Bernard Carr - What Exists?

Watch more interviews on the metaphysics of the cosmos: shorturl.at/wAHK9
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.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
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.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
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.

[@petercheney8316]

I was noticing the shadows on the corner of the table closest to the camera, and the cool zigzag detail of the woodwork over Robert's shoulder.

[@Anabsurdsuggestion]

And in the background, many black and white photos of ‘lovely ladies’ for the clientele to rank over suckling pig and the house claret.

[@petercheney8316]

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

[@gordonquimby8907]

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.

[@DeportivoRavens]

You’re still trapped into a material paradigm. Everything is mental, Conciousness is primordial. Matter is an illusion, although a “real” and “consistent” one.

[@katalystc1268]

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.

[@tomruffles7764]

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

[@surendrakverma555]

Very good discussion. Thanks 👍

[@rishabhthakur8773]

'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.

[@David.C.Velasquez]

Agreed, nothing cannot exist, but everything must exist. Human language, as it sits, doesn't properly convey some abstractions.

[@greenthumb8266]

Would love to see a conversation between Carr and Kastrup.

[@Resmith18SR]

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.

[@Bill..N]

Agreed.

[@Resmith18SR]

@@Bill..N Nice that we could agree on something Bill.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

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.

[@AT-wl9yq]

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.

[@deanchovan6604]

Thank you AT, My questions also.

[@jamenta2]

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." ~Werner Heisenberg

[@Bill..N]

Heisenberg was a great theoretical genius, no doubt.. Do YOU think that indicates we should believe all of his opinions?

[@jamenta2]

@@Bill..N It's not just his opinion. That's why science IS science. For example, we know now virtual particles come in and out of existence all the time. This was discovered scientifically long after Heisenberg said what he said. The only thing Skeptic Materialists have a corner on is their own arrogance and bias. Not much more than that though.

[@Bill..N]

@Jun_kid Sorry friend. I'm deleting that misaddressed comment..

[@Bill..N]

@Jun_kid For you, though.. Jung was flat out wrong about many, many things and is not a reliable source to pin beliefs on.. Actually, NO authority figure is..

[@jamenta2]

@@Bill..N Carl Jung founded a branch of psychology called Analytical psychology. Much of Jung's empirical work still holds up, and is the basis for psychological therapy (accredited) around the world today. Jung's psychological findings are just as worthwhile in the scientific field of psychology, as are Albert Einstein's findings in the field of physics. Both have been found to be wrong on some discoveries over the last number of decades, but this hardly discounts either of their work whatsoever. By the way Einstein and Jung often had lunch together. On the other hand, Skeptic (usually atheist) Materialists have been known to be dishonest about their work (Susan Blackmore comes to mind) and have deliberately smeared and doctored the pages of well known propaganda websites like Wikipedia.

[@seangilmore6695]

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

[@feltonhamilton21]

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-p2j]

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.

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Consciousness is simply our soul when we are awake. The smallest known particle is the quark but ,in fact the particles continue to get smaller and smaller maybe a million more times, each time increasing in energy ..................................Falun Dafa.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

And it might not. Until you have a model with empirical backing and predictive power, you only have a cute story.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"And it might not. Until you have a model with empirical backing and predictive power, you only have a cute story."* ... Atheism is your *core ideolog,* and that's what is shaping your worldview. All theories you align yourself with must coincide with that core belief. Now, there is nothing "physical" about my claim, but there is empirical evidence to support it, and there is a great deal of "predictive power" involved in reaching my conclusion.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I am an agnostic Igtheist. I'll grant that the fact that I can't conceive of a coherent definition of what a 'deity' could even be is almost certainly determined by the configuration of my brain/body. It follows that what hypotheses or theories of reality I find plausible or compelling are as well. Please give some examples of the empirical backing your hypotheses have and what predictions you have made that have been 'proven', and are repeatable by others.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"I am an agnostic Igtheist. I'll grant that the fact that I can't conceive of a coherent definition of what a 'deity' could even be is almost certainly determined by the configuration of my brain/body."* ... Fence-sitting sophistry. You are an atheist that's avoiding "categorization" by claiming your configuration of mind and body is somehow preventing you from comprehending what a "deity" is. That's like saying, _"It's not my fault I'm an atheist!"_ *"Please give some examples of the empirical backing your hypotheses have and what predictions you have made that have been 'proven', and are repeatable by others."* ... All of the statistics used in my conclusion can be found online. Just look up how many atheists believe (fill in the blank) as opposed to theists and vice versa. Your atheism is what drives your subsequent beliefs and ideologies. If you made a list of everything you accept and don't accept, you would find a majority of atheists would have a similar list. It's just the way things are, my friend.

[@billyoumans1784]

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.

[@brendangreeves3775]

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.

[@roberthecht313]

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.

[@r2c3]

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

[@stephenzhao5809]

4:35 ... I believe that in a certain sense I there is a reality associated with my internal world as well as the external world. 4:44 ... and my question is what is the relationship between this mental space and physical space ... but I would like to suggest that this mental space in some sense exists in its own right and that the mental space is not just something which is generated by the brain that you know the standard view is there's an outside physical space and my brain generates an internal space I don't accept that view. I like the view in which the mental space itself is primary just as the physical space in some sense and that furthermore these mental spaces in some sense merge together to form a collective mental space so I know it begins to sound a bit mystical but that is the idea the idea is that there is a there is a space required for mind under this space is not identical to the space required for normal matter but nevertheless they are they can be in some sense joined together in fact I see this mental space as in some sense containing physical space 6:56 ... ... from a physical perspective it's quite a radical idea because ❤ I'm (so admiring what you are) saying that the mental space exists in its own right and indeed this mental space and I could go into details I won't but as to what is the nature of this mental space it has a sort hierarchical structure (which may be totally out of your expected) and it has its own time and things like that but the point is it's different from ordinary physical space but it contains physical space it actually goes beyond physical space in this particular model: l^2 = m^2 = n^2 = lmn = +1 || -1 = ijk = k^2 = j^2 = i^2 ; 2d(2τ)1δ(1t) || (τ1)d1(2t)2δ 3δ(3t) || (τ3)d3. שָׁלוֹם

[@mickeybrumfield764]

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.

