Carlo Rovelli - What Exists?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Djagacooks]

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

[@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.

[@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? ….

[@ollywright]

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

[@nisarabro5585]

My most favorite Program 💘

[@ashifkhan8167]

As salamu अलैकुम भई साब

[@KevinSandy2]

Language. Language is the totality of our existence.

[@Robinson8491]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@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…..

[@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.

[@jjharvathh]

Well, don't know why I always have to be the one to step in and clarify everything, but here it is. Even the most basic categories that we can reduce everything to (maybe we think of particles, energy, force fields, space, time, etc.) are unknown things. They are unknown completely in that we do not know where they come from or why. So,by reducing things to these basic categories we have done very little as we still have no idea where the basic things come from. And finally, we have so far, no idea how to reduce conscious experience to these basic categories, so consciousness is hanging out there apart from everything and irreducible (oh, I know many strongly/religiously believe that consciousness can be reduced to other things, but so far we have no idea how that could be so.). Hope that clears everything up for everyone. Peace, love, and blessings to all.

[@MikeWiest]

You are correct. It looks like Penrose-Hameroff’s Orchestrated Objective Reduction is the next level of understanding both quantum theory and consciousness. The theoretical arguments are strong (contrary to popular belief) and the experimental evidence is growing. Eg. Babcock 2024 showed quantum super radiance in microtubules at room temperature that got stronger as they were joined into larger structures.

[@evanjameson5437]

without consciousness nothing can exist--nothing.

[@koranbred3512]

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

[@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.

[@arjunmalik4764]

You are my role model!!!

[@sbaronedude]

Thanks for posting these videos. Fascinating discussion

[@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.

[@hgracern]

Beautiful, thank you.

[@diegokricekfontanive]

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

[@davidcotuit]

Exactly.

[@amihartz]

Yes, to be a consistent materialist you cannot believe that the brain is somehow creating something not material. This was first pointed out clearly, to my knowledge, by Feuerbach. The idea that somehow material reality creates a not material experience is not only a fallacious premise but if you assume it, you can never "solve" it, because then you would be contradicting yourself. As Feuerbach had pointed out, materialist philosophy only makes sense if you begin with the premise that experience is material/physical reality and not something "separate" from it.

[@diegokricekfontanive]

@@amihartz I think it's good to keep in mind that we still don't know what consciousness is. Probably we will never solve the hard problem. It probably is a phenomenon that emerges from less complex material phenomena. If this were true, it would still be material. I think it is not particularly relevant to know what consciousness is as it is much more relevant to understand what its contents are (thoughts, ideas, beliefs) as these contents are certainly physical things stored in the brain, depending on the conditioning that one`s brain has received.

[@stevenhoyt]

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

[@charlessimons1692]

Yes. Well done.

[@relaxisasinaturequran]

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

[@mcJOLLUX]

Great conclusion said by rovelli

[@DJMICA-bz3qz]

I so greatly appreciate this channel.

[@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.

[@walidarakji6514]

One of the best explanations about emergence.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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,

[@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.

[@jasonemryss]

Just an awesome Thought provoking conversation

[@Qwertykeyboardkeymir]

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

[@hgracern]

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

[@davegrundgeiger9063]

Rovelli is amazing.

[@ministerofjoy]

Thank you.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?".

[@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,

[@markemerson98]

curious - what defines something that does not exist?

[@AS-fu1kd]

Even the concept of nonexistence is still something that exists

[@Paulus_Brent]

Do shadows exist?

[@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???

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

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

[@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.

[@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?

[@ronpaulrevered]

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

[@paulhaube]

What exists is not a matter of conviction or idea, but a matter taking space, energized, in motion, interacting with other matter. The Cosmos exists with or without humans. Time is not a thing, but more a measuring/comparative concept of change. Be careful of the language used as knowledge is practically unknowable.

