Khanzhoren

I think the issue lies in our tendency to anthropomorphize particles, assuming they possess consciousness like we do. Remember, the only beings we know for certain to be conscious are humans. Even other living beings likely experience existence in a way that's not fully conscious. Now, particles of matter are inert; they aren't aware of their existence or capable of feeling like ours. So, in my view, the best we can do in certain cases (like with photons) is to have a mathematical representation of their behavior. We also tend to conflate the notions of observers and reference frames. An observer necessarily need to be a conscious being? A reference frame can simply be a mathematical concept. It's inherent in the nature of ordinary particles that we can associate rest frames with them. However, this isn't possible for photons, which is simply a consequence of the mathematics describing them. Ultimately, we can't say anything definitive about what a photon might 'experience' (since it doesn't think or feel or have consciousness) like when it comes to certain quantum phenomena. However, the question would become truly meaningful if a conscious entity could actually travel at the speed of light.

Hello, in my opinion , "singularity" or "object with size 0" cannot realy exist because of the quantum uncertainty principle. And as it is known GR is incomplete because, in particular, it is not a quantum theory. So the real solution to the problem related to singularity should be from quantum description.