Bernard Carr - What Exists?

Lots of things exist. But what is so absolutely fundamental in that it cannot be further reduced into anything more fundamental, but other things that exist can be reduced to it? The challenge is to discern the minimum number of basic categories that can explain the entirety of existence.

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.

[TupperWallace]

I always like to look at the carefully chosen and skillfully lit backgrounds in these beautifully produced interviews: libraries, lecture halls, old polished wooden trim, windows on ancient campuses, etc. This one appears to take place in the bar of some high class club, and dare I say it goes well with the speculative and semi-formed ideas of this esteemed professor, suggesting relaxed evening hand-waving over multiple glasses.

[petercheney]

Reminds me of a clip from some TV show where a little girl asks her dad about what atoms are, and dad says that everything is made of atoms, and she asks, "Are dreams made of atoms? Are shadows?"
dad was dumbstruck and changed the subject

[AT-wlyq]

I have a question. I started watching this channel and other looking for the answer to, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I find the question so disturbing that I question how any of this can be real. Some will argue that the matter that makes up the universe has always existed, while others say it just appeared out of nothing. I don't see how either could be true.

So my question is this. I have yet to see anyone even try to directly answer where the matter that makes up the universe comes from. They always seem to talk about else. Has anyone ever heard of some type of theory that answers this question? At this point, I'll take a bad, or unlikely theory. Just something that may account for the appearance of matter. Something tells me we'll never know.

[gordonquimby]

READ THIS - Bernard Carr has brought us Closer to Truth. Kuhn often says that you can’t point to any part of the physical wiring of the brain and say, “That is where consciousness is.” Carr, the physicist, speaks of an expanded physics to account for a mental space that exists in its own right.

At 6:36 he says; “There is a space required for mind and that this space is not identical to the space required for normal matter but nevertheless then can be in some sense joined together.” This is easy to explain if there indeed exist additional dimensions to reality, which theoretical physicists do believe.

Dave Albert, in his Closer to Truth episode of “What Exists” spoke of fields in other dimensions. I suggest what Carr says is “mental space” is the real you, your spirit, which is a field in another dimension from normal matter that also occupies the same 3-dimensional space of your brain. The neurons of your brain have electric impulses that create a field around them (Faraday’s Law) and that is how your spirit, a field, and brain interact with each other to bring about consciousness. Carr is correct, your spirit exists separately from the normal physical world and even has a different relationship with time. Carr speaks of these mental spaces merging. Well, these individual fields which are your spirit and my spirit exist on this other dimension that is the Spiritual World. Now we are getting Closer to Truth.

[NotNecessarily-ipvc]

Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.

The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.

The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an elementary particle.

It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.

[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together using the strong nuclear force]:

1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.

2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.

3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.

4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.

5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.

6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory.

7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.

em·a·na·tion
noun

an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.

[katalystc]

Fascinating interview. Changed my perspective. Perhaps there is a seperate mental space that exist by itself and is as real as our sensible objective reality.

[rishabhthakur]

'Existence' appears as object like gold appears as golden ornaments or clay appear as pot, wall, etc. So everything exists but Existence is the ultimate reality.

[seangilmore]

It would be wonderful for different disciplines to explain the same phenomena in a way that enhances rather than contradicts one another.

[tomruffles]

Prof Carr is also a vice-president and former president of the Society for Psychical Research.

[ResmithSR]

Being a materialist and believing that matter is the only reality, and that is what physicists and physics is concerned with, I believe its a little presumptuous to think that physics will ever get to the point of also explaining what psychology or sociology studies.

[greenthumb]

Would love to see a conversation between Carr and Kastrup.

[feltonhamilton]

understanding on how the brain is capable of shrinking the dreamer down to an atom to explore his or her past and present information without falling apart could be the key to time traveling by phone or computer and a cool way to project the image out on a galactic level in a 3D image, after all dreams are all vibrating waves and mostly body static and dark matter and dark energy.

[Markell-pj]

I feel like the physics that describes the celestial objects and the physics that describes the immensely microscopic both produce the same physical field. And I would like to believe that we have receiving mechanisms within us that makes that physical field resemble some sort of unified, objective experience. I can also imagine that without this field there would be no way of understanding physical laws. For the people saying "well that might just be consciousness" I would say that it may be more fundamental than that. It might be something extremely simple that can be derived by basic observation.

[brendangreeves]

Bernard Carr must be correct in that the spaces of mind and matter have a similarity.
That which exists is essentially patterns of change
What we call matter and consciousness are manifestations of patterns of change.
The dynamic relative state is necessary and fundamental.
Constraints give rise to structure.

[sustainabilityaxis]

A physicist venturing into mental processes and trying to explain a shared mental space sounds more than what apparently he can handle (with an excuse). This may be the overlapping domain of neuroscience and physics, probably. Science has gained its ground after a lot of hard work and empirical research, we should not give in so easily and at the same time commit ourselves to continue researching in the hope of resolving this paradox at the appropriate time.

[mickeybrumfield]

Life exists. Perhaps with a universe, one is destined to have life. When one takes a look at the planet we exist on the amount of life here is overwhelming. Perhaps life is a given when a universe exists. We don't know much about the potential for a variety of forms of life that are possible. Our biological sciences have only been able to come up with one form of life, that is, the form from which we are from, the cell based form. There could be infinite forms of life that our feeble cell based minds can not imagine. After all, we would not be able to imagine the complexities of the cell based form if we did not have ourselves as a model to examine.

[peweegangloku]

Everything happening in the nonphysical wold is also physics, only at a higher level and most certainly requires different tools and/or approach.

[rc]

space, energy, time and their complex interactions are at the very end of the horizon, between mind and matter...

[billyoumans]

There is nothing we can be sure exists, except our own awareness. It is the only thing we have unmediated knowledge of. Everything else is on the screen of our senses. The burden of proof is absolutely on materialism, because we don’t experience matter directly.

[roberthecht]

if the brain, with its limitations of the five known senses, translates sensory input to mental awareness which provides a common "home" for physical entities, why would it not be capable of providing the same translation for awareness of the properties of mental space? Both the physical and mental spaces are external to the brain. Perhaps what is missing is a broader spectrum of senses that provide translatable input to the brain so it can create an awareness similar to our awareness of physical space and objects within it.