Carlo Rovelli - 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.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on what exists: bit.ly/3ejE67z
Carlo Rovelli is an Italian theoretical physicist at Centre de Physique Theorique de Luminy.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
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.

[@ibrarkhan9878]

I love Carlo Rovelli and his amazing books.

[@Andrew-tu5fm]

Excellent discussion. Carlo Rovelli is so articulate on the philosophy of physics. In this discussion, I think he is talking about emergence, somewhere between strong and weak emergence. He is also a linguist, going deeper into the meaning of words such that polar opposite meanings should be impossible, only debatable ones. At that level, there is no basis for certainty.

[@Djagacooks]

My Christmas’ gift arrived late. Thank you @Closer to Truth. I have been waiting for some Carlo Rovelli content here

[@ollywright]

"You are an even more complicated arrangement of things" "Hopefully" Very funny! Unexpected humour in a Closer to Truth video.

[@hgracern]

Beautiful, thank you.

[@Robinson8491]

Great conversation. Also finally the sound guy is on point ;-)

[@Grandunifiedcelery]

*Currently only Loop Quantum Gravity is a background-independent quantum theory of spacetime.*

[@jonathanjollimore4794]

Blackholes are the missing component

[@halestorm123]

Celery 🙀

[@Grandunifiedcelery]

@@halestorm123 Celery of everything 😺

[@halestorm123]

@@GrandunifiedceleryI think I might of contracted the celery mosaic virus

[@frankkockritz5441]

…and your credentials in making such a claim are? ….

[@nisarabro5585]

My most favorite Program 💘

[@ashifkhan8167]

As salamu अलैकुम भई साब

[@_ilincic]

Great conclusion said by rovelli

[@walidarakji6514]

One of the best explanations about emergence.

[@jklep523]

I recently finished Mr. Rovelli’s book, Helgoland. It very much closed the gap in my comprehension of the meaning of quantum theory. I recommend it it highly to everyone here. My deepest thanks to CR for his work. And always gratitude to RLK for his work and communication of this project.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Be careful Carlo books is bussiness. Science serious books arent in bookshop in shopping.

[@jklep523]

@@maxwellsimoes238 So, you have read Helgoland?

[@DrZedDrZedDrZed]

@@jklep523 I'm gonna say he hasn't lol. Maxwell can go read Carlo's numerous papers on the subject if he wants to be "serious" and will probably get far less out of it. But J, if you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole, on a far less easily digestible (but even more rewarding) read, I highly recommend Meeting the Universe Halfway by Barad. There's no going back after hearing what she has to say about Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg.

[@jklep523]

@@DrZedDrZedDrZed thanks for the recommendation, I’m always hungry for new insights. Will check this out.

[@hgracern]

Thanks, Barads book is free reading online.

[@stevenhoyt]

This is the best episode I've seen. Well done!

[@laszlobeke7908]

I am not delusional to think I truly understand the subjects at hand... but I couldn't ascape the feeling he did not want to give a straight answer... perhaps because there isn't any one good answer. .... (o:

[@joshuacadebarber8992]

He was too caught up on his incomplete formulation of ideas resulting in him responding as if ideas are slippery and evasive when discussing them in the same category as quantum fields and physical phenomena. Take a look at my comment to this video if you want to see a straight answer. I was hopefully thorough enough to give some food for thought.

[@charlessimons1692]

Yes. Well done.

[@KevinSandy2]

Language. Language is the totality of our existence.

[@arjunmalik4764]

You are my role model!!!

[@ministerofjoy]

Thank you.

[@BILLY-px3hw]

After reading about exsistence and watching many lectures and interviews, the one thing I know for sure that actually exsists is a table

[@ace8656]

Have you ever done salvia? I heard stories that people projected their conscious onto inanimate objects like a table and cards. Maybe thats the secret to live forever! Do enough salvia that we think we are tables

[@jeremymanson1781]

Table is a word used to crudely categorise a large number of objects that have some or all of the characteristics we have decided to attribute to that abstract category. For example I sometimes use a small stool as a side table when I put a bowl of crisps on it. If I then sit on it (messy what with the crisps) is it still a table?

[@chrisbennett6260]

What's saliva bro

[@chrisbennett6260]

Do ypu think you was on saliva when you came a cos the stories

[@evanjameson5437]

without consciousness nothing can exist--nothing.

