branch of multiverse. Our task is not allowing to change character of our branch into similar one. As it makes whole the difference. If the multiverse is so plastic as it seems, than the more branches are formed accordingly with our highly ethical choises, the better multiverse we will obtain as a result.

Preprint Can a quantum computer "hang up"?

Working Paper Czy komputer kwantowy może się "zawiesić" ?

[ Karl Sipfle === The probability waves predict in terms of space and time. QM does not make these go away. This line of reasoning is not tightly realted to where we were some paragraphs ago.]

It is true, many contemporary people adhered to a very worn-out concept of absolute time.

Also because they are standing on only one leg. Only on quantum mechanics.

However, we need still remember that the cravice between QM and GTR was not still overwhelmed

https://youtu.be/NsUm9mNXrX4?t=86

(However, there the 7:48 statement is false, i.e. the gravity of GTR seems make our picture of reality "ondulating" only when we treat it locally as a space evolving in time; its 3dim crossection of fabric curvature changes in time as we are actually moving from some arbitrary 3dim crossection of spacetime to some other, and this is exactly very false, unreal and unnecessary image, reflecting the form our consciousness seems to think/imagine on/within reality; we were selfsuggested by nice classical images of Euclidean geometry leading to absolute time conception and imaginary. However, it occurred quite enough mechanism for evolutionary success of such orgaised (into conscious living organisms) matter. Notice, please, however, that created by us AIs are yet more effective without actually knowing anything about time, space or local determinism, but just having implemented procedures of effective reacting to impulses from surrounding which general line and rules we adopt to manage with surrounding in our conscious form. (We are in particular conscious that some set of causes as a rule give in result some reciprocal effects. And that assumption is implemented also in the process of machines' learning.)

The cravice between QM and GTR was not still overwhelmed though S. Hawking tried to throw a narrow rope above it. The later led to many misconceptions, as e.g. vaporizing of black holes. (Such a phenomena may still exist, however most likely at running off to infinity time horizons. And the later means it may be treated equally well as non-existing effect (as there most likely are not available infinite time sections ahead of any universe). Anyway, all physical contemporary experience confirms such non-existence of this would be phenomenon.

Working Paper LHCritical approach

It would be also absent (as it is in reality) if the theory was finished and coherent enough. It still is not, however.

Therefore, as the multiverse seems finite, and quite likely with specific boundaries, and the very concept of spacetime is not working at the very basis of its construction, including the commonly applied in physics concept of time, it is unnecessary and (ergo) unreal. Though it may be convenient in some aspects. As the Ptolemeian system also was for a long time. But to be convenient for something does not mean to be necessary. Not at all. To be more specific:

Recently, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the denial of "cogito ergo sum" rule. *)

The fact that local reality does not exist means that what appears to us

as the only reality of this very moment (while neglecting very existence of any minutes before and after this would be moment, if it would be really real, and isn't), it is (by freshly confirmed experimentally with 100% certainty) not real, although it seems such. And that only this what remains, i.e., all that "greater" from what emerges this what only seems to us real (all that we associate with the present moment of running time where all past dissolves and all the future does not yet exist), i.e. that "wider" thing is the only and truelly existing realm. The rest is our illusion of local existence of any essential (i.e. truely real) determinism used by us to depict local "flow of time" as a chain of sets of causes and their results.

As a consequence, all of us exist as the less or more integral parts of an essentially indestructible (quantum discreted) continuum, and that is our real way of being. The present time together with locality of its determinism is not a physical category of being in itself any more. It is nonexistent at all (in any case ONLY as such and not as some only imagined by us objective property resulting from some truely deep realm).