[@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.

[@jamenta2]

Psychology is also a branch of science.

[@peweegangloku6428]

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

[@Bill..N]

OR, might there not even be a Nonphysical world? Is THAT possible too?

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Everything that exists is made of matter. Thoughts exist and the particles of matter that they are made of are very very tiny but yet the matter is there. Something to think about.........................Falun Gong

[@simonhibbs887]

I don't think the idea of a non-physical world that is still causally connected to the physical world, is even a coherent concept. If being physically causal isn't the definition of physical, what is?

[@jamenta2]

@@Bill..N OR maybe your obvious BIAS is not actual scientific objectivity? Is THAT possible too?

[@jamenta2]

@@simonhibbs887 Same things Materialists used to say that about non-locality - it can't exist. The term "Non-physical" is like a religious article of faith now with skeptic Materialists. i.e. Anything that doesn't fit within the Materialist's philosophical model of reality is therefore "non-physical" and therefore can't be real - and Materialists use this all the time to bully anyone who doesn't share their unscientific view of reality. Is a quantum field real? Is what's inside a blackhole real? Is Consciousness real? Is a thought real? Is a particle in a super-position state real? Is Time real?

[@atul_gautam]

What is at the core of existance of everything....everything means everything....Irrespective of it's form, age, time, state, quality, quantity?? What is that least that can further be disected wrt it's existance... Make a video if possible

[@GM-o6i]

I agree with Bernard Carr.

[@Gravitationalist]

For it to be real, it has to exist in a universe with brains and a universe without brains.

[@francesco5581]

what can control if something exist in an universe without consciousness ? nothing ...

[@David.C.Velasquez]

@@francesco5581 I think I get your point, but "control" is maybe a loaded word. Nothing cannot exist, but everything must exist. Human language, as it sits, doesn't properly convey some abstractions.

[@francesco5581]

@@David.C.Velasquez probably nothingness cannot exist but the question is why we have this meaningful, complex, rich reality ...

[@David.C.Velasquez]

Yes @@francesco5581 that is the big question, but... and I'm not being pedantic, the word 'why' connotes outside agency, where none can be logically identified, without leading to paradoxical regression. Maybe we are limited to eternally get closer to truth, since the TRUTH, may well be infinite. Now it seems I'm being pantheistic...

[@tomjackson7755]

@@francesco5581 What needs to be controlled?

[@martyabeln6167]

I also agree with Dr. Carr

[@editfarkas4503]

Consciousness is an emergent property of matter. So everything our consciousness creates derives from matter and from matter alone. Mental space is information and information is created by matter.

[@suatustel746]

Not bad not bad.. Particle entanglement no matter how isolated they're still capable connect with each other means intelligence sprout from non-biological matter.... Panphycism.... So called.

[@picksalot1]

Existence always exists, and it can't be a product of nonexistence. There are many Names and Forms for the objects of existence, from the tiniest particles to the largest cosmic structures and beyond in both directions. All those various objects have a dependency on Existence for whatever temporary type of "reality" they may exhibit.

[@dmitryalexandersamoilov]

There is existence and then there are facts about existence. If existence exists, it is not the product of non-existence.... It is the natural consequence of a very specific fact about existence. The hard part for us to decide is: which fact about existence is the most fundamental? The answer to that would depend on your perspective. There is no right or wrong perspective (even though there might be some perspectives which contain more paradoxical than others). Really, the answer to that question should be useful to us as humans in some way. Personally, the fact about existence that seems the most useful to me to bestow the title of "the fact that existence is the natural consequence of" upon is.... "Everything that can exist, does exist." "Things can exist in different ways (ie. concepts, physical objects, untapped potentials)." "If a thing can exist in a particular way, it does exist in that particular way." "If a thing can't exist in a particular way, it doesn't exist in that particular way."

[@alucardvampire9409]

Yes

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

might causation explain existence of mental (mind) as well as physical (brain)?

[@brettsokoloski3772]

Mirror neurons may acct for mass hyp where as an internal 'mental State' will seem illusory to the masses. "Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes" ~ Carl J Although, you may have just described consciousness.

[@Bill..N]

And we all know that Jung MUST be right, yes?

[@jamenta2]

@@Bill..N I'd take Carl Jung over any Skeptic Materialist any day of the month.

[@lordemed1]

Dr Carr overlooks what most physicists overlook...the reality of life. Yes, physicists describe the physical world-everything` from the very small to the very large- but when it come to life, its meaning, and its place in reality, they are lost.

[@Resmith18SR]

Im not sure I completely understand what Carr is saying here. Is he an Idealist or a Materialist? Most physicists are materialists and realists and he seems to be saying mental space created material objects. I believe the mind and all mental processes are completely dependent on and a derivative of the physical brain and that the mind is an emergent property of the brain.

[@Robinson8491]

The only thing you can be sure that exists...is yo mama

[@strooom546]

And yo bald headed grannay

[@Resmith18SR]

That's a famous quote from Descartes isn't it? My Mama exists, Therefore I am.

[@musicman9023]

LOL gottem!

[@Joe-lb8qn]

Yeh it always comes down to a Bertrand Russel quote in the end

[@jamenta2]

Yeah - Yo Mama told me herself last night!

[@phuzbrain]

This guy talks in circles in a convoluted way.