[@koranbred3512]

So a field is what? What properties do they hold? And what are fields caused by?

[@DJMICA-bz3qz]

I so greatly appreciate this channel.

[@hgracern]

Red exists? Surprising comment. No separation anywhere so could anything exist discretely. I love Carlo, thank you. Xx

[@edgregory1]

Max Planke summed it up pretty well when he said ~ everything we think of as real is made up by what can't be thought of as real.

[@saidparsan652]

Being is being rational. [Hegel] To be is to be the value of a bound variable. [Quine] What else remains to be said about "being”?

[@saidparsan652]

@Leonhard Euler Hegel has been and still is the subject of controversial debates, not bcuz his point on the meaning of "reality" [what is rational is actual and what is actual is rational] is not logically correct, which it obviously is, but bcuz he's been misrepresented by the prejudiced rhetoric of Marxists including Zizek.

[@diegokricekfontanive]

I guess what Rovelli's trying to say (in a nutshell) is that consciousness itself is merely a material phenomenon..

[@davidcotuit]

Exactly.

[@MetalMonkey9]

“Appearances to the mind are of four kinds. Things either are what they appear to be; or they neither are, nor appear to be; or they are, and do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be. Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task.” - Epitectus

[@rhcpmorley]

Nice chat. But same problems. 1. Define words fully (including which specific meaning of a word with multiple meanings you are using e.g. Time and Space...and existence!) 2. Understand the difference between 'abstract' nouns (only exists in our collective minds) and concrete nouns (tangible existence outside our minds). So Temperature is abstract, heat is real / tangible. Time is abstract, [quantum] Change/Events are real. Space (in this context) is abstract, [relative] Position is real. Hence Spacetime is abstract, motion is real. And by 'existence' here you mean tangible i.e. 'not abstract'....clearly football rules are abstract although they 'exist' in our collective minds (or mind extension recorded as writing).

[@toninof]

Agree, especially with your first point. I'm afraid that our language that we use as a tool to express reality (or how we understand reality) will always be a limiting factor in doing so. Carlo touched it at one point mentioning that the word isn't a thing it describes. On the other hand we often forget that our own brain (or more precisely, two brain hemispheres) perceive the same events quite differently, often creating conflicting picture of the same event within the very same individual. There's obviously a long way to go to both understand reality and agree on the meaning of that understanding.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

So in your notion, we use an abstract to understand a reality. I'm looking for a word here for the process; reality--abstration, which abstraction is regarded as a reality and an abstraction sought to understand it-----which process goes down (toward the more concrete) and up (toward the more abstract) indefinitely. Iterative---iteration??

[@rhcpmorley]

@@arthurwieczorek4894 I dont see multi-levels here. Just two possible 'states'...1. fundamental and non-abstract, or 2. abstract. And abstract means 'only exists in the human conscious'.

[@nicolecapriani5918]

So, the words we use” language” Brings the relativism to the table? We can’t explain the existence due to limitation of the “language ” barrier?

[@rhcpmorley]

@@nicolecapriani5918 'Language barrier' means something different. Its word definition that is the issue. If you can't define the principle words explicitly, unambiguously and specifically (significant words like time, space, dimension, existence etc ) then nonsense and confusion ensue. And they never are defined when used in this context particularly. 'Space' and 'Time' both have multiple meanings. And Carlo clearly keeps moving the goalposts with his use and meaning of the word 'existence'. That's all I'm saying. Academic rule no 1: Define your terms.

[@sbaronedude]

Thanks for posting these videos. Fascinating discussion

[@jasonemryss]

Just an awesome Thought provoking conversation

[@farhadfaisal9410]

Yes, ‘we are part of nature‘ and, remarkably, this also implies that through us (among, perhaps, other sentient beings) nature has become conscious of itself.

[@wmpx34]

Perhaps that was its purpose all along

[@farhadfaisal9410]

If we need a teleological concept like “purpose“ for an explanation of the evolution of consciousness, partial or universal, then this fact could be so interpreted. But, I am afraid, there appears to be no need for a teleology for the emergence of consciousness in sentient products of evolution so far.

[@gillesmeura3416]

It seems Alfred Korzybski (1933: Science and Sanity) has been completely forgotten, and one of his key tenets is rediscovered in this dialog: the fundamental difference between phenomenal reality and conceptual abstractions (mainly language based).