[@MK-lm6hb]

Your understanding of the concept of existence is problematic. You assume perfect correspondence between human concepts about matter and matter itself. Take gravity for example. You may say that gravity existed before Newton described it. Does it mean that scientific hypotheses exist independently of human minds? Those hypotheses that are yet to be discovered, do they exist already? Will they exist forever in an unchanged form? Regrettably, that is not how science operates. Even the concept of gravity may one day be discarded and replaced by another theory. Reality is observer-dependent.

[@paulhaube]

@@MK-lm6hb point taken, but I am of the position that we are not the standard of truth nor reality as humans are limited to themselves. How can we attest something when we are not the ones who created it? Am I suggesting other related beings or One That Oversees All (i.e., “god”)? Do not know, but it is probable if Darwin is right. Granted, the Cosmos and all its parts are in a constant state of motion to remain or exist and yes, everything changes, even humans. For instance, how AI will impact humans as they are now, biologically. For proof, we agree that things change. Therefore, how can we be certain if nothing “stays the same”? A bit a play with words, but reality is ungraspable for humans; only conceivable or observer/witness as you posited. Good conversation.

[@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 .

[@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.

[@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.

[@thomassoliton1482]

We live in a bubble of consciousness trying to understand reality. We can “wrap” our minds around it, but it is like trying to grasp water. It seems that we can never really know, never really come to grips with it. We can only know the feeling of it slipping between our fingers. Like “Vitruvian Man”, we measure everything around us trying to find meaning. But also like Vitruvian Man, we are simply trapped in a perfect circular bubble we cannot escape.

[@midnightthief7321]

Simply trying to get to know itself....... Conciousness, is simply, that which pays attention...... Thats my take anyhoo. Its all inside a singularity. Infinitely divisible. 1/0........

[@ashifkhan8167]

I recommend s you to read a book by name of ' ' "Eternity Has Already Begun ' of Harun Yahya to known this reality

[@thomassoliton1482]

@@ashifkhan8167 Mr. Yahya is very insightful. But his central question, the core of his belief system, is "Who is the Creator"? This presupposes a "Creator", and therefore dismisses a lot of scientific research - e.g. evolution. I don't think that is necessary.

[@FerdousHasan-kk8hp]

@@thomassoliton1482 But we all presuppose something. We may never know anything to be true. We can only believe it to be true. As all mathematical axioms are just assumption

[@thomassoliton1482]

Ferdous - Absolutely true (relatively speaking, of course)! The main difference between waking and dreaming is that we wake up from a dream!

[@hrperformance]

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

[@francesco5581]

this is the "first" Rovelli , lovely to listen but very very materialistic (and very much full of himself)... After having read his last book i think he is luckily changing for the better ...

[@gordcockburn9347]

A very clever intelligent person.

[@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.

[@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).

[@ashnur]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@OldWolf9226]

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.

[@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.

[@pinaky_AnVikSiki]

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

[@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.

[@3-dwalkthroughs]

Eugene Wigner - Nobel Laureate in Physics "There are two kinds of reality or existence; the existence of my consciousness, and the reality or existence of everything else" Very interesting Vedic knowledge from the Bhagavad Gita describes individual consciousness at work in a "field of activities" made of material elements both gross and subtle as in the physical body and mind. More subtle is a non-material essence, of which consciousness is the symptom. The great mystery of personal and universal consciousness, is intimately connected to experiencing what exists; what truly exists of the absolute - and is free from the influence of time. Bg 2.16 "Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance, and of the existent there is no cessation. This seers have concluded by studying the nature of both." Not only is essential spirit/soul/consciousness transcendent to time as described in the ancient Vedas, but other forms of truth as well, like the mathematical truths of Platonic solids, as noted by 2020 Nobel Laureate Sir Rodger Penrose which are not impacted or deconstruced by time.