[@patientson]

Starting from the brain is the first mistake. If you start with the brain, will you start with the blind, deaf, siamese twins, twins, triplets, or fully able man? Yes, it starts with the eyes, but the eyes are not the one doing the actual work or processing. Another talk for another day.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge. I think because he knew everything is made of imagination and he gave us the formula for imagination E equals MC2. We are made in the image of God means in the imagination. Yahweh means to be. Everyone has the same being. Be still and know that I am is the lord thy God. What we will know when we are still is our being.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

..in times of trouble Mother Mary comes to me, whisper words of wisdom let it be let it be. Mary is the unknowable source of our being, the water from where the BenBen mound arose, space.

[@සිංහයෝ-ස2ර]

Good point sir dreams it or actual space in that does u can experience time no right u can’t tell that good point by the way tanx

[@Bill..N]

Can you clarify that comment, just a little?

[@සිංහයෝ-ස2ර]

@@Bill..N when u dreaming can u tell exact time u brain dreamed it could be nano sec but experience is very long sequence in short period of time as like that space too have that kind of phenomena larger it gets time irrelevant I m no phyloshoper just like this stuff sorry for any issues

[@bretnetherton9273]

If existence exist as something what is that something, and if existence exist as all things what knows all things?

[@maxpower252]

Notin’

[@browngreen933]

What goes on in the brain is also part of the physical world. 😮 What other world is there? 😮

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"What goes on in the brain is also part of the physical world. What other world is there?"* ... What are the physical properties of what I'm thinking right now? Will you show me my thoughts under a microscope, please? I'd like to see what substances they are made of.

[@CMVMic]

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCdidnt i refute your false view of idealism already.. smh. Still beating a dead horse it seems

[@AlexLifeson1985]

except that he is correct@@CMVMic

[@browngreen933]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I'm not sure what they are exactly, but I'm confident they're physically based. To find out, let's pose this experimental question: If you eliminate your living physical brain/body, what will happen to your thinking process? Will it continue to function/exist outside your former living physical brain/body or vanish? Are you willing to try that experiment?

[@CMVMic]

@@AlexLifeson1985 nope

[@mikel4879]

When Bernard says "mental space" he refers in fact to emergent mental realm ( I don't care what exactly he things about it deeeply in his mind ) . These emergent realms are real and not separated at all from what he says "physical". The emergent aggregates of "consciousness" are real material effects and not some mental emergent non physical states. For example, the temperature in a room can be considered an emergent phenomenon created by the movement of the atoms and molecules in that room, but at no point at all the emergent temperature is not a true real phenomenon. Etc, etc, the same with the real material emergent aggregate taking place in the brain and called "consciousness". The nature on Earth got this emergent conscious effect naturally, by natural trial and error, with only what was at hand in this part of the Galaxy, but the creation of full artificial consciousness can, and in fact it does, very easily skip many redundant and not efficient lenghty steps the nature uses and get very precise and quickly to the full correct conscious emergent aggregate using only the fundamental few ones.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

The mind is very difficult to overcome.

[@LogicStandsBeforeGod]

Some minds are so much so attached to self arrogant.

[@tomjackson7755]

Oh ouch, shots fired. LOL

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(3:35) *BC: **_"Ideally I would like to be able to explain everything in terms of physics."_* ... Our *core beliefs* are what cause us to gravitate to certain theories regarding our reality. Naturally, a physicalist /physicist would want to be able to explain everything from a _physical_ standpoint. However, "physics" can only address specific elements of existence that qualify as being _"physical."_ Often times how we "want" reality to be explained matters more than the actual explanation. An atheist wants an explanation that demonstrates no purpose whatsoever, and a theist seeks an explanation steeped in meaning and purpose. ... Neither wants to discover that everything they believed throughout their life was wrong! The truth is that there are different levels of "Existence," and no single information-gathering mechanism or ideology can adequately explain it all. At the most rudimentary level is *"The 1st Law of Existence:"* _"Only that which is logically conceivable can exist. This is the primary law of Existence and from which all other laws are derived."_ ... There are four additional laws that build upon this one. At the end of the day, a valid ToE (Theory of Everything) will never emerge unless you've included "everything" into the theory. ... Sorry, but physics can only take you part of the way!

[@Bill..N]

Are you convinced that all your assumptions are supportable facts, friend ? No? Then, simply RESIST the habit of declaring them to be so.. They are opinions.. Peace.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@Bill..N *"Are you convinced that all your assumptions are supportable facts, friend?"* ... They have survived all manner of intellectual scrutiny, so to me they are "facts" until someone demonstrates otherwise. You only get one shot at life, friend. You can either stand in the arena or remain as a spectator. ... "Opinions" are what you get from the spectators. *"No?"* ... Are you answering for me? *"Then, simply RESIST the habit of declaring them to be so.. They are opinions."* ... Claiming that blind mole rats are "ugly" is just an opinion. However, stating _"Only that which is logically conceivable can exist."_ is a bold, unarguable *FACT,* my friend. And if you disagree, then all you have to do is name something that exists that is not logically conceivable and you get to walk away the winner, right?

[@CMVMic]

​​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCno, idealism has not survived scruting. You seem to ignore the scrutiny given. That is a psychological attitude, not a true statement. Name something that is not logically conceivable would entail conceiving of it in a logical way. You are imploring an argument from ignorance. If you cant conceive of something existing independent of your conception then it does not exist. You are conflating epistemic possibility with metaphysical possibility.

[@Bill..N]

Let's see about that.. Is it POSSIBLE that a T.O.E. can emerge NOT through the inclusion of "everything" (as alluded) existing INSIDE but simply contained with a page or two of equations.? Enquiring minds are interested..