[@Deliberateleo]

If you “don’t see any reason to postulate something separate from this complexity” then it stands to reason that not even quantum fields exist. They are just as much a fraction of the ‘whole’ as everything else. It’s just that, the fraction of the ‘whole’ we call a human mind is phenomenally good at cutting things apart.

[@santhoshgopinath816]

All the "fractions" exist in the sense that they are in our perceptive experience. However at the fundamental level, one would have to say that what we call fractions are not fractions but appearances of something absolutely fundamental. That would have to be Pure Existence which is not different from Pure Consciousness.

[@Deliberateleo]

@@santhoshgopinath816 hmmm, my point is …there is no thing which is fundamental. Perhaps we should ask what is your definition of the word fundamental. Mine Is probably very similar to yours; that which all other things are made of or come before… yes? What Carlo clearly stated in the quote I mentioned (the very last sentence of the video) is that there is no need to divide up “this complexity”. Existence/consciousness, whether Pure or Impure are not a part from or separate in any way to the “whole” other than in our need to cut/divide/analyze.

[@santhoshgopinath816]

@@Deliberateleo Thank you. I can easily relate and agree with what you have said. The problem is probably the challenge with words used, language itself perhaps. We are on the same page. = So yes, what I mean by fundamental has been articulated very well by you. = I totally get it when you say “….. human mind is phenomenally good at cutting things apart”, and “…..our need to cut/divide/analyze.” Fully understand you. Only, in my lazy comfort, I am used to say this as - “human intellect is phenomenally good at cutting things apart”, because for me, mind brings up other specific meanings. = Re. “there is no thing which is fundamental.” - totally agree. “thing” being matter / material / object. IMHO, the fundamental is not a void, because there needs to be a basis/ Principle, something from which the objects that are matter, ideas, etc appear in our experiences of perception and inference. Since this is not an object as above, then it follows that the fundamental is The Subject, a Direct obvious experience, not dependent on either perception or inference, and this is nothing but Existence / Consciousness. I write this to see if we are on the same page when we say “thing”. = I was trying to understand the statement - “don’t see any reason to postulate something separate from this complexity”. You have now restated it as - “there is no need to divide up “this complexity””, which helped. Connecting to above, I would restate it (for my own comfort) as - “don’t see any reason to postulate something separate from that fundamental”. Because IMHO, the complexity is already right there, divided, in front of our perceived and inferred experiences, and the reason for the complexity itself is the dividedness of the fundamental, which is the whole. Further dividing the dividedness may not be the best way to reach the fundamental, which is One undivided whole. I guess this is what you mean when you say “not a part from or separate in any way to the “whole””. The irony is that the fundamental is also right here, undivided, in front of us, but our survival process is tuned to experience the divided through perception and inference, and tunes out the direct experience of the fundamental undivided whole. = The more science is Able to divide, the more it is becoming clear that “there is no need to divide up “this complexity””. We have divided upto photons, neutrinos, and WIMPs, and what is becoming more clear is the futility than utility of it as a way to understand the fundamental. =I accept the rebuke in your phrase “…whether Pure or Impure ……”, it is a response to my claim “what we call fractions are not fractions”. I should have said it more carefully. What I meant was, while the fundamental is the whole, The One without a second, the word “fraction” brought up an image of an eternal fragmented existence. I remembered, there are spiritual philosophies which postulate the ultimate reality as two dimensional, with matter at one side and individual fragmented consciousnesses which are “fractions” of a whole super-consciousness on the other side. My error was in assuming that “fraction” would take us there. = Thank you for affording this exchange which helped to understand my own views better for myself, and how it is convergent with others’.

[@Deliberateleo]

@@santhoshgopinath816 I’m happy to see we stand on the same ground and are looking in the same direction. If there is anything that I consider to be fundamental, it is the understanding that we share. If you will indulge me, I will share just a few thoughts so we may continue this exchange a bit longer Science or perhaps I should say Western science is useful but it is not rooted in that fundamental experience. The capitalism that exists today which is synonymous with greed is continually driving us apart. (Or has it always been like this?) I have often considered verbal language to be a remarkable boon and at the same time a disastrous curse as in the Tower of Babel. Could that be responsible?

