You don't have to justify your fascination, but you are most welcome to!
'Proposed' includes old and new ideas alike. Consensus isn't a requirement either - it could be speculative, contentious or entirely uncontroversial, as long as it doesn't contradict what is currently known.
I'll begin by mentioning the Holographic Principle, which I find most intriguing at the moment. I've known about it for some time but keep stumbling upon interesting implications.
One of the things conjectured as part of the Holographic principle is that a black hole represents the state of maximum possible entropy in a given region. The way I understand it is that one implication, due to the relationship between information and entropy, is that you can only pack so much information into a region of space before it forms a black hole. It also has implications for the amount of information our universe (which is bounded by a cosmological horizon) can contain.
Not sure if it fits the topic, but I'd say probability in general. Applying "boundaries" to random events seems so insane because it seems like it goes against the very nature of "randomness". Especially since nothing is truly random; we call things random when we don't know how to predict the outcome (either through ignorance, or due to the sheer amount of variables that affect the result). The result of a coin flip depends on how you throw it, and everyone will throw it differently, but through some magic, if all of throw a coin 1000 times, the results will be roughly 500/500 on heads/tails. I just find that insane.
"It from bit" is an alternate interpretation of quantum mechanics by John Archibald Wheeler. It says reality literally is what we choose to observe.
This is an interesting one, but tricky. I understand it sort of as a constrained version of Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis - the constraint being that only constructions out of which complex systems capable of 'observing' its environment naturally arise are in any sense 'real'.
What I can't figure out is what the difference is supposed to be between an 'inert' system, such as a collection of fermions interacting with each other, and a complex system with stochastic information processing capabilities. Where does one draw a line between 'inert' and 'observer'? Basically, what constitutes an observation if not mere interaction?
Interesting. This is why I favor many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. It doesn't give a special status to an observer. Any interacting entity including a conscious being gets entangled with the quantum state that's being interacted with. In the Schrodinger's cat for example the world splits into two. In one branch the physicist opens the box to see a dead cat. In the other branch, his equivalent sees an alive cat.
On the other extreme it from bit gives the highest privileged status to an observer.
now circle around and combine that with fringe ideas like Robert Anton Wilson’s neuro-linguistic programming or linguistic relativity (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) – reality is what you observe, but how much is that observation colored by what you were taught? is what you are seeing “real” or a simulation or a hallucination or a psychotic break?
I'm sympathetic to the MWI as well. It's currently the only explanation that is both consistent with what we know and doesn't require any new physics to work.
I am still pretty fascinated by Murphy's Law; I mean how does the buttered toast KNOW to flip in mid-air so the butter lands on the floor?! When I loose something why does it always HAVE to be in the last place I look?! Well, that is why it is a LAW, eh?
I recall a stand-up comedian covering the searching quite well. Of course it’s in the last place you look. You don’t continue your search after you found it.