[@simonhibbs887]

Let me outline what I mean when I talk about things being physical. To me, that means being causally contiguous with other physical things. In other words, able to affect other things in the world and be affected by them. Another word for physical would be 'real'. So I think what he's saying by explaining things in terms of physics, is that he thinks these phenomena are part of reality and we should be able to come up with consistent descriptions of them in the same way that we consistently describe other phenomena in physics. Where I disagree with him is when he talks about consciousness being an illusion as though that mans it's not real. He thinks that 'mental space' is real. So do I, it's just that I don't think it's an actual space in the sense that spacetime is a space. I think it's a space in the sense that the world of a 3D game or VR experience is a space, and is real in the same way they they are real. So I think he's getting confused about what something being real means. That's not unusual, a lot of people seem to be deeply confused about what things being abstract or hypothetical means.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

consciousness in time of quantum wave function?

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

I exist.. I cut myself with a razor blade yesterday shaving ...guess hwat?.. 1. it bled.. 2. it hurt and i could feel it even today.. both very real.... reality exists IMO regardless of any intellectual word salads conjured up by those seeking to make a living out of questioning reality....

[@hobarttobor686]

we are close to a theory of everything,,,. we are so close to a theory of everything,,,. we are very close to a theory of everything,,,. we will soon have a theory of everything....

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Actually , if you speak to most physicists they will say the exact opposite. We are no closer to a ToE than we were 100 years ago . Physics is at an impasse . Nothing new on the horizon . We thought string theory might help but it’s produced nothing despite 20 years of doodling .

[@hobarttobor686]

@@tonyatkinson2210 exactly

[@stephenwatts2649]

Imagination - Process of Pure Creation The process of creation starts with thought - an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought. This is true of the universe as well. Thought is the first level of creation. Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact. Words are the second level of creation. Next comes action. Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything. The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced. Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you. I am? It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that. All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you. The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it. To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you. My God, this is unbelievable. Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed. Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"! One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing. Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now. This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this. When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination. And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways. Please? You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality. You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process. This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process. This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created. I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life. Okay. Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there." Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all. This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe. Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up? Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same. They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you. I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy) We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter. Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love. This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth. There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.

[@CMVMic]

Only substances exist, events are what substances do. consciousness is an event, not a substance. Thus, platonism is false.

[@deanodebo]

Explain what a substance is and how you know. It seems to me all you can appeal to is your mental experience. Am I wrong?

[@CMVMic]

@@deanodebo substances are what grounds changes. It is what things are made of, it is what exists. It is an ontological entity. Knowledge is a construct, it is a set of processes. It involves rationalizing, believing, justifying... all intellectual seemings which are all dynamic in nature. When you say my mental experience this assumes you are an object. Identities are not objects, the mind is not a container. The mind is a nominal concept for a set of specific processes/changes/interactions. I do not appeal to a process ontology because that would be making a categorical mistake. Changes are grounded in substances, the mind, the experience and the identity/ego are all changes.

[@deanodebo]

@@CMVMic You’re making claims but you’re not justifying them. How do you know? For Example how do you know what change is? Or do I understand that you’re not claiming to know anything?

[@CMVMic]

@@deanodebo are you advocating for radical skepticism? Whats the point in presenting justification that falls victim to Agrippa Trilemma? Knowledge is a human construct, I can define it however I want. I can have a knowledge first epistemology or have epistemic luck. The justification criteria isnt necessary for knowledge, what is the justification for holding a jtb theory if knowledge? Applying Munchausen Trilemma to the problem of the criterion and vice versa shows the inherent problems that epistemology faces, however, there are ways to collapse the distinction. I have an intellectual seeming that what is considered mental relies of the passage of time or change. You are free to deny change if you want but it doesnt follow that such concepts relate to any static object, nor would it prove that i couldnt know things. So until you can provide a coherent account of what the mind is, I see no reason to assume Idealism is a metaphysical possibility. The claim to not know anything would itself be a knowledge claim. I have a propositional attitude towards claims. I am merely expressing mine, whether it is true or not, requires a concept of what truth is and how do we access it. It seems to me that if we are changes that are grounded in substances then we can know what exists independent of our existence.

[@deanodebo]

@@CMVMic Ok so your knowledge has no force. You’ve retreated to a weak pragmatic sort of claim, like oh well maybe. “I have an intellectual seeming that what is mental…” Exactly. That’s my point. Thank you. So your source of “knowledge” for your claims about change comes from your intellect - ie the mental. Like I figured, you HAD to appeal to the mental to attempt to justify the physical. But sorry, all you appear to have is the mental. It’s ok that you take the external world on faith. That’s fine. But not really much force there with which you can argue By the way. Was Hume a “radical skeptic”? Everyone including Hume admits the external world “seems” to be. But that’s not an argument and it’s certainly not skepticism

[@andrewmasterman2034]

But surely the act of creating a mental space would always be slaved to being generated in a physical space?

[@andreicristian9575]

Or it might be the other way around, your reality might be generated by your mind entirely. Our minds are very similar, so they generate the same reality. But other minds that are slightly different do generate different realities.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

He 'likes' the idea. Well liking an idea ain't a good enough reason to add an extra layer, or several, to reality. Show me where this 'Mental Space' exists and how it interacts with the 'Physical World' if you want me to take it seriously.

[@brothermine2292]

What if the interaction between physical & mental is only one way: physical world affects mental world but mental world doesn't affect physical world? If that's the case, how could the mental space be demonstrated to your satisfaction?

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@@brothermine2292 Show me

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Show me where this 'Mental Space' exists and how it interacts with the 'Physical World' if you want me to take it seriously."* ... Carr is a physicist, so OF COURSE he's going to view everything through the lens of physics. In reality, physics cannot explain any of the words in the phrase *_"I am alive!"_* Physics can't explain what "I" is, nor why anything "exists" (am), nor how anything ends up "alive." The "physical" is like a ladder that extends just beyond the clouds. Some consider whatever lies beyond the clouds as most important, whereas others believe all that matters is the ladder.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Yeah, 'spiritual' woo doesn't explain anything either. If fanciful ideas without empirical backing make you feel better, that's fine. Don't expect me to act as if they are anything but babble.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"Yeah, 'spiritual' woo doesn't explain anything either. If fanciful ideas without empirical backing make you feel better, that's fine. Don't expect me to act as if they are anything but babble."* ... I am not a theist, sorry.

