Perez writes "It is the responsibility of the super-curious to ask how his/her world fits into the forgotten puzzle." which immediately begs the question of "What is the forgotten puzzle?", which question he studiously avoids.

Perez's "Time may even be considered as a dubious category since its binarisation
with space proves that it is a psychotic event ‘felt’ only by the mind." is magnificent in its absurdity.

Perez goes on to say "It is now generally accepted by scientists that the universe (the One and only) began with a Big Bang around 20 billion years ago" is wonderful in its misrepresentation of the current debate among cosmologists.

I have provided three examples, and I am content with that unless you ask me for additional examples.

@anglophone Thanks. I'll bypass the first two for the moment, except to say, "the forgotten puzzle?" Huh? Does he even try to tell us what that is? I'm guessing no.
Anyway, you're talking about Big Bang versus Big Bounce.
Whether, distilled, some 'entity' CREATED the universe from a sub-microscopic speck (in itself an absurdity), OR
The universe (or universes) is/are cyclical, ever expanding and contracting, with no beginning and no end, is the issue..
The latter flies in the face of Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief, of course, so it is an important debate, though it doesn't necessarily follow there is no 'universal consciousness,' which some refer to as an alternative definition of 'god.'
Anyway, I'll glance briefly at Perez's train of thought, but I think I already know where he's going.

@anglophone

“Perez's ‘Time may even be considered as a dubious category since its binarisation
with space proves that it is a psychotic event ‘felt’ only by the mind’ is magnificent in its absurdity.”

Maybe that Assertion is not all that absurd. Einstein suggested the same thing. Physicist Carlo Rovelli, in Reality is not What it Seems states in no uncertain terms that time does not exist.

@WilliamFleming Quick question:
How is it that 'time' only felt by the mind is a "pychotic" event?
I agree 'time' is a human invention, but only as a convenient way to organize, and so put in order, events.
Telling someone you'll be somewhere at 8 a.m., 10 hours hence, is a lot more convenient and precise than saying, 'A little after the sun rises.'
How else could we do it?
And how is that 'psychotic?'

@Storm1752 “Psychotic” is hyperbole. You have to mentally convert that into “imaginary” or “illusory”. Only in a loose sense is time a psychosis.

I can’t say that I fully understand it, but one of Rovelli’s chapters is entitled “Time Does Not Exist”. According to quantum gravity theory the only “things” that exist are quantum fields. What we experience are interactions between covariant quantum fields, which can be modeled mathematically without reference to time. According to Rovelli, time is not a useful concept in describing reality.

Of course it is a useful concept for us humans, but IMO our entire physical experience is a put-up job. Consciousness recognizes patterns in the tumultuous sea on incoming stimuli and if those patterns are numerous, as a survival tactic consciousness promotes them to the status of things or object and labels them with sensations such as images, smells, etc.

I realize that I am speaking in terms of time. It seems impossible to escape our sense world and experience ultimate reality beyond. It is an imperfect analogy, but if you are watching a movie you might get swept up and begin to think it real. But if you look at the film all rolled up on its reel you realize that what you thought was time was an artificial sequence of frames.

If there is no time, any discussion of creation, immortality, afterlife, causality, etc. is meaningless—truly a staggering and confusing thought!

@WilliamFleming Yes, very, very confusing!
But I understand this: what we have is a series of chemical reactions. They take 'time,' but it's really a neverending process.
Similarly, the Abrahamic mindset is there is a God who created everything out of nothing and at some point POOF! It's gone.
Buddhists, for example, do not have the same perspective; they think there is a series of points: in the throes of gravitational forces the 'stellar material' implodes into a dense mass, from which it 'explodes' into life (is born), expands to fullness (lives its life), then begins to contract (begins to 'die', until it reaches it's innermost, densest limit ('dies', from which it explodes outward again and is 'born' anew, with no definitive starting point and no finishing line.
The debate about the nature of the universe itself--whether it started with a Big Bang and will fizzle out, OR whether it never began and will never end but instead continually expands and contracts forever--perfectly captures this difference in perception.

@Storm1752 Here’s an article you might like:

[m.nautil.us]