[@CarlosElio82]

I see deep insights in your comment, but you come close to circularity by making strong assumptions like the non-material essence that spawns consciousness. Some one may ask what are the properties of such essence and what is the process that generates consciousness. Those are legitimate questions and circular answers are not acceptable. Take a look at what happens in mathematics. It is non-material, eternal, always true, free from contradictions, and universal. It manifests naturally as ratios like Pi and cycles like the moon or the seasons. It describes the world in a language that others can read and corroborate. It has an internal structure that serves to organize its domains of knowledge into branches that communicate with one another. We also know that it is not perfect, it has Gödel's holes. What can be said of the essence?

[@3-dwalkthroughs]

@@CarlosElio82 I appreciate your thoughtful comments. The properties of the non-material essence is described as being "That source from which everything emanates" - which includes both matter, and non-material consciousness energy which is all-pervading and connected universally. This essence is described as eternal and independent - having no other source, along with being the underlying cause of all other causes. In this line of thinking, consciousness is not generated from some other cause other than its own eternal source; a source or essence which exists before and after the creation and destruction of universes. Of course this rings of metaphysics, but let's briefly examine some things which exist, which may reflect some of these principles. The existence of a building made from wood, steal, glass, and electrical boxes, was not just generated from those self-same components, rather original causality came from the mind and planing by the architect. These invisible mental ideas were set into motion in harmony with materials, construction codes and guidelines, well-known by the architect in advance. It may be a crude example, but the point is that consciousness is behind every aspect of existence, and is more subtle and causative than the merely components of what we experience and attempt to measure and define as existing or existence. Mathematics is a wonderful language, which I think most people would agree, and is very far reaching as you mentioned. Simply put, one might say that mathematics is relationship of various values, combines with countless other values. Here we are on the edge, if not crossing over into metaphysics again, as seen in the use of imaginary numbers, such as the square root of -1. The is no known number that can be multiplied by itself to equal -1, but when used as a value, the square root of -1 holds a very important place in many complex equations. So although this value doesn't exist in one sense, as an "imaginary" number, one could say it's existence or reality is fundamental in proven mathematics. Similarly, one could deem a single source of eternal, non-material, all-pervading conscious energy in the same generous way - imaginary in that we have no known value for it, yet it's contribution plays a fundamental role in the existence of those things seen and unseen, conceivably including quantum entanglement. Many great thinkers and scientists have combined brilliant intellect, with a sense of humility as the vastness of knowledge and the universe, and can the idea that some things may be inconceivable at certain levels of reality, and that's okay. Such a conclusion can open some breathing space for other important and challenging topics, such as not only how the universe was formed, but why - for what purpose?

[@thetruthoutside8423]

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

[@4lumi]

Abstract Ideas exists and they can influence events. We are able to do phisical experiments of quantum fields beacause we have a theory of it. This theory is an abstract idea and it exists together with the quantum field itself, but is not the quantum field. My conclusion is that Ideas can influence quantum fields but cannot be defined in terms of quantum fields, they are a different class of existance. Consciousness is the “engine” that deals with abstract ideas, and it also exists. The point is that some real facts depend on decisions that depends on ideas elaborated by human consciousnesses. This is for sure an autonomuos level of existance, different from quantum fields.

[@joshuacadebarber8992]

Without the already existing stimuli our brain caches into memory so it can then use to construct abstract and concrete ideas through the iterative process of reflection, there is no such existence of ideas. The process of generating ideas requires that quantum fields exist. The theory that quantum fields exist is wholly derived from empirical stimuli. Consciousness isn't the only thing which generates and responds to stimuli in the form of ideas. We have an idea of "thirst" because our brain reflects upon stimuli delivered to us by cells which are reflecting upon their current states. They can also cache stimuli as information into their memory and adapt and evolve. DRNA sequences shift and adjust as the memory bank for recipes and processes which cells draw upon, which ultimately, we draw upon to survive. The thought, "I am thirsty", and the idea of "being thirsty" is not solely, nor originally derived from our consciousness nor our brain. It is first sent as a signal interpreted as stimuli from an external source to the brain. Then the brain processes, reflects upon, and responds to this stimuli through the mechanisms it has available. This is then formulated into the thought and idea of "I am in a state of thirst, meaning I am thirsty". Our brain cannot operate consciously without quantum fields, without particles, without chemicals, etc. How would we know what consciousness is if we do not have quantum fields? How can we observe neurons firing and generating wavelengths which can be classified into ideas of "states" without quantum fields? If it is on a separate level of existence, how do you separate it? Where is the distinction?