The way we feel it is a feature of this entangled discrete "continuum", multiverse is: Our color and flavor and spin if even some of us would dislike the concept of a multiversal phonon ;-)

BTW, I've looked through your own concept of sensons (an analogue of photons), and it seems to me the other dual way of understanding soul (consciousness) as an analogue of wave (phonon) in multiverse. I even was trying to make such a construction once, but I was merely successful missing the key its element, and you'd provided one, it seams. I've rather seen your senson corresponding to particle within wave of probability as a single human or other conscious enough being. You've suggested to extract quanta of such conscious activity (within our brains), if I understand well. I was treated them as quantum monades similar to advanced isolated enough quantum computers, rather. Your sensons would represent individual single conscious acts, if I understood it well. So we would be less or more coherent individual beams of such sensons. (Alike photons within laser or LED beam, depending on ability of logical focusing on our tasks and not only emotional distraction resulting in sensons dissipations.)

I would like to turn your account (to make you aware) to the specific for physical modeling approach possible outcome: Like in case of bosons which are corpuscules of streams (fluxes) of light, they may also be seen as a wave (even single such quanta may be treated in such a way, i.e as a wave. And the wave in the case of sensons could be just this phonon image within multiversal cristal, I was mentioning.

If you would like to develop such a dual conception in cooperation with physicicst of a sort, I offer you a part of my... global multiversal "time". I think it could be the most honest solution, if only you decide to take such an opportunity seriously enough, of course?

*) Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger for experiments with entangled quantum states, where two particles behave like a single unit even when they are separated. It does not mean anything else than this what I've written above.

How Physicists Proved The Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txlCvCSefYQ

Zbigniew Motyka If you would like to write a Commentary on Consciousness and the STFC and send me I suggest a one-page start, I would be happy to read it and respond to you. There is plenty of material on STFC in my profile to leaf through and even a brand new compilation on Amazon (just search on my name).

KS

Zbigniew Motyka

In the following reply, I assume that the term space-time used in your question is the same as the term spacetime used in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in General theory of Relativity (GR) implies the spacetime continuum to be a physical entity which can even be deformed and curved. Albert Einstein had asserted in a matter-of-fact way, "the world in which we live is a four-dimensional spacetime continuum." According to GR, "mass curves spacetime, and spacetime tells the mass how to move."

The notion of physical space implies the spatial extension of the universe wherein all material particles and all fields are embedded or contained. For the study and analysis of physical space and the material particles and fields embedded in it, we do need the structure of coordinate systems and coordinate spaces as a quantification tool. Whereas the metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance are associated with physical space.

The abstract 4D spacetime model of GR has been used as a 4D template manifold to obtain trajectories of particles as geodesic curves. The mystic connotations associated with this spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious notion that depicts spacetime as a physical entity. The notion of curvature has been wrongly associated with Riemannian 3D space where a non-zero Riemann tensor actually implies invalid deformations induced in the space continuum.

For detailed explanations and proof that 4D spacetime of GR is not a physical entity, and that spacetime model is just an abstract mathematical model which does not constitute theory of gravitation, you may refer to my paper titled "Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity".

Article Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity

"may be attributed to the fallacious notion that depicts spacetime as a physical entity"

Spacetime itself has energy. Physical entity. Perhaps you can use another term to convey what you mean.

The fact that Einstein presented space-time doesn't mean that space-time does exist !

I can perceive space... no problem, and very easy perceive time... but I certainly can't perceive space-time. So the question "Does the physical existence of space-time mean that we are essentially immortal?" is without any meaning.

Dear Karl Sipfle , I will follow your suggestions, though it could be much easier (and less time consumptioning) if we decided to cooperate on the way of suggested by me line of proceeding from the very beginning. However, as I had not read your works in full extension I can not know today if you'd not actually follow this extended path also, already. So,as Poles used to say: " What is delayed is not [necessarily] lost." So, please be patient, as I will try thoroughly study your works, before proceeded as you'd suggested in nearby (I hope) future.

Dear Gurcharn Singh Sandhu I will read your paper with a great pleasure (as I am still learning new things all my life). But I will respond below, before this reading, first, if you have not anything against.

