There is probably someone who understands this, and even, probably, one of the thought leaders. Perhaps one of them even expressed this. Sorry, I'm not following. Those who know what InfToE is understand why it is generally uninteresting.⮯ But, why not speak out when you are amused by people’s misunderstanding of the simple things. Judging by the fact that this is not widely discussed and therefore did not catch eye in the feed, even if one of the leaders spoke out, it did not penetrate the mass consciousness.⮯

Go to twitter and you will see tweets from people who perceive the universe as an object. This inability to overcome the banal everyday worldview in oneself is especially striking when it manifests itself in quite respectable scientists (in all; others simply do not occur).
1 ➫ Yes, every day we drink a cup of coffee, hug a loved one, leave the house, look at the sky, get into a car… Everything around us is limited by its form and has its own physical content.
2 ➫

Well, fair warning: this thread will blow your mind. It's time to do it. All enthusiastic cries have been heard, all the required Nobel Prizes have been received, now we can safely sit down and figure out:
*** whether gravitational waves exist ***
1 ☛ Yes, yes, I know. The theory of waves has been worked out for a long time and perfectly, all the required mathematics is known and obvious, gravitational waves absolutely correspond to it, all the great predictions have come true exactly, what else is there to talk about.
2 ☛

Earlier, we described in detail why the history of mankind ends, and determined when and how this will happen:

https://twitter.com/inftoe/status/1402233954070007811

1 ᐅ In short:
a) The history of mankind ends, because humanity, whatever it thinks about itself, is just an intermediate stage in the evolution of the universe, and the function of this stage is close to being fulfilled.
2 ᐅ

The idea for this thread came at the end of September-2021 after the Twitter AI for a couple of days in a row showed in trends an interview with Mo Gawdat @MGawdat about the release of his book Scary Smart: The Future of Artificial Intelligence #scarysmart.
1 ↷ The author, wise with experience of working with #AI, gave an interview to The Times @thetimes represented by Hugo Rifkind @hugorifkind.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1443153787623981057

2 ↷

In this thread, we will finally answer the meaningless question that has been tormenting cohorts of thinkers and dreamers for centuries, and which surprisingly finds people willing to ask it (and even answer it) among seemingly quite respectable researchers.
1 ➟ So, are there other universes?

This is a very funny question.

First, it is a classic antinomy, no less dead-end than the famous "I lie." If something has multiple instances, then don't call it a universe.
2 ➟

In the thread is.gd/ycy0KB, we found out what time is and what space is in the information universe. These are two types of differences between the observed beings in the information structure of the universe: causal and non-causal.
1 ⇝ But if with time everything is more or less clear, it is one-dimensional and unidirectional, since it is determined by the causal relationships, then some understatement remains by the nature of space.
2 ⇝

In the thread is.gd/L7tevL we have substantiated the fine-tuned universe. And since the InfToE allows to solve such problems (this is exactly what the ToE should do), let's apply it to more fundamental, and therefore interesting tasks.
1 ↣ Let's figure out what time is and what space is.
In modern physics, since it does not have the prospect of sufficiently deep penetration into the foundation of the universe, this task is simply not relevant.
2 ↣

Another topic that confuses physicists no less than the heat death of the universe (which we discussed in is.gd/VQzfVI) is the fine tuning of the universe, and inexorably following it (no matter how hard try to come up with alternatives) the anthropic principle.
1 ⇒ This confusion is much stronger, because on the other side of the barricade there looms not soulless thermodynamics, which, after all, is still physics, but a much more alien enemy - someone's intelligent design.
2 ⇒

The idea of this thread is dictated by a curious situation, however, quite typical for science which has reached an impasse, from which it can no longer get out. Having lost the path of knowledge, physics goes forward at random, not knowing what it is looking for.
1 ↝ A typical example of such a model of cognition "we do not know what we are looking for, so when we find it, then we will decide whether it is it or not" – the search for dark matter.
2 ↝

👇 (thread of threads)

