***OK Harv, from now on I'll only talk to you about "concepts and problems that are agreed to by many top minds to be valid issues of concern". Which means we'll have very little to talk about, as I'm not interested in arguing religion. "Top minds". Give me a break!***
Herein is the reason why there is so much disconnection in identifying the correct problems and finding more suitable answers. There is this discounting of the value of the intellectual effort that has gone into the problems that you vaguely and awkwardly raise. Philosophical and physics issues that are of interest are lumped into only a few categories without much effort to research what effort from philosophers and physicists have gone into both defining the issues as well as what kinds of solutions are feasible to answer these issues. The reason that not much effort is gone into seeking these answers, I suspect, is because the "give me a break" syndrome exists so strongly inside that it is much easier and satisfying to provide individual opinions. The opinions are treated as fact, and that is the end of the research. From that point, it is merely an exercise of finding others who agree, or finding others that might understand.
The question I have is what leads up to this boldness that someone would discount the major intellectual efforts? There must be something that underlies all of this demonstrated confidence that not only are your answers no where (for the most part) recorded in any academic level publication, but even the problem as it vagualy and inconsistently stated is not seen (as stated) in the academic level publications. That is a great deal of confidence. It would be like starting a business to sell only Tic-Tacs mouth freshners when everyone else says to sell it in a convenience store or gas station. Something must be behind the confidence to be so outlandish in your opinions. What gives?
Warm regards, Harv