Dear Berndt Barkholz I share your perception of time (as all of us used to do in our common everyday life). But I will not agree both with your and mine this perception, nevermind, if you allow. Why? Because, as I'd noticed many times on the spun of my life, the common sense is not always the best way we may depend on, on the way toward our deeper understanding of reality.

If you allow, then, I will try to bring this thought closer below:

Such discussion on physical meaning of spacetime could be fully justified in times of Newton, where time was completely unglued from Euclidean conception of space.

Einstein found a geometrical decription of gravity, which is no longer force but results (mutually) from curved spacetime geometry.

He also made his description with the means of internal tensor metric depicting this curvature and... of course you can try to visualize it as a Riemanian curvature of some 4dim manifold in 5dim containing this manifold Euclidean space. (And also 3dim space can be treated as an analogous manifold in 4dim Euclidean spacetime, however only in not fully valid approximation - being usually adapted to cosmological models by astrophysicists and astronomers, but not without additional assumptions by at least some most cautious physicists).

Contemporary physicists have, as a rule, no problems with treating curved spacetime as a realm. And have not also with treating space in such a way in Quantum Mechanics, either :-). But it does mean that both aremost likely... unphysical. The only physical realm picture we've developed today in enough (or at least a bit more) consequent manner is a concept of multiverse which locally can be seen as both: the curved spacetime, and the later, locally, as a 3dim space evolving in 1dim time. Also all physical entities may be described as their 4dim corresponding versions and there is no problem with tensor of energy-momentum treated as one physical entity, and so on.

There is one more really big problem, however. The Euclidean 5dim space in which we re trying to submerge our 4dim manifold of curved spacetime is rationally justified only in so called Euclidean approximation, where the time is treated as a real component equally with the remaining 3 of space components. However, it is not real, actually. It is imaginary component of pseudoeuclidean spacetime in local approximation of plane spacetime (without curvature). It means that we can do all the necessary calculations in such Euclidean model; however, to make the results physical we need to make so called imaginary extension by changing in the results t with it. And the later is far not always mathematically justified. I.e., such an extension may occur has not mathematical sense/meaning/validity; and then we need return to physical description, where time is locally an imaginary coordinate from the very beginning of calculations.

And this is the main problem in our imagination of physical reality of curved spacetime, as it has literally complex character (in the sense of complex numbers and not real). But the numbers are numbers. And the fact that we can not imagine a locally pseudoriemanian manifold or even descript it in 5dim pseudoeuclidean space (as it is not enough there to apply one coordinate as imaginary one, because its orientation could change from point to point, as it is globally also curved in spacetime together and tightly intertwinned with "ordinary" space. (That is why there were attempts to use more time dimensions, to get curved time component also; however, then, some not accepted in the light of GTR consequences in strongly glueing off the time from space still remain.)

And this is the point where we can not be sure of anything. As we can not anymore imagine movement in spacetime as we used to do that - by our Euclidean associations, I mean. It also may mean that spacetime of GRT itself is much more dynamical than we are ready to acknowledge as a result of mental disgluing space from time while trying to imagine in our brains 3dim space "evolving" in time. And this is possible only for small curvatures and as an approximation. This is the matter of fact my good fellow (and full physicist) tried once to refocus me on. (Without firm success, however ;-) However... as it seems not to be possible even for the mentioned above most cautious theoreticsl physicists. That is in my opinion ;-) why Einstein used asked who was the other man who understood his theory. As, most likely, the matter of fact was he didn't understand it fully himself. That is why he so readily agreed with Infeld in question of gravity waves, in my opinion, though initially he neglected them.

Nobody understands fully the consequences of GRT. Therefore, such strange theories as gravity waves propagating in curved spacetime with velocity c are also seriously considered nowadays and occasionally prized with Nobel prize ;-)

Zbigniew Motyka Sounds good. -KS

The 4D spacetime continuum of GR is not a physical entity but just an abstract mathematical model.

