I can’t cognitively follow your level of thinking on this, so I’ll refrain. But I see more and more thinkers getting frustrated by current inconsistencies in almost all fields of Science, and the ‘Scientism’ put out - as seen in the reactions here doesn’t help science at all. It’s like most science passionate people are still believing that they defend science against some religious cult, and therefore have double down on what is current weak consensus with a lot of inconsistencies. People are unwittingly slowing down scientific exploration to safeguard their own locked down beliefs.
I follow a few unconventional thinkers like Unzicker, M Levin and similar ‘rebel’ thinkers in many different fields, and while I can’t vouch for any particular direction of thought, write a critical paper or define what’s wrong with the current state of Science, I can see that current consensus and science/knowledge eco-systems are weak as fuck - all over the place, with weak assumptions, ignored inconsistencies, monetary interests, and a very rigid dogmatism in certain ‘fundamentals’ / consensus science. Fields are not really moving forward as they could’ve.
Sociology, psychology, economics and such fields are btw much much worse, and completely crammed with ideological thinking/consensus - just saying.
New and better science won’t come from those that follow mainstream consensus like religious dogmas, but from those that can see the weak spots and break out of that consensus-structure. Too bad you couldn’t find a descent level of intellectual exploration/discussions here :-(
Take your down-votes as a badge of honor !





I had to re-read your comments and run it through AI to map it to how I personally understand the universe. I can see the dissonance of current SR interpretation claiming no global ‘now’, and the ‘instant’ outcome of the observer thought experiment requiring such a global now, as you describe them further up. I unfortunately can’t do Math at a sufficient level, and still have too many knowledge gaps - missing studies/results/theories etc - to form a coherent reply to your dissonance.
Tbh any of the 4 options - 1 + 3 alternatives - are all a bit wacky to me, but QM seems hard to escape from.
In my private (non-proved/non-consensus) model of the structure of the universe, I have invented a fluid-dynamics planck substrate that all fields are derived from, and that certainly have a global clock - a ‘now’, whereas all local systems (higher complexity/states) in that ‘bohmian-like lattice/soup’ have a derived slower speed - a local reality. However, the AI thinks my ideas fall somewhere in the slick/weaselly ‘philosophical’ group as I cant prove any of it, and thus just allow the apparent inconsistency to exist as is by assuming a global clock and just adding noise. Not good, but hey, it’s a work in progress… ;-)
Anyway, I suspect that you use AI to discuss ideas/theories, and the only issue it had with the selection of comments I gave it + my own thoughts, was that your Fraushiger/Renning interpretation might be too strong in the direction of a direct conflict with SR, but I suspect you have already discussed and re-thought that a few times, so just thought I’d mention it anyway.
Thanks for starting the discussion, forcing an exploration, and hence expanding my knowledge on the topic !