I have really bad allergy to what journalists understand of science, technology, or actually anything really.
Why do physicists say that spacetime is doomed? Because, they argue, it has no operational meaning below the “Planck scale,” roughly 10-33 centimeters and 10-43 seconds.
That doesn’t affect me, mine is definitely longer and I can last a bit more than that.
Probably only if you’re wearing a condom though, right?
A what?
The author of this paper is a cognitive psychologist, but I know what you mean- not a physicist. Could be worse- could be addictive substance abuse psychologist Jordan Peterson rambling on about climatology.
yeah, I skim read the article. Probably even above my level. I just got tired of reading sensationalist news that don’t really reflect reality, and all the hype around findings or technology.
Sounds like most news nowadays. 
Sand is the only material you need to make an hourglass.
This is above my understanding, but it looks like nothing in that article is actually too far away from current scientific theories, i.e. about amplituhedrons and markov chains. It is being presented in a popular way, but not inaccurately.
True, but you have to also be able to make the glass from the sand.
But that is a tool to process the material
There’s nothing wrong with speculating about outlandish ideas in philosophy or science – a tiny fraction of such ideas might have something going for them (a cycic might also say that promoting an outlandish idea is a good way for a mediocre academic to make a name for him or herself). Hoffman’s conclusions are not new in themselves: arguments against the existence of physical reality independent of consciousness were being made centuries ago in Europe, and millenia ago in the East. The novelty of Hoffman’s approach is to update these old ideas with new metaphors like virtual reality and desktop icons and to attempt to find evidence for them in modern science.
Hoffman claims that evolutionary game theory shows that the reproductive fitness of organisms has zero corrolation with their capacity to truthfully perceive reality. According to Hoffman any trace of veridical perception in organisms is ruthlessly selected against and inevitably becomes extinct. I personally am very far from convinced that this is the case except in mathematical simulations with highly simplified paramaters. However, even if we were to grant him this, it’s still a huge leap from the claim about epistemology that evolution grants organisms zero capacity to percieve the truth about material reality to the ontological claim that material reality doesn’t exist at all. Not wanting to make an essay of this and critique his arguments point by point, I’ll just note that, personally, I found them confused and unconvincing.
Hoffman claims that his radical theory throws new light on both the so-called hard problem of consciousness as well as on the realisation in modern physics that spacetime is not fundamental. His theory solves the hard problem of consciousness by showing that brain states and neurons have no existence outside of the virtual reality of consciousness itself. (The hard problem of consciousness claims that consciousness is something more than mere brain states and implies that “philosophical zombies” are a coherent concept – philosophical zombies are entities that look and behave like you and me, who have brain states similiar to other humans down to the quantum level, and yet are not conscious. Personally, I find the hard problem of consciousness and the idea of philosophical zombies embarrassingly incoherent.)
As for the demise of spacetime that Hoffman discusses in the linked article, I feel that, once again, he is terribly confused. The discovery that there is a level of reality more fundamental than spacetime does not make spacetime any less real (water is not less real because it is, at more fundamental level, it is made up of H2O molecules). Hoffman’s finishes his article: “Who am I? Not an object in spacetime.” But this is a claim that has nothing to do with the finding of physics: I still exist as an object in spacetime in a material world even if, at the most fundamental levels of physics, spacetime and matter are replaced by other concepts. Also, most of the physicists who state that spacetime is not fundamental do not think that consciousness has anything to do with the more fundamental level. Some physics speculate that there might be a connection. The point is that even if consciousness were found to be involved somehow at the most fundamental levels of reality this wouldn’t, of itself, mean that consciousness did not exist as an object in spacetime at less fundamental levels…
Stop believing the Big Lie perpetrated by Big Water…
I’m worried that the water we drink might contain traces of Dihydrogen Monoxide 
And they didn’t even mention drowning statistics. All a matter of perspective I guess. 
A doctor told me to drink 3.750L per day just this week. Pretty exact advice. I am going to have to keep measure.
Did the doc say why? Sounds a little sus. Personally, I’d recommend replacing that water with milk. 
We could just be evolved lifeforms living on a speck of dust inside another evolved beings vacuum cleaner bag. I haven’t checked mine since I bought it but I swear I hear people screaming every time I bump it.
He did some calculations on his calculator and that is what it showed.