[@4lumi]

@@joshuacadebarber8992 if I had the answer to your question I would win the Nobel prize, and I will not 😀. Beeing thirsty is not and idea, is a signal, I agree with you. If I’m thirsty and I decide not to drink because I don’t have enough water and I want my daughter to drink it, this is a decision influenced by a signal plus abstract ideas (the love for my daughter among others), and I can take this decision only because of my consciousness. Also unevoluted animals manage simple brain signals, but they don’t manage abstract ideas. Quantum field theory is an abstract idea, as well as our culture, mathematics, laws, everything we have learnt from our parents and everything we discuss in this thread. These ideas influence and are influenced by our lives and by other ideas through our consciousness and the acts of thinking ad taking decisions, and they cannot be reduced to quantum fields theory. Ideas also influence and are influenced by reality. Moreover, abstract ideas have their own existance, independent from you and me, they evolve, they are in conflict with other ideas, some ideas continue to exist and other disappear. Our civilization could end, but our ideas could survive us and be used by a future civilization. How could you explain the force of the ink in a book with quantum theory? That ink can change the world because it represents an idea, not because of quantum theory. This is my idea 😀

[@surendrakverma555]

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

[@glenemma1]

Well everything exists just as a mirage exists, or a dream exists. All these ''things''exist in Mind. But really, there is Nothing. So Nothing exists....but then, how can nothing exist? Obviously Nothing can't exist because it is nothing. So Nothing doesn't exist, yet there is Nothing.

[@ashifkhan8167]

Well, at the first there exists nothing । Before that nothing, there exists God Almighty

[@RolandHuettmann]

I cannot grasp the idea of existence. I tend to assume that "I" exist, but is it really so -- reducing myself to a wave function which in itself has existence? There are experiences of pure existence, but such experience is not a scientific category. I tend to believe that all is a huge big miracle nobody will ever really understand using logic. A gentle interview avoiding the answer -- since there is none.

[@caricue]

How about ignoring the mutterings from the high priests of reductionism. You are a living organism which cannot be "reduced" to anything else. You don't need logic to figure this out. All you need to do is stub your toe as you get out of bed. You will know instantly who and what you are.

[@joshuacadebarber8992]

@@caricue You literally just used an example through the process of logic to say you don't need logic

[@joshuacadebarber8992]

You can think of existence as the process of reflecting upon stimuli which has been and is being experienced through our brain. As our brain processes, reflects upon, and responds to stimuli, an ongoing experience is generated for the observer, which is what we are when we state "I". We can change how we perceive "I", how we perceive existence, but we can't change the fact that while what is classified as consciousness is occurring, this process is what's at the best of our understanding generating it. To neatly summarise: The idea of existence is a by-product of the reflection our brain is doing upon stimuli which then allows us to build the idea of existence due to the amount of time calculating stimuli takes. This process of reflection and calculation is an ever-changing stream which we're a part of, and that's why time can seem to fly sometimes, and other times move at a crawl. How much stimuli we're being exposed to changes how much conscious existence we're interpreting as happening. When we're unconscious, those processes aren't happening. To exist is to reflect upon what is experienced, including our reflection upon ourselves as stimuli.

[@caricue]

@@joshuacadebarber8992 My friend, you are perhaps literally being too literal. There's an old saying from the American Lung Assoc, "When you can't breathe, nothing else matters." This was the simple meaning of my toe stumping story. Logic is a tool, not a way of life. Part of this confusion about "who is the I" is the fact that people look at themselves from the inside and extrapolate from this inner experience. If you look at yourself from the outside, the stink alone should clue you into the real answer.