[@stewartbrands]

This is an example of a person who"all in"with the progression o fphysics and has come to an end of it beyond which he is helpless with his way of experiencing intrinsic reality. He stubbornly hopes, if confronted with two beautiful rose flowers, that his physics training will be able to explain exactly what qualia makes them beautiful and how their differences arrive at equivalent beauty. This hope and kind of approach is, to any reasonably sensitive person, a ridiculous and useless pursuit which cannot succeed. All that emerges from his careful ramble is the fear that his peers will dislike what he says and that is the premise of everything he utters. The questions disturb him because he is trapped within a strict orthodox culture not unlike religion.

[@lemmingdot]

I think that Robert Lanza says the same.

[@kimsahl8555]

Everything exist. Tell me some don't, you can't.

[@suatustel746]

Your replica!!!!

[@duytdl]

Computer simulations, like Mario and GTA worlds, also don't actually exist in the silicon hardware that produce it. You can stretch that analogy to any abstract art created by humans. It only exists in our minds and can also be interpreted by other minds only. What we know for sure about it is that it's a creation of ours, as opposed to something that existed all along. Unlike math, we didn't discover art, or Mario, or GTA. In fact other species are creating art and music (bird calls) all the time but we don't find them particularly noteworthy (or even notice all of it) since they're probably meant entirely for themselves. If he's suggesting that all those "mental realities" are real, it would dilute the significance of reality altogether. I don't buy it. Imaginations and hallucinations are not real. They're by products of a process (the mind/algorithms) trying to understand the one true reality that's shared by us all, but understood by few.

[@andreicristian9575]

You find it farfetched that your mind might be existing in a higher dimension than what it perceives around it?

[@stephenwatts2649]

Did you know that there is no inherent illumination or luminosity in photons? “Light,” as such, cannot be found there. Photons are, perhaps, ‘packets’ of energy which have the properties of both spread-out waves and localized particles. Photons only take on the appearance of being luminous as they arise within consciousness, in our mind’s eye. It may be that photons are spread-out energy potentials that fill the immensity of space, and only take on the appearance of being a localized discrete particle of “light” when we become aware of them in consciousness, in this actualized awareness we call mind. Thus, you are the light of the kosmos. This “light” is only arising in us. The world outside of a mind is perfectly ‘dark,’ or empty, unactualized in any way. Of course, what else could it be? What would perceive it as illuminated, or as any “thing”? All of our thoughts are the activity of consciousness, modulations of that consciousness, incarnations within that pure consciousness, rays shining from inside that consciousness. We are agents of that consciousness, emerging from within that consciousness. All there is to experience is the knowing of it, and that knowing is God’s own Self in us, living in us, the source of our life, the energy of consciousness itself. We could say that God lives in us, since consciousness seems to have become localized in this particular body-mind. Or we could say that we live in God, since all that we perceive arises in that consciousness, including our body-mind. Thus, Jesus was right to say, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:10-11, 20). Both are true, and they are true of us as well. We are arising within God, and God is arising within us as well. Sometimes this is called “mutual indwelling,” the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, also called perichoresis or co-inherence in Christian terminology. God is the field of consciousness in which all knowing occurs, in which all thoughts and perceptions and feelings and sensations arise, like waves in the ocean. Our body-mind and its thoughts are like localizations within that consciousness, temporary manifestations of that Ultimate Reality, expressions of that consciousness, that being, that One. God becomes veiled and hidden from our awareness when the thoughts that arise in and from consciousness believe they are something separate and discrete from the consciousness in which they are arising. The thoughts form a separate entity, a dualistic subjective ego, a separate self identity, an independent being, an “Adam/Eve,” which thinks it is apart from infinite nondual divine consciousness and Ultimate Reality. This seems to be the “Fall,” the beginning of duality and separateness and alienation from God’s Presence. But how could thoughts be separate from the consciousness in which they have arisen? They can’t, but that is exactly what our thoughts and our self-identification with them think they are. It is a kind of psychological illusion. The thoughts take on their own separate identity apart from pure nondual consciousness, forming a self, a person, an entity, seemingly cut off from its own source and essence. Once we look at it like this, it seems impossible, and that is because it is. Our ‘self’ is never actually separate from the source in which it arises, thoughts are never separate from the consciousness in which they emerge, the wave is not separate from the ocean. The thoughts that make up our ‘self’ are just finite actualizations or relative localizations of the infinite potential of absolute consciousness, or Divine Being, or Ultimate Reality. In Christian symbolism we call this the incarnation of God. In Buddhism it is the Dharmakaya that incarnates as the Nirmanakaya Buddha. In Hinduism it is Brahman that manifests itself as each Atman. God becomes incarnate in reality, in the flesh, embodied, in us and all things. There is no time, no space, nowhere we can go, nowhere we can be, that will be outside of this Presence of God, outside of this consciousness, beyond the borders of God, or the Ultimate Reality. God is always present, and is Presence itself, awareness itself, consciousness itself, the “spirit of life” within us, from which we derive all being, all knowing, all our substance, every thought, every sensation. It all arises in God. This is perhaps why, in order to pierce the veil and know God directly, contemplative practices such as meditation help train us to transcend thought, to go back to the source of thought itself, beyond all thoughts of self, to recognize that from which it all arises, this pure open vastness of nondual unitive at-one consciousness. Do you see why we cannot “think” God? Nothing that arises in consciousness as a thought will be that consciousness in which it is arising. No relative finite manifestation in consciousness can be the absolute pure infinite consciousness, even though every manifestation or relativization or actualization of that consciousness is made up of nothing other than that consciousness. God is Present even while we are trying to comprehend God, even in the midst of that very comprehension. God is what makes that attempt at comprehension even possible. God is the very field in which we are trying to know God. When we let go of the trying, the conceptualization, surrendering the thoughts that are trying to know themselves, and rest in the pure still silent open awareness of being, that is when the realization of God may dawn on us, as us.