The notion of invariance of the arc element ds in all admissible coordinate transformations is most crucial in the representation of a rigid 3D continuum. Since representation of vectors and tensors in the Euclidean geometry rely on the invariance of arc element ds, it implies that the Euclidean 3D space is effectively treated as a rigid 3D space continuum. Any specific coordinate system in use is essentially characterized by the metric coefficients gij.

When a surface is represented in the parametric form by 2D surface coordinates, the intrinsic geometry of the surface is described by its 2D metric tensor. The Riemann tensor composed from the 2D metric coefficients is non-zero for a curved surface and zero for a plane surface. Unfortunately, this notion of curvature applicable to 1D curve and 2D surfaces has been wrongly carried over to a 3D space and 4D spacetime manifolds. Strictly speaking, the notion of curvature is just not applicable for 3D space just as the notion of volume is not applicable to 2D surfaces. The notion of curved space, as used in GR, actually implies a deformed space or strained space.

The GR is based on Riemannian 3D space in which the points of the space continuum are not considered invariant. In GR, the coefficients of metric tensor [hij] are obtained from Einstein’s Field Equations (EFE) and the Riemann 'curvature' tensor Rijkl computed from hij is non-zero. On the other hand, the Riemann tensor computed from the metric tensor [gij] of the Euclidean space, is always zero. As such the Riemannian 3D space of GR is defined to be a deformable space which is wrongly presented as 'curved' space. However, such Riemannian metric induced physical deformation of the space continuum, leads to discontinuities and voids in the continuum which are physically not valid.

Actually, in GR, the pseudo-Riemannian 4D spacetime manifold is used as a mathematical differential scale template manifold for getting the trajectories of particles as geodesic curves. The differential scale or metric coefficients of this 4D template manifold are correlated through EFE with the mass-energy density in the physical space, to simulate the particle trajectories in a gravitational field with geodesic curves. However, the Riemannian metric coefficients, that govern the scaling factors of associated coordinates, are only mathematically linked (through EFE) with mass-energy density in physical space. Actually of course, no law of Physics can permit the mass-energy density (a physical entity) to influence or govern the coordinate scaling factors (a mathematical abstract entity) as claimed in GR.

Hence, the abstract 4D spacetime model of GR has been used as a 4D template manifold to obtain trajectories of particles as geodesic curves. The mystic connotations associated with this spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious notion that depicts spacetime as a physical entity. The notion of curvature has been wrongly associated with Riemannian 3D space where a non-zero Riemann tensor actually implies invalid deformations induced in the space continuum.

For detailed explanations and proof that 4D spacetime of GR is not a physical entity, and that spacetime model is just an abstract mathematical model which does not constitute theory of gravitation, you may refer to my paper titled "Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity".

Article Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity

The answer to the thread question

“Does the physical existence of space-time mean that we are essentially immortal?”

- is rather short – “physical existence of space-time” has fundamentally no relation to “that we are essentially immortal”, though to understand what this answer – and the question, of course, mean it is evidently necessary before to understand what the words “physical existence”, “space” , “time”, “space-time”, “we” [and “we are”, though], “mortal/immortal” mean.

For that, in turn, it is fundamentally obligatorily necessary to understand – what are the really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”

- from what it follows understanding of what is “physics”: that is the science that studies Matter;

- “Consciousness” - from what it follows understanding of what is “we”;

- and “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, from what it follows understanding why and how “Matter”, “Consciousness”, and “we”, exist – and it follows understanding of what is “existence”.

All these phenomena/notions above are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and sciences; and so in framework of the mainstream any scientifically at least rational, and, of course, scientifically correct, answers fundamentally are impossible; all what is possible in the mainstream – and rather numerously exists in the mainstream is some , and so by no means scientifically grounded, ad hoc sets of transcendent, etc., ad hoc claims.