[@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.

[@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

[@VenusLover17]

Awesome

[@r2c3]

Quality content requires a sponge mind :)

[@Jipzorowns]

What do you mean with sponge?

[@r2c3]

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

[@SandipChitale]

Good discussion but sometimes frustrating. I think that Carlo is trying to play dumb and evade the spirit of the question Robert is trying to ask and sense of the word "exist" he wants to ask about. I do not agree with the discussion around number 2. Yes, there were no sentient entities that gave name to the concept of number 2 say 13 billion years ago, but the magnets had 2 poles (north and south) then or the circumference of a circle in euclidian flat geometry was 2 times the number pi time the radius. IMO the name or symbol for the concept of 2 should be separated from the concept itself.

[@joshuacadebarber8992]

I can agree mostly, however you example of poles of a magnet isn't a fundamental thing which exists, because we, humans, divide the magnet into north and south poles. Yes, the thing which we classify as the north and south poles and what we call a magnet itself is fundamental in the sense that it's an empirical stimuli which is as it is prior to our ideas prescribed upon it. In saying this, I completely agree with your proposal for making the symbol and concept distinct. They might not understand descriptors as distinct from what is being described and that what and how we describe is predicated wholly on how we conceptualise what it is.

[@MK-lm6hb]

For the magnets and its poles to exist, there must be an observer. Is the magnet aware that it is a magnet and that it has two poles? No, it is not. Neither objects nor concepts exit independently of human minds.

[@SandipChitale]

@@MK-lm6hb huh?

[@MK-lm6hb]

@@SandipChitaleYour last sentence - "the concept of 2 should be separated from the concept itself" - does not make sense. Did you mean that "the concept of 2 should be separated from the number itself". If that's what you think, you seem to suggest that abstract objects (such as the number 2) exist independently of human minds. How is that possible?

[@SandipChitale]

@@MK-lm6hb Do you think helium atoms had 2 electrons when helium first formed in the universe? And it did not have 1 or 3 electrons. If not maybe you subscribe to idealism?

[@geoffreystearns1690]

Subtitles, please......

[@AS-fu1kd]

The only thing fundamental is change

[@TockaMea]

Change is illusionary

[@otomatikmandalina7283]

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

[@enricomarchesini1868]

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

[@leolok2632]

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

[@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.

[@autumnfragrance6326]

Existence exists. Existence - Fantasy = Reality

[@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.

[@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 😊

[@leolok2632]

Simple answer: things and nothing exist.

[@midnightthief7321]

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

[@consciouscoma85]

does the spiritual world Exist's ? I hope some one invents a device to prove the existence of an energy field that could contain spiritual life or something like it.,,nicola tesla was on the right track but we may need more then a few lifetimes to solve the riddle .

[@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.

[@MikeWiest]

You can’t talk about “events” in quantum field theory without mentioning the Measurement Problem! Why does everyone seem to think that issue magically evaporates when you get to QFT?

[@carbon1479]

15:00 I think this will go better when we can start taking down the alienation that we have from the world, particularly if the story is true about our changes of habits since the agricultural revolution, and sort of live in a broader cosmos again rather than simply seeing ourselves vs things to be mined or turned into widgets (my guess - we're in a technological ramp up that might force us back in that direction once it gets far enough past us). To say that we're deeply intertwined with nature isn't troubling, I think the goal is to see what additional meaning or purpose we can extract from that outside of gene warfare.

[@terrencekane8203]

I drink therefore I am.

[@Perceptontheory]

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

[@michaelyoungr]

His soccer analogy was false. The rules of soccer are man-made, the rules of mathematics are discovered. Yes, we devise our own language to describe mathematics, but we are merely putting words to something immutable that we encounter.

[@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

[@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?