[@santhoshgopinath816]

@@Deliberateleo IMHO, I would borrow your own words to answer this - “….. human mind is phenomenally good at cutting things apart”, and “…..our need to cut/divide/analyze.”. We still draw heavily on classical science which has a bias of linear analytical thinking. The world view of the material reductionists, which say reality is objective and science is value free. Both these have been shaken to the core by modern physics. Some statements - Classical science - there is a hard problem of consciousness. Modern science - the hard problem is of matter. Classical science - how can there be such a thing as a first-person reality. Modern science - how can there be anything but a first-person reality. Max Tedmark MIT - “Matter as we understand today cannot explain consciousness, hence we need a new conception of matter”. But this new thought is confined to the modern physicists, and has not seeped down to the common imagination. The self styled rationalists on TV debates and you tube who hold forth on scientific temper is still stuck in a 19th century rut. Funnily most of these talking heads are artistes and celebrities who have dropped out of science after school. Almost all sciences and even humanities have been taken over by the analytical / linear thinking, but the tide is turning towards a systems / holistic approach. Fritjof Capra’s book “The Turning Point” brings out this paradigm shift nicely. As for capitalism, I guess most isms are or were vying for control always. Among land, labour and capital, control was first wrested by feudalists, followed by capitalists, and dictatorship of the proletariat. All of them in their pure form have been confined to the dustbin of history. Capitalism was when ford car was available only in one colour - black. Now it is the turn of consumerism, which has a choice of 150 shades in white alone. I agree greed kills, it is murderous and suicidal. Feudalism, Capitalism, and communism was killed by their own greed. Consumers are getting killed by greed of consumerism. The philosophy of the cancer cell. I guess…..

[@davegrundgeiger9063]

Rovelli is amazing.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

1:00 / In other words, meaning is context dependent. The same string of words (or a word) can have different meaning in the context of different subjects of discussion, even different levels of abstraction in the same subject of discussion. Not to mention in the context of our expectations or our present personal needs. Lee's Elucidation: A finite number of words must represent an infinite number of things and possibilities. Language Habits In Human Affairs, Irving Lee, 1941.

[@VenusLover17]

Awesome

[@osvaldoluizmarmo7216]

My answer is "it depends on the point of view". From the point of view of reality itself, there is only vibration in the void; but from the point of view of the human being I must say that it depends on the level of Consciousness. For some people the garden is just trees, grass, flowers and leaves, for others it is vibrant life emerging in light.

[@thetruthoutside8423]

I totally agree with you. No evidence until now. Thank u, indeed.

[@hrperformance]

Great interview/discussion but I wish Carlo wasn't interrupted so much 😭 let the man talk!

[@pinaky_AnvIkSikI]

Never ending arguments..as per observation by our brains understand..

[@gordcockburn9347]

A very clever intelligent person.

[@fortynine3225]

There is this stuff called information science which ''proposes to show that everything created since the origin of the universe over thirteen billion years ago has involved just two fundamental physical processes, A quantum process and A thermodynamic process'' so there you have the basics. Other than that folks talk about nature, which is the thing that is within reach for observation and research, as being all there is. Those are (materialist) assumptions, not hard objective facts, which folks in physics often absolutize unfortunately.

[@Practicality01]

I just want to thank the maker of this channel for satiating my need for good conversations about important and interesting topics.

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas your statement isn't...

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas *"Good and bad are RELATIVE"* ... "Good and Bad" represent two oppositional endpoints on a basic spectrum - just like "black and white" and "quark and antiquark" (3rd Law of Existence).

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas *"Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything that is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree..."* ... And what is the *internal mechanism* used to determine whatever we deem as "good" or "bad?" The speed of light is also relative, but that doesn't change the fact that the speed of light is 186,000 miles/sec. Likewise, one person's "good" might be another person's "bad," but the entire framework of humanity (our species) has established a dynamic *SPECTRUM* of everything that we deem as "good" and "bad" over the past 300,000 years. Existence then uses this information to render a summary judgment as to whether existence is a "good" or "bad" proposition.

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas isn't that what your claim leaves behind?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas *"if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good."* ... What about when a larger test group is used - as in 300,000 years of _Homo sapiens?_ This higher-tier information might show an overwhelming majority of humans deem "living" as a _good thing_ and "dying" as a _bad thing._ In other words, the anomalous "outliers" don't dictate or define the spectrum on either end. They only add their personal data into the mix with the *SPECTRUM* demonstrating the reality. That's why Existence forms *SPECTRUMS* (like good and bad, black and white, particle and antiparticle). That's how Existence processes information.