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/496012177103663104

The universe is only information and nothing else
(19 Jan 20, 10 tweets, 2 min read)

https://twitter.com/inftoe/status/1218826934190321665

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1218826…

The idea for this thread came from this short dialogue with @Elisabe09456260 in the thread about @elonmusk's attempt to save humanity:

https://twitter.com/Elisabe09456260/status/1405042960421502978

Colleague expresses the opinion that increasing entropy will eventually eliminate everything in the universe.
1 ᐅ This is a very interesting opinion indeed.
And first of all, it is interesting in attitude to this problem in modern physics. Modern physics is little shy about this topic.
Because it is very inconvenient not to have a clear answer to a such simple question.
2 ᐅ

Some (few) people are wondering: why is Elon Musk @elonmusk going to send a million people to Mars in the next 40 years, and why is preparing for this with such energy, which (if to leave aside the charm of achievements of this very extraordinary person) is more like a rush?
1> @elonmusk We visited the Moon half a century ago and since then have done quite well without far space flights. Is it possible that such a waste of funds and efforts is simply explained by the fact that one enthusiast was carried away by the idea of giving humanity a multi-planetary?
2>

Why does quantum gravity (and, accordingly, graviton) not exist, and all theories professing this idea are fictitious? Because the nature of the gravitational interaction, with all the kinship with the other three (quantized), is still somewhat different.
1/39 Like everything in the information universe, fundamental interactions are the derivatives of the metric of the universe. It is it that determines their number - four - and the basic features of each of them.
2/39

1/19 The compression/static/expansion trilemma is meaningless. It comes from the naive worldly idea of the universe as a certain volume of matter existing in space and time. This idea (the same turtle and three whales) brought cosmology even to such funny absurdity: 2/19 To understand what the universe is, first need to clear yourself of the jumble of absurdities that the BBT has turned cosmology into. Take any theory, and if it has in anamnesis the Doppler interpretation of redshift - forget it, this theory is wrong.

Since the universe is unknowable to the individual, believing is an integral part of consciousness. This applies to scientific consciousness in full.
But scientific belief should not contradict physics. Belief in aliens is no different from religion: it is just as unscientific, because it contradicts the special theory of relativity.

1. Why does the universe exists as we observe it, that is, progressing from simple states to more and more complex ones?
This thread complements the answer to the question about the cause of the universe existing given in the earlier thread.

https://twitter.com/inftoe/status/1219844642952433664

2. The idea for this new thread came in a dream. The brain, accustomed to everyday perception of reality, is not satisfied with a strictly formal answer, and, without asking the owner's opinion, seeks more worldly arguments for the same conceptual basis.

1. The idea of ​​this thread is inspired by a fun model of the universe running away over the horizon, discussed by @StartsWithABang.

https://twitter.com/StartsWithABang/status/1219515489627426816

This thread answers the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. And this is not 42. 2. If we are talking about the universe, then the only question that makes sense is: why does the universe exist. All other questions (i.e. how it exists) are consequences of it. If your cosmology does not answer this question, it is not cosmology.

1. Take either being in the universe. It consists of a simpler partial beings and information on how they are related. Take either partial being and consider it: the same. Perform these iterations to the end, and look back: the whole universe is only information and nothing more. 2. So, the universe is only information, and nothing else. What semantics does the simplest element (bit) of this information have?
Of course:
• "the same" (let's designate it "S")
• "the other" ("O")

1. The idea of ​​this thread is inspired by a very amiable dialogue with @bfeinner

https://twitter.com/bfeinner/status/1215152838067666945

This will be a thread about #blackhole. That a black hole is actually not what we are used to imagining and discussing. 2. Have you ever wondered why artists depict a black hole in the form of a black sphere? Moreover, exactly spherical black holes are considered by well serious researchers in the models.
This is a stereotype transferred from another familiar celestial bodies: stars and planets.

1. The idea of ​​this thread is inspired by this sarcastic dialogue with @GaryLoew:

https://twitter.com/GaryLoew/status/1213818084110282753?s=20

2. Very few people understand the real meaning of the concept of space-time, despite the fact that it is basic in modern physics. And there is a suspicion that even those who understand reject this understanding, since it runs counter to modern physics.