Poetry, paintings, music, etc., along with their appreciation as an experience, WOULD also emerge from the theory of everything. From a purely reductionist perspective, those things emerge from consciousness, which in turn must emerge from interactions of fundamental constituents: energy and information. In principle, a complete understanding of interactions from a fundamental level will produce emergent qualities such as consciousness and all the rest. The theory would reveal, as a result of interactions of fundamental constituents, why we appreciate music, and a rock does not, even though we and the rock are built from the same fundamental constituents.

The key to understanding is in the details of the triggering device and the concept of simultaneity. Imagine two clocks, one at each end of the pole. If, according to a triggering device attached to the pole, both ends are in the barn at the same time, it will indeed explode. Observers riding along with pole OR stationary with respect to the barn will agree to the result.

As I understand it, a distant observer could observe an event that will happen tomorrow, as judged in our own reference frame. Tomorrow’s event will reach that observer in proper sequence, meaning that today’s events here on Earth will precede tomorrow’s, according to the distant observer. However, we here on Earth would have already experienced tomorrow’s event according to our own clocks, by the time the distant observer receives it. Our past event therefore becomes his future event, and there is no paradox in saying that. The seeming paradox is resolved using the fact that there is no universal “now”: Simultaneity is relative, and the speed of light is constant and finite. The distant observer cannot influence our past.

Anthony, this is science. When you introduce statements such as “thoughts are immortal and therefore omnipresent”, you deviate from the basic tenets of science. If your statement is a scientific hypothesis, then it must be testable, at least in principle. What would be your experimental setup to test the immortality and omnipresence of your thoughts? What would your thought detector look like? How would you confirm that the omnipresent thought is there, and how would you propose to test its duration? Would your detector work in a hypothetical sense, eons from now, if all humanity were long extinct, along with anyone who could have once had those thoughts? What is the nature of your alleged immortal thoughts?
Stick to science, real science, to find actual answers to how the universe works.

No. The question implies that light needs a medium. It does not. Light travels just fine in a vacuum.

I am wondering if the duality frames correspond to different energy levels. Forn example, the phase diagram used in the video would have the individual molecules as the invariant in all phases. However, the 3 phases do correspond to different energies that the molecules would have: the gas being the highest, then the liquid then the solid. Do duality frames in string theory correspond to different quantized energy levels in this way? Many thanks.

I am wondering if the duality frames correspond to different energy levels. Forn example, the phase diagram used in the video would have the individual molecules as the invariant in all phases. However, the 3 phases do correspond to different energies that the molecules would have: the gas being the highest, then the liquid then the solid. Do duality frames in string theory correspond to different quantized energy levels in this way? Many thanks.

Fundamentals necessarily do change, similarly to scientific theory. If an experiment or observation challenges a fundamental idea, then the fundamental must be adjusted to account for it. For example, the Euclidean fundamental of flat space allows for geometric postulates such as the sum of the interior angles of a triangle totaling 180. That fundamental is replaced by general relativity, which demands curved space in the vicinity of mass and/or energy. Or, the ancient notion of atoms as the fundamental building blocks of the elements had to be replaced as soon as it was discovered that atoms have constituents, and their constituents have constituents as well. All of the progressions have one thing in common: a fundamental allows the derivation, through physical laws, of all the other applicable properties of the subject t hand. If string theory is fundamental, then all the properties of matter and energy will emerge from it.