All really fundamental phenomena/notions can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, see at least first dozen of pages in the link above; where, including, it is explained what is the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Life on Earth”, including so what are “we” and “animals”, though note that this point is more in detail is considered in the SS&VT initial functional model of Consciousness version “consciousness on Erath”, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness

Including, say, that in the question introduction “animals-live-forever-immortal-jellyfish.jpg” really isn’t correct. Though yeah, “cell is immortal” – provided that exists in corresponding not too aggressive environment, of course, however multicellular living beings, including “we”, are principally mortal, the deaths of the beings – including cells, though, the tenet in the quote above is rhetoric something, are programmed, since that is obligatorily necessary condition for real development of the beings; if it would be “animals-live-forever-immortal” on Earth still would be only some simplest biostructures, including no any “we”.

The last 4 fundamental phenomena/notions above, including the actualizations in concrete informational systems o “Matter” and “consciousness/Life on Erath” , of the absolutely fundamental “Space” and “Time” as the concrete Matter’s and “consciousness/Life on Erath” spacetimes, while Matter and “consciousness/Life on Erath” exist and evolve/develop in fundamentally different spaces, which only partially intercross,

- have no any relation to the ““we” immortality problem”.

More see the links above; the post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

Most people tend to correlate or confuse the 4D spacetime continuum of GR with the ancient notion of aether wherein all matter particles and fields of physical universe are embedded. The notion of aether can be correlated with 3D physical space with known physical properties of permittivity and permeability or elasticity. The dynamic deformations in this physical space as functions of time can be represented by an abstract 4D space-time model which has been mis-represented as spacetime continuum - a physical entity. I have already shown in my previous post that 4D spacetime continuum is just an abstract mathematical model and not a physical entity.

I am appending below a small note on Dynamic Deformations in the Space Continuum for general information.

2nd: Dear Sergey Shevchenko , I beg Your pardon, but It seems that the two following your claims

[All really fundamental phenomena/notions can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception]

[all what is possible in the mainstream – and rather numerously exists in the mainstream is some , and so by no means scientifically grounded, ad hoc sets of transcendent, etc., ad hoc claims. ]

seem to contradict one to another, as there is no finished (cristalised) scientific framework here, yet, really.

1st: It is obvious that we are existing at the border between some past and not withstanding the trial of time scientific paradigm of physics of XX century which ended with still not overwhelmed contradiction between classical and quantum physics and their nihilistic/agnostic mis-/un-understanding anthropocentric approach "God does not play dice" on one hand, and the Kopenhagen completely nihilistic and agnostic approach on the other.

2nd: And the another new, just being formulated paradigm of quantum multiversum which can be (very conditionally) subdivided) on different spacetime manifolds without clear thickness (which intersect and/or are in places parallel or transversal one to many others). The later viewpoint is slowly finding its firm place in community of physicists (who ca. divided with the former approach in the ratio ca. 50:50 at the border of centuries, and especially after crucial works of D. Deutsch on multiversum and quantum computing).

It is not clear what may be declared as mainstream today (1st, the 2nd or maybe the observed nowadays transition between them with still lasting attempts to find some 3rd way, which could be accepatable by at lest significant and growing in a promising way minority of or even off the "mainstream").

Also the statement that some off-road and "new" approach is only valid scientifically in framework of "information as absolute", needs 1st to show some evidences that such off-road approach possess any uniform and unique explanatory power within the physics of reality. E.g., the information as a motor or force driving the fabric of reality remains empty notion without precision understanding of its anthropogenic character, either.

And if we can agree that matter is matter of fact a sensible name (notion) for the same fabric of reality (and we still need understand the matter as the energy also in very direct and equivalent way), than the notion of information, its entropy, flow, preservation, conservation or dissolving in black holes (depending on their classical or quantum still-not-verified aspects attributed to both by S.Hawking) seems equally accidental as conventional and strictly speaking anthropocentrical approach not less than any of 3 mentioned candidates for mainstream approach i.e. for rapidly changing today paradigm in physics.

Though I could and actually I readily agree with the later anthropological statement. As in my opinion whole our understanding and sensing of matter and uni(multi)verse is doomed on such anhropocentric reception.