[@thomassoliton1482]

Very convenient explanation of the independent existence of consciousness. Your brain has an extraordinary need to make everything you know fit together. Good luck separating the wheat from the chaff.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

mental space smaller than Planck time?

[@jamesjacob21]

Extremely speculative, first that there is a mental space at all,; the arguments for it were lacking any convincing basis: Then to go beyond that and suggest properties of the the hypothetical space.

[@chayanbosu3293]

It is the conciousness , we are tiny little soul that's why we have conciousness but it is tiny part &parcel of God Sri Krishna who is absolute concious being.

[@ModestNeophyte]

nothing really exists, except only in our minds because its really all just one big soup of stuff.. we're the ones cutting it up and labelling it.

[@Bill..N]

Can you explain that more?

[@brothermine2292]

Who was the idiot whose mind forced upon the rest of us weird things like quantum mechanics, special relativity, dark energy, etc?

[@Bill..N]

@brothermine2292 Couldn't the idiots be those unable to comprehend the significance of those scientific insights? Isn't THAT possible?

[@jeffforsythe9514]

Is it Cambell's or Lipton soup? Each thing is unique and every living thing has a soul.

[@Bill..N]

@@jeffforsythe9514 That belief is fine friend as long as it is not stated as a supportable fact, yes?

[@brianlebreton7011]

Very interesting approach. Find how projected mental spaces are reflected as a mental state and then link it somehow to consciously experienced space. If you can equate the two somehow, the difference will sift out as a fundamental aspect of reality.

[@cameronmckenzie7049]

Does "information" exist?

[@bozo5632]

The information that exists is encoded in a physical substrate. The electromagnetic bit on a hard drive that stores a zero exists, but there is no zero. A poem is encoded on paper or in some wet connections in brains, and those encodings exist, but there is no poem.

[@cameronmckenzie7049]

@@bozo5632 precisely. So information does exist. But it has no physical structure. I'm illustrating a point. Some argue that the only thing that exists is information

[@bozo5632]

@@cameronmckenzie7049 Yeah that's nuts. "The map is not the territory."

[@stephenwatts2649]

Then said a teacher, Speak to us of Teaching. And he said: “No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge. The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and his lovingness. If he is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of his wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind. The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding. The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice that echoes it. And he who is versed in the science of numbers can tell of the regions of weight and measure, but he cannot conduct you thither. For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man. And even as each one of you stands alone in God’s knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth. The Prophet: On Death by Kahlil Gibran Then Almitra spoke, saying, We would ask now of Death. And he said: You would know the secret of death. But how shall you find it unless you seek it in the heart of life? The owl whose night-bound eyes are blind unto the day cannot unveil the mystery of light. If you would indeed behold the spirit of death, open your heart wide unto the body of life. For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one. In the depth of your hopes and desires lies your silent knowledge of the beyond; And like seeds dreaming beneath the snow your heart dreams of spring. Trust the dreams, for in them is hidden the gate to eternity. Your fear of death is but the trembling of the shepherd when he stands before the king whose hand is to be laid upon him in honour. Is the shepherd not joyful beneath his trembling, that he shall wear the mark of the king? Yet is he not more mindful of his trembling? For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? And what is it to cease breathing but to free the breath from its restless tides, that it may rise and expand and seek God unencumbered? Only when you drink from the river of silence shall you indeed sing. And when you have reached the mountain top, then you shall begin to climb. And when the earth shall claim your limbs, then shall you truly dance.

[@Ockersvin]

Bro is halfway to idealism… he should just take the plunge at this point. We don’t have access to the world either through anything other than experiential means. So why bother with upholding some sort of dualism?

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Its so easy to talk anything about a subject which cannot be verified.

[@heresa_notion_6831]

Doesn't seem very parsimonious. What justifies 2 spaces rather than 1 space and a mental representation of it? It almost sounds like dualism.

[@thomassoliton1482]

Physics can explain what is in your mind - it can explain consciousness, mental states, etc. The problem is you don’t understand how your brain creates the spaces or concepts that you have about them. If the mental space is primary, where does it go when your brain dies? Does it still exit? If not, it must depend intrinsically on the brain. You think everything that exists is some form of “matter” that you can grasp like the blocks you played with as a child. But your ideas, thoughts, feelings are very real also and depend on the activity in your brain - specifically patterns of activity amongst all your nerve cells. In some cases, the patterns are dynamic, like recalling a past memory; but also they depend on stable changes in the synapses in you neurons and interconnections between neurons. When you think about expressing your ideas, lots of activity is going on that you experience as consciousness is occurring. But your brain always wants to think in terms of either material or “mental” things. In fact there is no real dividing line between the two. Matter is a stable pattern of energy. Mental is a dynamic pattern of energy. They coexist and interact in your brain. You need to get beyond dualistic thinking if you want to underatand your place in reality.

[@සිංහයෝ-ස2ර]

In current living reality all r exists but somewhere else there is more that’s why it’s infinite tanx to brain mind we have physics to nature what we found and exiting things and there is more that dosent meet to eye so r they don’t exits sir

[@markuspfeifer8473]

Marx’s answer to „what is?“: struggle!

