Bernard Carr - Why the Cosmos?

The search for meaning and purpose is humanity’s never-ending quest. Some say that ‘how’ questions belong to the realm of science, but ‘why’ questions do not. Yet extraordinary scientific discoveries offer radical powers of explanation. Can ‘why’ questions be brought into science? What about the biggest ‘why’ of them all?




Bernard J. Carr is a Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Queen Mary, University of London. His research interests include the early universe, dark matter, general relativity, primordial black holes, and the anthropic principle.


Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[Jinxed]

I've said it before on here, and I'll say it again, we have a really hard time including ourselves with the function of the universe. We almost subconsciously place ourselves in an odd sort of observer role. There are so many descriptions and explanations I've heard from the best of the best, that sneak in little words and phrases that do this. I don't think doing so can be avoided, and that's so strange to me. We are as much a part of the universe as literally anything else. The universe is incapable of making mistakes. It simply is doing what it does, and our minds and thoughts and discoveries and drive to search are all part of what the universe does. No accidents, no insignificant specks. We are a manufactured part of the universe, outfitted to do what we do. If one can't find the importance of that and give it the appropriate weight it deserves, I'm afraid we'll always miss the most important aspects of reality and in turn deny the universe its most probing interests.

[PaulHoward]

The fundamental existence of meanings is necessary for identifying, distinguishing, sequencing the concepts that enable perceiving of objects. Attempting to define meanings based on things has a problem of circularity, because a set of objects can't be assembled or imagined without already having the set defined.

[brothermine]

It's disappointing how often Kuhn fails to ask the obvious key question after an interviewee makes a bold claim. The needed followup question is, ”why do you believe that?” In this video, Carr boldly claimed the purpose of the universe is to understand itself, and Kuhn failed to ask him to explain why he believes that. My hunch is that he believes it because it's cool and impossible to falsify and he hasn't thought of a more plausible alternative. If he has any solid reasons to believe it, I'd like to hear them.

[ejw]

I hate the word consciousness. Can we change it?

[mickeybrumfield]

There appears to be something leading us to try and get closer to truth regardless of a purpose.

[jamesruscheinski]

is causation part of why question? why things happen? also why experience things that happen through causation?

[patientson]

KNOW-L-EDGE = LEARN, GROW AND LIVE = TEST YOUR SPIRIT WITH YOUR MIND, YOU BODY WITH YOUR MIND.

[jamesruscheinski]

might there be a way to use ontology to explore or experience outside observable cosmos, if not have knowledge of what is there?

[jamesruscheinski]

does conscious awareness relate ontology to epistemology of knowledge about physical nature?

[JustAThought]

Humans have three realms of information to inform their belief system: religion, science and philosophy.
Religions information is designed to control human actions.
Science information is designed to answer how.
Philosophical information is an effort to answer why.

Do not expect to understand everything unless you approach gaining knowledge as a philosopher.

The foundation of philosophy is built upon the concept that the human individual knows only one thing for certain - that they exist as the Self. Everything beyond that is build upon a set of assumptions.
**
The Key Assumptions is: The world we are meant to understand is delivered by our senses.

[SRAVALM]

CTT, could you interview Deirdre Carabine, concering Negative Theology and here book, 'The Unknown God'.

[stevecoley]

Metaphysics
Here on earth like it is in heaven.

Darkness (business) exists so that stars (light and warmth) have a place to shine in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).

Stars like US don't exist to be sucked out of heaven by a giant black hole in space called "greed" and its ignorance (hate).

Also, Love spent billions of years creating this paradise planet lifeboat so that her miraculous works of fine art called "life" have a beautiful place to "be".

Good (god) didn't spend so much time creating this paradise planet lifeboat to be depreciated, polluted and destroyed in a brief moment by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).

[francesco]

Is interesting that the 3-4 people that were around Hawking the most they have all different views regarding spirituality and religion (including himself)

[ricklanders]

It's interesting though how expansive and maybe to a surprising degree accurate were some of the ancient cultures' visions of cosmology - Hindus, Buddhists, etc., which imagined vast, vast cycles of universes coming into and going out of existence over billions/trillions of years/eons/infinities - before they had any of our scientific knowledge. It perhaps calls into question the necessity of knowing from a western/scientific epistemological perspective, and maybe even the possibility of ever fully knowing from that standpoint.

What if science found out that to fully understand the universe/s we needed to abandon our scientific knowledge (meaning our attachment to it as an absolute answer, not necessarily the information itself) and develop individual consciousness in ways that are not fully understood or appreciated by that bias? I wonder if we would be ready to accept or even do that.