Moreover, this our reception, creates this uni(multi)verse we are perceiving in forms we were created just by naming some phenomena and aspects of reality with often very accidental and misunderastnding notions, such as space, time, cause, movement, existence, non-existence, and all other words and signa to which we atributed some arbitrarily chosen by us sdesignates, which we decided to extract from surrounding us chaos to try to find any order in it. Even if it may be just mere illusion. I mean all these consequend and "beautiful" theories depicting reality with "astonishing accurracy" and de facto not explaining anything at any slightly deeper level of knowledge/understanding. In practice, we do comprehend/understand nothing from surrounding us reality. We are recording some order we want to recognize as such and use sophisticated mental tools to describe these our pretty arbitrarily made selections , our mathematics are, as we have no alternative ands better once. And it seems that we can proceed some more paces, yet, on this road of recognizing the fabric of reality essence, before we achieve the top of our and likely procured by us AIs means and capabilities. The harder will be return back and try to find and explore quite likely much more promising paths.

Despite of all the above precautious I am sicerely thankful to You for Your kind nd extended input to this discussion, and - as we are doomed to some convenient human frameworks, i.e. to assume some similar to them, to achieve any understanding of surrounding us reality, I will with pleasure follow proponed by you link, in hope that it may form one of compasses leading to such deeper understanding of reality. (Though we need to remember that we are on its very very early stadium still. And as such, maybe or even for sure, all we contemporary reserachers are going astray; away from the correct path or direction.)

That is why, I would suggest to preserve all of us from statements that "only" true approach is with necessity this or that "our own" approach. As in an extreme situation, it will lead us to solipsism. And at the best to Leibniz monades. (And I should add that I am great aprentice of the term Quantum Leibniz Monades, which I had personally formulated for needs of justification of dynamical character of multiverse and physical sygnificance of our free will whatever again we could understand under these both notions.)

(...)

Thanks a lot to all participants for the up to now discussion, and I invite all of you and others heartily to the further unrestrained exchange of thoughts and achievements in this field.

Dear Zbigniew Motyka,

- from that [and not only, though]

“…Also the statement that some off-road and "new" approach is only valid scientifically in framework of "information as absolute", needs 1st to show some evidences that such off-road approach possess any uniform and unique explanatory power within the physics of reality. E.g., the information as a motor or force driving the fabric of reality remains empty notion without precision understanding of its anthropogenic character, either.….”

- it looks that you didn’t read the SS post, including linked papers, above attentively enough. Where, again, practically all points in the thread question are rigorously scientifically clarified, including, in this case, in the post it is pointed, that before to say about “we”, in this case using the notions “anthropogenic”, it is necessary before to understand scientifically what is “we”? and what is “information”?.

In the SS&VT conception “we” is rigorously scientifically defined – that are absolutely for sure nothing else than some informational systems

– since in the conception it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. Which - the Set - exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent; and so exists eternally, having no Beginning and no End.

Including Matter and any Consciousness – while “we” really are some versions of the “consciousness on Earth”, are only some elements in the Set.

Just since “we” are made from the stuff “Information”, there exist its “anthropogenic character” in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, which so exists in the mainstream fundamentally really purely as some transcendent/irrational entity –mainstream fundamentally doesn’t know why this entity exists,

- but because the above any living being, including mainstream philosophers, uses information – again just because of everything, including living beings, are only informational patterns/systems, though purely instinctively, but sometimes adequately to the objective reality.

That is another thing, that the mainstream philosophers seems even don’t suspect about that the phenomenon/notion “information” must be scientifically defined, and so really use it equally as, say, a bacterium uses.

At that in the philosophy yet in Antic times the branch “Epistemology”, which attempts to answer to the question “why and how humans’ observe and study the external World” was formed, and in mainstream now there exist innumerous publications, including of numerous “Great Philosophical Thinkers’” ones, which, because of the fundamental transcendence in the mainstream of all fundamental phenomena/notions, really are nothing else than some sets of senseless claims, besides some banal instinctively known for everybody, truths.