[@stephenwatts2649]

Spirit is the essence of consciousness, the energy of the Universe that creates all things. Each one of us is a part of that Spirit Energy - a Divine Entity. So the Spirit is the Higher Self, the Eternal Being that lives within us. Form is the physical world: body, mind, personality. We as spiritual beings created the physical world as a place to learn. We're here to learn how to master the process of creation - to learn how to consciously channel the creative energy of spirit into physical form. HOW CONSCIOUNESS CREATES REALITY? If God is Reality And if Reality Is Consciousness Then God Is Consciousness I Think therefore I Am God Consciousness The whole universe is one reality which is pure consciousness. Pure consciousness is absolute existence. God makes things through the direct act of becoming the things which He creates. In the beginning the One differentiated into the many. The One entered into the many and became the Self of each. The being within everything is the One. When you merge with this nonlocal Self, you become one with the Self of all that exists. The One is the Higher Self of all. You are the One. The God Spirit In Me Is The Same God Spirit In You, And The Spirit Of All Beings. Enlightenment Is The realization That You Are All Part Of The Universal Spirit Of All That Exists, Which Is GOD. Each of us is the universal spirit projecting a particular point of view. My Self is inseparable from all that exists, just as your self is inseparable from all that exists. You are an aspect of Infinite Intelligence, and Infinite Intelligence is the source of all that exists. Therefore you are the source of all that exists and you create your own experience. Everything is possible because everything exists within you. The same unbounded potential of the Infinite Spirit also resides in each and every one of us. Everything in the universe is consciousness. Space and time in all planes of reality are only projections within universal consciousness. There really is no here or there for everything is at one place where Mind is. Mind does not move at all. Mind simply is (Not to be confused with the brain). Mind is everywhere yet nowhere. Mind is nowhere but Here, Now. We are all existing together as a singularity in one place and time. Everything is one, Here and Now. Your soul is the reflection of all souls. You are the Other. Without the other, you would not exist. You are defined by your relationships with others. You would need to describe the whole universe in order to define a single person. Therefore every single person is the whole universe. Your soul is both personal and universal at the same time. Everyone is a reflection of yourself. You are in a hall of mirrors where every reflection of yourself appears different. Others you admire reflect the qualities you most cherish in yourself. Others you detest reflect the qualities you most deny in yourself. Each person you see is a different version of you. The outer world is a mirror of yourself at any place and time. If you want to know the state of your personal consciousness, just look around and see what is happening to you. If you want to know the state of the collective consciousness, just look around at what is happening in the world. Your personal reality is synchronistically orchestrated by your sense of Self at all times. If a critical mass of people expressed their higher selves, they would cause a transformation in collective consciousness and the world reality. Every time a person rises in personal consciousness, he moves the state of the world towards a higher one than before. TRANSCENDENT WORLD: You are comfortable here when you can experience all possibilities. Your awareness is open. You are connected to the source. Your consciousness is merged with the mind of God. SUBTLE WORLD: You are comfortable here when you can hold on to your vision. You trust yourself to follow where the mind goes. You aren't bound up in resistance, objections, skepticism, and rigid beliefs. Inspiration occurs as a normal part of your existence. MATERIAL WORLD: You are comfortable with your personal reality. You take responsibility for it. You read the world as a reflection of who you are and what is happening "in here." As the reflection shifts and changes, you track the changes occurring inside yourself. The Need to Create, Discover, and Explore. God becomes a creative source. He gave us our birthright of curiosity. He remains unknowable, but he unfolds one secret after another in creation. At the far edge of the universe, the unknown is a challenge and a source of wonder. God wants us not to worship but to evolve. Our role is to discover and explore. Nature exists to provide endless mysteries that challenge our intelligence - there is always more to discover. This is your God if you live to explore and be creative, if you feel happiest confronting the unknown, if you have total confidence that nature can be unraveled, including human nature, as long as we keep questioning and never settle for fixed, preordained truth. God becomes pure wonder. After reason has reached the limits of understanding, the mystery remains. Sages, saints, and the divinely inspired have penetrated it. They have felt a divine presence that transcends everyday life. Materialism is an illusion. Creation was fashioned in two layers, the visible and the invisible. Miracles become real when everything is a miracle. To reach God, one must accept the reality of invisible things. Nature is a mask for the divine. This is your God if you are a spiritual seeker. You want to know what lies behind the mask of materialism, to find the source of healing, to experience peace, and to be in direct contact with a divine presence. Unity, the State Beyond All Needs. God becomes One. There is complete fulfillment because you have reached the goal of seeking. You experience the divine everywhere. The last hint of separation has vanished. You have no need to divide saint from sinner, because God imbues everything. In this state, you don't know the truth; you become it. The universe and every event in it are expressions of a single underlying Being, which is pure awareness, pure intelligence, and pure creativity. Nature is the outward form that consciousness takes as it unfolds in time and space. This is your God if you feel totally connected to your soul and your source. Your consciousness has expanded to embrace a cosmic perspective. You see everything happening in the mind of God. The ecstasy of great mystics, who seem especially gifted or chosen, now becomes available to you, because you have fully matured spiritually. The God that brings the scheme to an end, God as One, is different from the others. He isn't a projection. He signifies a state of total certainty and wonder, and if you reach that state, you are no longer projecting. Every need has been fulfilled; the path has ended with reality itself.

[@simonhibbs887]

He seems confused about a few things. Illusion doesn't mean nonexistent, it means not what it appears to be. Those that talk about conciseness being an illusion don't generally think that it's nonexistent. They believe that the way we commonly think about it is mistaken in certain ways. He also says he wants his mental world to be real, but again physicalism says that yes, it is real. It is a real process of receiving, processing, integrating and evaluating information in the brain. Anyone who has played a 3D computer game, or even better used a decent VR headset, knows that expansive virtual spaces are perfectly real, in the sense that they are the product of physical information processing. Computers are physical, software physically runs on them, and generates high fidelity spaces we can experience and explore. It seems likely to me that the enormous information processing power of the human brain generates such an informational model of our environment and our imagination, working from sense data, and this is the mental world he is talking about.