[@CarlosElio82]

"[T]the question concerning the existence of almost anything (even the whole external world) is not a very relevant question... The statement that it "exists" means only that: (a) it can be measured, hence uniquely defined, and (o) that its knowledge is useful for understanding past phenomena and in helping to foresee further events. It can be made part of the Weltbild." E Wigner, The mind-body problem.

[@mahimagupta2476]

a) is a materialist view, and b) this is too broad a definition - it can subsume consciousness, subjective/abstract terms, all of history and anthropology. Its much more complex than a dualist query,

[@axion8788]

Positing that quantum fields (and such) constitute 'existence' is essentially tautological. I believe Mr. Kuhn would would (rightly) ask "how is it that such fields exist?".

[@alanbooth9217]

where did the fields come from as a concept- from themselves ?

[@alanbooth9217]

so if one postulates that the fields assert that fields are fundamental one has presupposed the existence of the very thing whose existence one is trying to prove - shame on you Carlo as Dan Robinson would have said

[@billvokey4221]

It is all in a state of change.time says so.

[@freethot333]

Is our present need to convert every thought into spoken or written language perhaps the primary impediment to a satisfactory understanding of our reality?

[@sanathansatya1667]

Whatever it is there Exists in two states. One that can be understood or sensed by the laws of physics and human mind and the other which can't be understood or comprehended so with present state of available knowledge and information. This is not a demarcation between Existence and Non Existence. If only human mind is used as a tool it may miss many that Exists . We can never conclude what Exist and doesn't Exists till we comprehend the SINGULARITY and BEYOND.

[@Numberofthings]

Information exists

[@Ecm613]

Yes, according to the relationship you are relating with.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Information exists"* ... Information is the core structure of Existence.

[@Numberofthings]

@@Ecm613 I’m saying, at the most fundamental level of reality, everything is just information.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@Numberofthings Yes, with the same existential status as has Hamlet.

[@gxfprtorius4815]

I am having trouble comprehending these concepts in a physical way. If space time is quantized, it means you have small entities of spacetime... in what? How can there be entities if they are not in some space of a kind? What do they exist in, according to this theory? They just exist, and that gives us space and time? But then, if that is what is meant by quantum loop gravity being background independent, are the other fields also? Or do the force fields exist in the space-time field, in which case we have fields in a field???

[@relaxisasinaturequran]

So what exist ?? The beauty complexity of nature. ♥️👌

[@r2c3]

Quality content requires a sponge mind :)

[@Jipzorowns]

What do you mean with sponge?

[@r2c3]

@@Jipzorowns the ability to accept new content...

[@otomatikmandalina7283]

At the first glance, he was resembled to Orhan Pamuk who is famous Turkish writer.

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

☀️

[@tonygatos1]

This is an endlessly fascinating topic. What we can glean from research or even videos like this is a window into seeing our place in the universe/reality.

[@AnnaJeffries]

At 2:29 I believe it can be said that trees are sentient, too. They communicate differently than humans do, yet Rovelli’s point that nothing exists when you look to the fundamentals alone seems accurate to me… in response to the interviewer’s regard of “hierarchy” in what exists w/ trees and their molecular structures. In my observation of humankind, many of us respond before we take a second to ingest what’s being offered around us. In light of all of our senses, with particular focus in demonstration of our ability to hear, yet not listen.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

I suggest that anything that resides on the opposite side of *absolute* nothingness, exists is some context or another.

[@longcastle4863]

Seems like things exist within things, or more specifically within one of two things. The number 2, ideas, thoughts and concerpts etc exists within human culture. Human culture, atoms, forces and everything else exist within spacetime. Spacetime is a bit of a puzzle, but is perhaps just the bottom line thing that just exist.

[@matteogiberti3297]

What exist are quantum fields but the gravity (space-time) is a qualitatively different quantum one. We can imagine a reality without some quantum fields but without the space-time quantum field the others wouldn't have a background to exsist in.

[@jamesmadera9861]

This may be true, but if we are too much focused on that… how do we focus on the sociology, psychology, and the incredible richness of the human experience?

[@enricomarchesini1868]

Someone can confirmed the Quine’s quotation? As I can remember he wasn’t a nominalist.