In the “The Information as Absolute” conception these questions are answered – see above, and the branch “Epistemology” is really superfluous now; as most of other branches also, though, since now the ontologies of all fundamental phenomena/notions are clarified, and the metaphysical objects and problems have become Meta-objects and Meta-problems of concrete sciences;

- while in the conception now the really ultimately fundamental – so just philosophical – problems – are formulated.

Etc., more see the SS post above and papers that are linked in the post.

Cheers

Dear Sergey Shevchenko , Gurcharn Singh Sandhu , Karl Sipfle , Berndt Barkholz , Boguslaw Stec

I would like thanks a lot all of you for an interesting discussion which I hope will last (as its kernel actually is essential for better and more clear understanding of our relation/place with/in reality) and invite you to consider the other one:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_Dead_Ends_in_Fabric_of_Reality_possible2

There, together with Kian Lajevardi we are considering as worth to be developed a hypothesis which (in our opinion) could explain existence of effects of interference of light within quantum multiverse. Your deep insight in some aspects of physical reality may occur promising in developing this hypothesis to, even if not theory or extended interpretation, than at least (and likely not last) full and worthy scientific paper.

Dr Stec could be especially helpful as providing strong criticism to the idea of multiverse in general. His contrarguments could be treated as a basis to deeper our discussion of interference phenomena within multiverse, alternative approach to their explanation, providing firm critical ground for the future effective solution, the results of which (in the case of achieving some consensus and worthy enough and conclusive enough conclusions) we could present as the said common paper to wider scientific community.

What do You think, Dear Gentlemen?

And returning to our current discussion...

Dear Sergey Shevchenko , thank you for introducing some order in our above discurs. It seems to need to disconnect anthropocentric description of reality together with the place of the anthropocentric subject we are in it, as beings able to describe and perceive both only in terms of information, from the true reality, however still.

I promise I will read your works you've linked sooner than later I hope, but before I allow you strongly influence my viewpoints (as we all are informational quantum objects which in course of mutual interactions use to change our states of minds ;-) I would like to express my actual conviction, first. I am positive that out there does exist real material world, which could exist with or without us (or any conscious in some similar to ours ways beings). However, without us (or sthg similar to us or at least higher animals, it has no sense, as we can talk about sense only if there is sbdy who can discuss about sthg so strange. (Otherwise, as in "Alice in Wonderland" any other "sense" makes no sense at all.)

To be more specific, I'd like to draw your attention to the very fact that, most likely the reality is completely chaotic, and only such conscious beings who evolving in this chaos managed to sustain within it (both physically as some biological continuum, as well as compos mentis individuals) only because we learnt to distinguish and set our conscious attention not on sthg reminding our subconscious nightmares, but on any glimpse of order which allowed us to survive as such within the reality. You may call this information, but for me the later is only function of one of possible adaptative mechanisms life might worked of to sustain itself. Of course, there were needed some physical properties of this chaotical matter at least temporal and local, and temporal may mean few billion of years and local - all the "visible" by us part of universe to sustain evolution from cold stone matter through not conscious organisms toward "the crown of beings" we are. However, this universe image itself we have in our minds seems to be extracted by living forms during their evolution (both biological as cultural, where some cultures occured) from the chaotic much vaster multiverse, as some coherent set/bundle of paths within the latter.

To better illustrate this I would like to recall some visual works presented on YT by project.jdm, in which there occurs from time to time sthg we used to name state of order:

Pendulum Wave TORNADO 🌪

This Pendulum Wave is MESMERIZING 😲😨

or, e.g.:

Will this happen to our Galaxy too?

I am afraid that all so called quantum states are merely such analogous accidental/vibrant forms of matter (energy/matter) assumed by it... sometimes, but also (within some bundle of worlds/paths) in regular enough paces, regular enough to be called by us the Laws of Nature.

Dont forget Thermodynamics

https://youtu.be/jsUFpz1iU9Q