[@jamenta2]

"... physicalism says that yes, it is real. It is a real process of receiving, processing, integrating and evaluating information in the brain." Except this is an ASSUMPTION materialists make all the time regarding consciousness. And it is an unproven assumption given brain correlation does not prove causation. Much like a broadcast correlated with a radio, doesn't prove the radio is *producing* the broadcast itself. In addition, there has been a great deal of scientific research in the medical field of Near-Death studies. In the last 30+ years, there have been over 65+ retrospective and prospective worldwide studies of NDEs of all age groups and ethnicities - and the consensus of scientists conducting this research, and scientifically publishing their results demonstrate consciousness can be present when there is no brain function at all, or the brain would not be capable of producing a complex psychological experience. Why do I keep pointing this out to you Simon Hibbs? Because 1) It is science I am referring to, which you seem to want to cherry pick out of your frame of reference, 2) You are basing your own argument here on an unproven personal assumption. Unless you have scientific studies you can point too demonstrating your unproven assumption is scientifically correct. Then, I'm all ears.

[@protonman8947]

First cogent comment in this farrago of babble.

[@stellarwind1946]

First we need a concrete solution to the measurement problem of QM.

[@deanodebo]

Oh come on - just brush it under the rug and pretend we know what “physical” is. Obey! Trust the science! (Sarcasm)

[@andreicristian9575]

I propose we find a way to shrink people so that they can study it up close.

[@rewtaah]

Blah blah blah... They have no clue, no one does. They really should experience mushrooms 🍄 or something more reality breaking like Salvia. 👍

[@techstuff3409]

It's a bloody simulation! Or we exist only in universal mind as dream avatars

[@Bill..N]

I don't WANT to say the OP, and first comment on this thread is a little strange and low brow, so I won't..

[@jeffforsythe9514]

I have much more than a clue........................Falun Dafa

[@Bill..N]

@jeffforsythe9514 Respectfully what are those convincing "clues" ?

[@Bill..N]

@@jeffforsythe9514 I suspect they are scientific insights, yes?

[@rickstrafy4870]

It's called biology.

[@shantalexhaviters2866]

res extensa res cogitans

[@aamirilyas10]

Me

[@mohdnorzaihar2632]

human desire is reality

[@PrashantNanda]

ऊर्जा की अवस्था में स्पंदन से आवृति का जन्म होता है ।और आप सिर्फ मानवीय संवेदनाओं से अवलोकन कर रहे हो जो व्यक्त है। जो अव्यक्त और व्याकुल है की कई उसका आप अवलोकन नहि कर सकतें हो क्यूँ की मानवीय संवेदना । जैसे ध्वनि और प्रकाश । ऊर्जा की अवस्था के कारण संवेदनाओं और चेतना में कुछ तो संबंध है 😅😅😅😅

[@Jalcolm1]

Panpsychism I guess. Wrong as usual. What about Time. What exists outside Time? All A Priori objects are not subject to Time. Math, Ethics (if you are ethical realist). You can’t really have an idea of “space “ without including Time. Einstein proved that. So Carr’s package is beautifully wrapped, but there’s nothing in it.

[@mitrabuddhi]

If I am shadowbanned by youtube it means i can talk to you privately😊

[@jairofonseca1597]

Materialism is dead now ...

[@tomjackson7755]

Sorry it is your religion that has been dying for centuries.

[@richardsylvanus2717]

I prefer Howie Carr

[@micronda]

What exists is fluctuating fields in a holding space

[@Abraham_the_prophet]

Be the aware space, merge with the universe. Surrender to god

[@djazairion6200]

Only ISLAM ☪️ that gives peace of mind body and soul ❤

[@Bill..N]

ONLY Islam? So you are suggesting that EVERY other religion is false blasphemy?

[@LogicStandsBeforeGod]

@@Bill..N Every other religions on Earth takes you away from the God of Abraham into worship something else. They all are telling you to worship a man. Hinduism is telling humanity to worship men. Buddhism is telling humanity to worship a man. Sikhism is telling humanity to worship a book on which Sikhs gurus are living inside the holy-book GGS. Apart from these three religions there are thousand more "hism" religions on Earth that command humanity to worship a man or command humanity to worship an object created by men. Christianity fits right into this group of religions and holy-books of these religions were authored by men, so is in Christianity NT's authorship goes to men. Human's authored holy books, followers worship men or objects created by men. Every Tom, Jerry and Henry religion's holy book which was authored by men, does not contain God's first person narrative and all of them are telling the followers to worship a man or command followers to worship an object created by men, so it is in Sikhism and Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and 4200 'hism' religions out there on Earth do the same. Q1) Have you not pondered why all of them are commanding mankind to do the same???????????? If you know the answer to the question at line q1, I know you would be a muslim already, it is a very important question to find an answer, please share it with me.

[@Bill..N]

@rizwanrafeek3811 Thanks for your well considered comment, friend.. I respect everyone's right to believe whatever religious ideas they WANT to believe.. I draw that respect line in a HUGE circle, but personally, I don't stand anywhere WITHIN that circle.. Peace Brother..

[@LogicStandsBeforeGod]

@@Bill..N Anyone can believe whatever he or she wants and the Creator of the heaven and Earth did not take it way from anyone to believe whatever he or she wants to. Do you believe in God? Can I share with you two videos posted by very unlikely men i.e. two Americans asked God for guidance and God delivered it to them with a miracle in the broad daylight, will you please watch it ?

[@LogicStandsBeforeGod]

@@Bill..N Both Americans reported an identical miracles in the broad daylight. One video came from a man who came from Jewish family and other came from Christian's family.