[@surendrakverma555]

Ram Ram 🙏🙏🙏. Jai Hind 🙏🙏 Jai Shree Ram 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@Ecm613]

To say for short it’s all relative depending on the relationship to what you talking about.

[@markemerson98]

curious - what defines something that does not exist?

[@AS-fu1kd]

Even the concept of nonexistence is still something that exists

[@david_porthouse]

Only the wave function exists. The algorithm for the integration of the Schroedinger equation needs to make a random choice between a timelike and a spacelike integration.

[@FreeMind320]

Do shadows exist?

[@ashnur]

when you ask "what the categories are" you already assumed the world works in a way in which in fact, it doesn't

[@dominicvijayanand1971]

in spiritiual entity there is mental function in which exists physical bodies constantly changing in size and shape some are visible others almost invisible. visible things in invisible space and time , for ever young for ever free .

[@Qwertykeyboardkeymir]

Carlo will win nobel prize for his work in the field of Quantum field theory.

[@Chuckcb]

If this planet ceased to exist and there is no life anywhere in the universe what would happen to the universe, would God start this all over again, or would the big bang start over again,

[@AS-fu1kd]

The only thing fundamental is change

[@TockaMea]

Change is illusionary

[@stevennovakovich2525]

There may be no fundamental level of matter in either direction. I've often pondered if, when peering down into the micro-level, it goes on and on, infinitely. The other 'way' is toward the bigger and bigger things. Space could likely just go on forever and ever, with clusters of galaxies and clusters of clusters of galaxies, etc. going infinitely.

[@BrunoWiebelt]

Carlo you still are a Nominalist irreal and real are definitions

[@silviobulgaretti7131]

Spyroe theory explainer video is a new concept for the TOE!! A shape that defines human perception can represent all quantum phenomena.

[@machida5114]

"Experiences exist for a consciousness" This is all.

[@adebleswordfish]

Yerp. The advaita Vedantan take even agreed with this, though it has a knack for saying it’s a theatrical experience for God.

[@leolok2632]

Things exist. Nothing exists. In sum: anything exists.

[@BILLY-px3hw]

everything exists

[@wayneasiam65]

It seems that the only thing that exists is the moment. Yet, in another way Everything that has existed continues to be. Just in different, diffuse form. Even quantum strings of possibilities. So, in a sense only VIBRATION is fundamental. When movement stops, maybe so does fundamental existence.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Rambling

[@willp9226]

Consciousness stops, at least according to neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás. He explains with his 'I of the Vortex' theory, which he says to have shown in his experiments. He says consciousness ceases at 40 hertz. So, yes in regard to consciousness, which could equate to existence in some ways, does rely on vibration.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"When movement stops, maybe so does fundamental existence."* ... Existence always remains in motion by design. Should all "movement" stop, then time and change would equally stop. However, whatever is trapped within this condition would still exist within that final timeless, motionless state.

[@constructivecritique5191]

Everything effective exist. "EEE"

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

I don't know why Kuhn asks questions that are outside the interviewee's expertise. We should care about his impressive amount of knowledge on physics, but should we ask about the ontological status of abstracta to a physicist? Should we not ask this to an expert on Nominalism or Platonism?

[@santhoshgopinath816]

Because, (I guess)... We are in 21st century, not 19th, when ultimate thought meant Cartesian. Today scientists acknowledge 2 great fallacies of classical science, namely.. .. Objective reality .. Value free science. Classical science - there is a hard problem of consciousness. Modern science - the hard problem is of matter. Classical science - how can there be such a thing as a first-person reality. Modern science - how can there be anything but a first-person reality.

[@MK-lm6hb]

The world is necessarily anthropocentric. We do not discover reality but invent/create it. Unmediated access to reality is impossible because observation necessitates an observer who conceptualises what he perceives. Time, space, causality, objects, numbers, language, particulars and universals are all derivative and dependent on human minds and do not exist outside of them. In this video, I find questions much more interesting than answers. The questions have depth and precision which are lacking in the answers.

[@jeffneptune2922]

Spoken like a true neo Kantian.