[ptgms]

Wherever the truths be postponed for any consciousness who seeks with their own evolution I would assume. Any other way would be a delaying of any truths of personal knowledge and the feeling associated with the knowledge and then likewise delaying your personal evolution. You seem to not be able to obtain a 'free pass' by some secret knowledge of information passed along without verifying any truth of the knowledge, but need to absorb the knowledge and if there is logical truths involved, all while living those truths in a peaceful way that is associated with the subsequent feelings from truth. Meaning it does not help to bring something considered as ancient knowledge to others when you do not understand it fully yourself or the evolution that it brings to your consciousness, if at all. As if there is something unknown at this point of any evolution of consciousness personally, then perhaps any nonsense that does not remain with any truths, that this may also delay within the 'real' of personal consciousness and may affect an incredible damage to your own evolution, ...while not any others personal evolution of consciousness? Personally I would put religion away as some ancient relic of the past that needs to be verified of its truths continually, in part or as a whole. Belief and faith could be the ultimate damages personally with the fears associated of a supreme being which is in contrast to peacefulness of truth...? This is an effort in process for myself too and may change at any new realized truth.

[appllnysus]

There cannot "just be a beginning" of existence, and therefore this necessitates it always having existed, and therefore it being infinite. Butit is also correct to suggest that there must be a reason for why it is so, and not otherwise, as "just exists" doesn't offer anything, and indeed, such an argument can be used by theists and any manner of silly ideas. The fundamental question to first address, then, it what Kuhn himself is obsessed about: why existence at all, why something rather than nothing? That has to be answered first, and when it is, then it should also be able to resolve always-existed vs. started at some time, etc.

It is correct that existence has indeed always existed, and thus, this is an infinity. On the other hand, we would like to explain WHY it has always existed, and what the properties of existence are such that it should always exist, but also be able to produce constructs which appear to have come into being, such as this universe. So, this current universe must be separated from being synonymous with existence in and of itself, given that existence must have always been, but this universe is empirically finite. But the point, which I meant to get to, is that explaining why something exists rather than nothing "finitizes" what must indeed be an eternal "infinite" existence - having the reason as to why something exists rather than nothing finitizes the problem, because it is answered.

The solution is that something is nothing. To avoid infinite regress, and the mystical, we must refer to something which requires nothing outside of itself to exist. The theist "God" cannot satisfy this, since 1) it has no justification hence is mystical, 2) you can keep asking what created it (infinite regress).

Nothing requires anything outside of itself to exist, because it requires no effort to exist. It doesn't take anything, to create nothing. Nothing is the only self-existent since it requires nothing and depends on nothing. This isn't some nihilist or Buddhist etc. approach, just logic...by "nothing" we mean logical nothing, not "meaningless" nothing.

Therefore, since nothing is the only thing which satisfies the logic of eternal self-existence, then it follows that any form of nothing must exist, since there is nothing to stop any form of nothing from existing. Hence, you can have static nothing, which is indeed nothing with no internal parts, but then, there is nothing to stop a dynamic net nothing with internal parts from existing either. What is a dynamic net nothing with internal parts? It is a circle, in the complex plane, which balances perfectly to zero, or nothing. In fact, it is a point moving about a circle in the complex plane, with net value of nothing.

Thus: existence is made of nothing...but it is a dynamic or moving net nothing, which logically necessitates a perfect and 100% precise balance, and this is performed with a point moving about a circle in the complex plane. The follow-on here is that it is and must be mathematically perfect, so that it is perfectly balanced to always be nothing. The equation which describes this is Euler's Formula: cos(x) + i*sin(x).

This equation is the basis of Fourier Transform theory, and is central to quantum mechanics, and it can also be used to re-cast and re-derive relativity theory by identifying the real part as spatial, and the imaginary part as temporal.

So, from a first-principles logic approach, we have now explained and answered why something exists rather than nothing, and more so, with that answer, we have arrived at the foundation of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. Big win for metaphysics!

[shrivardhanpatil]

Can't time be the the rate at which observer observe the energy or time as a function of energy??

[-by-_Publishing_LLC]

Mr. Carr was spot-on for the first 4 minutes, and then he advanced multiverse theory as _"our expansion of universal knowledge."_ Theories that succumb to "infinity" do so because they are lacking information (i.e., Multiverse, Many Worlds, Big Bounce, Simulation, Pocket Universes, God, etc.). Infinity-based theories are like a bucket of water with a hole in it. The hole is the "missing data, " and water will continuously spew from this hole until data is found that patches up the hole.

This is also why theories such as Multiverse, Many Worlds, Big Bounce, Simulation, Pocket Universes, and God should be rejected. ... They all violate the *2nd Law of Existence.*

[Peaceprojector]

The big why is asking for another reason in a way. Haha. The big why is two genitals are present to subdue each other. Loves only themselves. That infact creates a comfortable space for each other. Love on the other hand is a definition of lower consciousness.

[maxwellsimoes]

Guys Not show up any reason evidenc concern Universe because his hipotesy are unpredicted conscieness his Universe are blah blah. It isnt honest phichs point of view.