[@MK-lm6hb]

@@jeffneptune2922 Indeed. It seems to me that physicists at last noticed the existence of linguistics and psychology and the impact of these two disciplines on what they do. Until recently, scientists were convinced that they were dealing with matter and not with concepts about matter. They thought that there was perfect correspondence between language and matter. They were not interested in philosophy which they considered as pure speculation. They were not troubled by the distinction between particulars and universals and the role of the observer. They thought that science discovers truths that are objective and eternal. After Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos, we no longer believe in the unproblematic status of science. This process may indeed be called neokantianism.

[@bubstacrini8851]

Precision is your crutch. Rovelli is tearing fabric. The difference between a golf course and a forest is significant, one is a curated artifact, the forest the product of millenia of unfolding nature. Some favor describing the forest with the language of the golf course.

[@MK-lm6hb]

@@bubstacrini8851 Neither gold courses not forests exist independently of human minds. Neither millenia nor Nature. They are all human concepts. Even more astounding is that most concepts we use nowadays are of European provenience and are only partly accepted in other cultures/civilisations. Like the concept of Nature, for example, and natural causality, time and space as precise and measurable categories, the concept of progress, and so forth and so on.

[@bubstacrini8851]

@@MK-lm6hbThat must be some ultra anthropomorphism you practice. Geological strata exists independently of your cranium.

[@terrencekane8203]

I drink therefore I am.

[@user-fj8xc4vc6g]

I am struggling with the explanation of the Self. Then I had an epiphany. Self or MIND (or soul) is inferred by the vortex found at the center of our 5 senses and the 6th sense of thought in the same way the gravitational field of the earth has an inferred center. Or the inferred center of the universe, as it is spherical and so while the center (think the center inside a basketball) isn't an actual PLACE it is inferred by the shape of space time. Our senses are part of the atomic structure that gives way to quantum fields and joins the fabric of the universe, which is to say mind is the focal point of all existence. The old Zen masters said a few things about this. All very thought provoking. I'll leave a few of their words below: 1. There is no rational explanation for the universe. 2. Always an inside to the very small, always an outside to the very large. 3. From the very first, not a thing is. That last one is Huineng, the 6th patriarch of Chinese Zen circa 500AD. I need a donut.

[@santhoshgopinath816]

Fundamentally, the only one existing is Existence itself. Not existence of you, me, you tube, phone, sun, star, atom,... But Pure Existence itself. That would be Pure Consciousness.

[@midnightthief7321]

The root of reality by definition has no explanation. It just simply 'is'.......

[@christinebradshaw9377]

Wow that interviewer was certainly out if his Depth.

[@Numberofthings]

The event IS the field. There’s no difference

[@projectmalus]

Until the next event comes along, but then the first event doesn't exist so no comparison possible for creatures without memory. It's like an uncertainty principle where the event field is recognized or difference is realized, can't have both.

[@Numberofthings]

@@projectmalus what ?

[@projectmalus]

@@Numberofthings The event is the field in the moment, but as time advances what happens?

[@user-ox6hj6bm3t]

agonising

[@autumnfragrance6326]

Existence exists. Existence - Fantasy = Reality

[@geoffreystearns1690]

Subtitles, please......

[@Rohit-oz1or]

How can an individual, who is composed of microscopic particles/fields cultivate a consciousness and finds out what he/she is made of?

[@3-dwalkthroughs]

Perhaps the individual, with a transcendent individual energy field - with the symptom of that field being consciousness - wears the covering of microscopic particles / fields as one layer of matter out of many others, which is the vehicle for consciousness at a certain vibratory and frequency rate in the material field. This is a Vedic conception, handed down from a mystery school in the past, revealing timeless concepts.

[@hatebreeder999]

@@3-dwalkthroughs in bhagwad gita, krishna tells that all reality is just vibration of fields. Every object is just complex pattern of vibration of field. Field is eternal and only thing that exists

[@3-dwalkthroughs]

@Rohit consciousness pre-existed the fields. Consciousness did not emerge from the fields of material energy. It is one’s consciousness which is separate from the material modes of nature that allows one to even contemplate these things.

[@3-dwalkthroughs]

@@hatebreeder999 Sri Krishna also explains the knower of the field “kshetrajna” which is the individual spark of conscious spirit which can assess it’s situation in the material field of goodness passion and ignorance. Early in the seventh chapter Gita, Krishna describes he is the source of two energies one material and one spiritual, and that the living entities are part of the spiritual energy. The symptom of that being is consciousness. That spiritual spark and consciousness is the difference between a living body and a dead body. The material elements that made up the physical body were only animated by the presence of the spirit soul.

[@Rohit-oz1or]

@@3-dwalkthroughs These are beliefs.

[@porkbeanz6076]

The thing thats trippy is everything you see, touch, feel was a thought in someone's head at one point, then they brought it into our reality. Were literally living in and interacting with people's thoughts

[@jjcm3135]

Fantastic questions by Dr Kuhn. Allowed no bs answers. Such was the physicists profound appreciation of complexity everything got swallowed up in his definition of it. Dr Kuhn kept it very focused. Shocking to see how difficult it is for the best scientists to explain (all of) existence.

[@kimsahl8555]

Everything exist: you can't show anything that don't (the flying horse exist as an imagine).

[@lasvegasotis6780]

👀

[@Mommy10417]

Actually the host cut him off a couple of times when he was just getting to say something interesting. For those of us who have the interest but perhaps not quite the knowledge or intellect, this maybe a good one to start with. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6TYaquQm8aVhq8

[@ronpaulrevered]

This idea that logic, math, etc. is invented, definitional, or arbitrary is just plain False.

[@constructivecritique5191]

These are the people that created the idols to worship! Anything that influences, exist!!! PERIOD

[@martifingers]

It is a very persuasive view , this form of subtle reductionism proposed by Carlo Rovelli. The consequence is nevertheless quite shocking - expressed crudely it would be this: what we see then are quantum fields becoming, in a sense, aware of themselves! Mind boggling, at least to me.

[@chrisbennett6260]

Is that what he is saying

[@dondattaford5593]

Cut to the chase nothing exist until you do there's no time until you come into being

[@remusgogu7545]

Very interesting and thought provoking discussion. In my view, there is no abstraction that is a number, say “3”. At least not in the sense in which we think abstraction works in mathematics. Whenever a human being thinks about or works with number 3 she always has a mental depiction of an object that is 3. It’s always an object. It’s not an “abstraction” or a “generalization” of a set of objects that convey the meaning of “3”. Mathematics works by setting rules to work with those depicted objects. My “3” works the same as your “3” because even if we use different depictions, we use the depicted objects consistently in our judgements, such that we come to the same conclusion, i.e. 3+3=6. And even if my depiction of 6 is different than yours, we can still agree to the process and the result because when we communicate about object 6 we find a mutual representation that we agree upon (i.e. 6 sticks). Long story short, there is no point in asking whether “3” exists. Because that implies asking whether abstractions exist, and that’s question that currently has no meaning, because we can’t define what an abstraction is in the first place: nobody has seen or was able to think about an abstraction. We are only capable of thinking in terms of concrete depiction of objects (whether these objects are depictions of something that exist in reality or simply depictions created by our minds, through combining other depictions learned from reality). Or definition of abstraction is flawed. When we define abstraction we are cheating, we just think about specific objects and pretend we are thinking in terms broader than that.

[@MK-lm6hb]

We deal with abstractions all the time. Language is a tool that works by turning particulars (concrete perceptions) into universals (abstract nouns and predicates). When I tell you "I saw a dog crossing the road" I see in my mind a particular dog crossing a particular road but you only see or rather imagine a universal dog crossing a universal road, without any particular traits. Abstractions certainly exist - not independently but in our minds. As a member of a society, you are immersed in language and you live among abstractions.

[@remusgogu7545]

@@MK-lm6hb I think what you are doing - you are just defining what a label or category is, not what an abstraction is. A dog is just a category where we agree with other people to put some things in, so that we are able to talk about them more broadly. I think that might create confusion, where we start believing that a category is a thing in itself, an abstraction that has its own meaning. But there is difference between categories and abstract objects. An abstract object should be able to live on its own and to have meaning on its own, without the need to be exemplified. A category does not exist on its own without the things that it contains. Without the particulars. I think. But I enjoy this discussion.

[@MK-lm6hb]

@@remusgogu7545 You are right, I expressed myself poorly in my comments by mixing categories with abstract objects. Perhaps I wanted to stress that both categories and abstract objects are mental constructions and do not exist independently of human minds. When you write that an abstract object "lives on its own" I think you mean that categories are names for sets of particular objects that have certain characteristics in common while abstract objects exist without reference to particulars.

[@remusgogu7545]

@@MK-lm6hb yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking about 😊