Bernard Carr - Buddha at the Gas Pump Interview

Bernard Carr interview >>Rick Archer: Welcome to Buddha at the Gas Pump.   My name is Rick Archer. Buddha at the Gas  Pump is an ongoing series of conversations   with spiritually awakening people, and  about spiritual topics of all kinds.   We've done over 650 of these now, if this is new  to you, and you'd like to check out previous ones,   you can do that several ways, explore the YouTube  channel, in fact, I encourage you to subscribe   to it, we're reaching nearly 100,000 subscribers  this year, and to subscribe, click the subscribe   button, obviously, and then click the little bell  that pops out after you hit the subscribe button.   Or you can explore it on the website, which is  actually better organized than the YouTube channel   because we have a whole categorical index of all  the interviews and several other ways that they're   organized. This program is made possible through  the support of appreciative listeners and viewers,   so if you appreciate it and would like to help  support it, there's a PayPal button on every page   of the website. Also, you'll notice that we don't  have a discussion feature enabled on YouTube,   and that's because discussions were just very  hard to moderate there and internet trolls tended   to mess things up, so we have the discussion  going on a Facebook group and there's a link   beneath this video to the specific discussion area  for this particular interview. So if you click   that and want to discuss the interview, you can  do it there. Okay. My guest today is Bernard Carr.   Bernard is emeritus professor of mathematics and  astronomy at queen mary university of London.   As an undergraduate, he read mathematics  at Cambridge university and for his PhD,   he studied the first second of the universe,  working under Stephen Hawking. He also became   a good friend of Stephens, shared an office  with him, traveled with him, lived in his home,   perhaps he'll talk about that a bit as we go  along. He was elected to a fellowship at Trinity   College, Cambridge in 1975. And in 1980, spent a  year traveling around the us as a Lindemann fellow   before taking up a senior research fellowship  at the institute of astronomy in Cambridge.   In 1984, he was awarded the Adams prize one of  the UK s most prestigious mathematical awards.   In 85, he moved to Queen Mary and became  a professor there in 95. He also held   visiting professorships at various institutes  in America, Canada and Japan. His professional   area of research is cosmology and astrophysics,  that includes such topics as the early universe,   black holes, dark matter, and the anthropic  principle. He is the author of around 300 papers   and books and the books universe or multiverse  and quantum black holes. He is also very   interested in the role of consciousness,  regarding this as a fundamental rather than   incidental feature of the universe. And  that's the main reason I was inspired to   interview Bernard and you'll see in a minute  some of the things we're going to talk about.   In particular, he is developing a new  psychophysical paradigm, linking matter and mind,   which accommodates normal paranormal, and mystical  experiences. He also has a long standing interest   in the relationship between science and religion,  especially Buddhism, having been the coholder of   a grant from the Templeton foundation for  a project entitled fundamental physics,   cosmology and the problem of our existence. He is  president of the scientific and medical network   and a former president of the  society for psychical research.   And I've spent an enjoyable week listening to  many of Bernard s talks and other interviews   and reading a number of things he sent me to  read, and I accumulated several pages of notes.   And last night, it was getting to be about 10  o'clock and I realized my notes really weren't   very well organized. So I had to go to bed, so  I just sent them over to Bernard to show him   what I had been accumulating, and like the story  of the shoemaker and the elves:. When I woke up   this morning, I discovered that Bernard  had organized them very nicely into five   major topics and I'm just going to read you those  topics to give you a heads up on what we're going   to talk about. So the first is the multiverse  and fine tunings, and obviously we'll define   these as we go along; time and consciousness;  science, spirituality, and psychical research;   quantum theory, and post materialist  science and hyperspatial models.   So we'll try to apportion our time so as to do  justice to all those different topics, and the   interview will last about two hours. So welcome,  Bernard. It's wonderful to connect with you.  >>Bernard Carr: Thank you, rick. And first  of all, thank you for spending so much time   reading my articles and watching my  various interviews. I hope it didn't   deprive you of too much sleep last night. >>Rick Archer: Oh, I never deprive myself   of sleep. And I listened to most of your  interviews as while hiking in the woods,   which I do on a daily basis, so, you know,  killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.   It's very enjoyable, and very enlivening, and it  definitely gets more of my brain cells firing. So   it's not it's not a chore, this doesn't feel like  work by any means. So, I think the first thing we   want to talk about, unless you'd like to go back  to your boyhood, and how you got interested in   all these things. We can do that now, or we can do  that a little bit later. But we want to zero right   in on fine tunings as quickly as possible.  So you want to give us a little background,   or shall we dive right into fine tuning? >>Bernard Carr: Let me just say, because   I have really three main interests, so it might  be interesting just to describe how they arose.  >>Rick Archer: Okay. >>Bernard Carr: When I was at school,   I was at a public school called harrow, and on  one occasion I misbehaved, and as a punishment   for my misbehavior I was roomed, which meant  that I couldn't leave my room except for lessons.   And so I had nothing to do except read. And I read  three books. And those books, the first book was   on the ABC of relativity, which was by Einstein,  that got me interested in the nature of space and   time and physics. Then I read a book called an  experiment with time by J. W. Dunne, and that   was about his precognitive dreams and that got  me interested in psychical research. And then I   read a book called the third eye by Lobsang rampa,  who was allegedly a Tibetan lama who d taken over   the body of a Cornish fisherman or something,  that got me interested in Buddhism. And really,   those three books awakened my interest in science  and in psychical research, and in spirituality.   They really determined the course of my life and  when I went up to Cambridge a few years later,   as an undergraduate, I immediately joined the  Cambridge university astronomical society, the   society for psychical research and the Buddhist  society, because I was particularly interested   in Buddhism at that time. And so I really pursued  those interests all my life and professionally,   I became a cosmologist. So I became a scientist.  As you said, I did my PhD with Stephen Hawking,   but I've always maintained my interests in the  other topics, in particular, in in psychical   research, and indeed in not only religion,  but more generally in religious studies and   the idea of spirituality. And so, the  three topics which we'll be covering today,   really all go back to that period when I was  about 15, and really all resulted from by my   misbehavior, which is rather ironic. >>Rick Archer:   I wish my misbehaviors had resulted in such a  productive outcome. Unfortunately, they didn't.  >>Bernard Carr: Well, I don't want  to encourage any form of misbehavior,   but it's funny how things turn out. >>Rick Archer: Yeah. It's interesting because   Hawking was famously an atheist, and you were a  close buddy of his. Did the two of you ever debate   that topic? Or did you just steer clear of it? >>Bernard Carr: Oh well, we talked about it   because you see, well, I lived  with the family for a while.   We had very different views. I mean, of  course, in terms of psychical research   I took the phenomena seriously. Stephen had read  the books by Rhine I think when he was a teenager,   J. B Rhine, but he came to conclude  there was really no evidence for it,   so he didn't believe in that. As regards his  atheism, of course, I disagree with that too.   Stephen believed everything will be explained  by physics. People sometimes say well,   why didn't I try and persuade Stephen to be,  get, more interested in spiritual matters?   But I never saw that as important.  Stephen was a brilliant physicist,   you know, he was a genius at physics  and I saw no reason to distract him   by getting involved on the spiritual path. I mean,  if he spent all his life sitting in meditation,   which in a sense he might have been able to  since he couldn't move his body, he might have   become spiritually enlightened, but he would not  have made such a great contribution to physics.   So I never felt any desire to actually convert him  to my way of thinking. I mean, I think, you know,   the world needs great scientists and very great  spiritual people, but they don't have to be the   same. And it seems to me there s only a small  fraction of people who are interested in both,   so the fact that steven was an atheist never  really bothered me at all, and I never really   wanted to dissuade him. It's slightly ironic  though, because steven was blessed by four pope's   and ended up being interred in Westminster abbey,  next to Isaac Newton. So maybe if he does get to   the pearly gates, let him in anyway. But he was a  core skeptical, but that didn't bother me at all.  >>Rick Archer: Yeah. One point  we might cover today is whether   spiritual endeavors can actually enhance the  study of physics and vice versa, perhaps.   That's an interesting area to explore. Okay, so  that's a good introduction to how you ended up   where you are. Let's plunge right ... >>Bernard Carr: I can discuss how  >>Rick Archer: I m sorry, go ahead. >>Bernard Carr: I can discuss how   science and spirituality may support  each other later on, I think.  >>Rick Archer: Yeah, let's get into  that, in fact, that's in our notes.   So explain to us what fine tunings are. >>Bernard Carr: Well, I'm happy to start   off talking about this because in some  sense, this comes under the heading   of my cosmological work, which, if you like, is  less controversial, from a scientific perspective.  >>Rick Archer: And I heard one interviewer  describe you as perhaps the world's   greatest expert on fine tuning, so ... >>Bernard Carr: I wouldn't say that,   however, what happened was that in 1979, I wrote  a big review paper with Martin Rees, for nature,   which was on the question of the  anthropic, so called anthropic principle,   which has to do with the fine tunings.  And so that became quite a well-known   paper because it was the first, one of the  first papers, to get attention in a respectable   science journal. But the idea is, it goes back to  Brandon Carter, really, and people like bob dickey   several years earlier, so I certainly wasn't  the founder of the idea. Well, the idea   is that there are certain coincidences in nature,  which seem to be necessary for our existence as   observers in the universe. Most of what I'm going  to say is in the context of the big bang model,   but there are different sorts of fine tuning, so  it might be useful just distinguish between those.   These fine tunes are sometimes called the  anthropic principle. Anthropic is the Greek   word for man, it's a terrible word, because  these tunings aren't specific to human beings,   but nevertheless, that's the word that Brandon  carter used, and we are sort of stuck with it now.   What's called the weak anthropic principle merely  says that, given the constants of nature, there   is a selection effect of when and where we must  exist in the universe. For example, we have to be   close to a star. But a more interesting question  is why you, the why you exist when the universe is   as old as it is. The universe is actually 14  billion years old, 14 billion years since the   big bang. And that means the size of the universe  is roughly the distance largest traveled in that   time, so 14 billion light years, so you might  ask, well, why is the universe as big as it is,   compared to human beings, who of course just exist  on this very tiny planet? Well, you might just   say, it's just coincidence:. The universe happens  to be roughly 10 billion years old, and therefore,   it's 10 billion light years in size. But  there's another argument which was given by   a physicist called bob dickey in the 1960s,  which says, in order to have human beings,   you have to have heavy elements. And  those heavy elements are made in stars.   But stars can only burn and then explode  a supernova to produce the heavy elements   after their lifetime, which is  something like 10 billion years.   So before roughly 10 billion years, there can't  be any observers because there wouldn't be any   chemicals. On the other hand, if you wait much  longer than 10 billion years, all the stars will   have burnt out, and therefore there wouldn't be  any planet sustaining life either. So that was a   simple argument, which said that if observers are  going to exist, it can only be when the universe   is something like 10 billion years old. >>Rick Archer: So aside from observers,   are you saying that there probably weren't any  heavy elements until 10 billion years into the   life of the universe? >>Bernard Carr: That is the   argument. Now it isn't really 10 billion  years, I m being rather simplistic...  >>Rick Archer: Roughly maybe >>Bernard Carr: ...the first stars are bigger than   that and they wouldn't be, use, heavy elements  bigger than that. But I'm just using powers of 10.  >>Rick Archer: Ok >>Bernard Carr: Notice this   isn't saying the universe doesn't exist apart from  10 billion years, it's just saying there aren't   going to be any observers around at that time. >>Rick Archer: Right. But it's going to be all   stars, which are basically just fusion reactions.  And you might even say, very few planets,   because unless the heavy elements have been  produced, we're not going to have planets.  >>Bernard Carr: Well, that's also true. I  mean, that gets into the technicalities of   how planets form. But the point is that this  isn't controversial. This is simply saying   the existence of observers actually imposes a  selection effect on when you exist. And this is   just a purely logical necessity. There's nothing  controversial about that. So what's called the   weakened tropic principle, I would say is common  sense. Where it becomes much more controversial,   is when you ask:. Are the values of the constants  themselves determined by life, whether life can   arise? Now, that's called the strong anthropic  principle. Now, the evidence for that lies in a   large number of strange coincidences involving  the constants of physics. And I can't go through   all of them in detail, but I'll just give you  a sort of taste of the sorts of coincidents.   First of all, you've got what to call the  dimensionless coupling constants, which specify   the strength of the four interactions. So,  you've got the gravitational interaction,   you've got the electric interaction, the  strong interaction and the week interaction.   And they're all associated with coupling  constants. That's the same dimensionless numbers.   And fundamental physics doesn't tell us what the  values of those constants actually are. We measure   them, we know what they are, but we can't actually  predict them on the basis of any theory. I mean,   particle physics is very successful in  understanding relationships between the forces,   it can explain the unification of forces, but  it can't actually explain the actual values   of the coupling forces. But what is remarkable  is that there have to be certain coincidences   between those coupling constants, in order  for, for example, stars and planets can exist.   So to give you a simple example, though it's  very technical:. You can only have both the stars   which explode a supernova, and the stars the  lower mass stars, which can have planets,   if the gravitational fine structure  constant, which is 10 to the minus 40,   is the 20th power of the electric fine structure  constant, which is roughly 10 to the minus two.   Okay, because 10 to the minus two times the  20th powers 10 to the minus 40. Now, that's   unexplained, and it explains why the gravitational  force is so much weaker than the electric force:.   You can only have supernova exploding because the  neutrinos which generated in the core when the   star collapses, blow off the outer envelope. And  that depends on nuclear reactions. And that only   happens because the weak fine structure  constant is actually the fourth power   of the weak fine structure constant. The weak  fine structure constant is 10 to the minus 10,   so if you take the fourth power of that, it's 10  to the minus 40. But again, that's not explained.   Now, I hope it's not getting too technical with  the mathematics I'll avoid mathematics from now   on. But those are the fine coupling constants.  There are also lots of relationships between   the masses of the elementary particles, the  neutron and the proton and the electron,   between the strength of the strong interaction and  the electric interaction, which are required in   order to have interest in chemistry. If you didn't  have fine tuning, you'd either have no heavier,   no elements at all, apart from hydrogen. Or  all your elements would be as heavy as iron,   and that wouldn't work either. And finally,  there are a lot of cosmological constants,   which we can measure, and we know they're crucial  to understanding the big bang theory. But we   don't know what those constants are. For example,  there's what's called the photons a baryon ratio,   that's the ratio of the number of photons in the  background radiation, which is the evidence of the   big bang, compared to the number of protons. And  that's a ratio of something like a billion. And   again, we don't know why it's a billion, but it  just needs to be a billion for various reasons,   in order to have galaxies and stars and things  like that. The point is that there are constants,   and the most famous one involves what's called  the cosmological constant, which it's a bit too   technical to go into now. But this is the  dark energy which pervades the universe.   And this was discovered only about 20  years ago, the universe is accelerating   due to this, it's called a cosmological constant.  That's what Einstein called it, it is due to the   fact, the vacuum energy in some sense, and  again, we don't really understand where this   dark energy comes from. But again, it has  to be finely tuned, because if it was too   large - and actually speaking, it should  be much larger than observed - if it was   too large, then it turns out, it will stop  galaxies forming, because it's a repulsive   effect. So that's an example of two cosmological  parameters. There's also another parameter,   which determines the amplitude of the fluctuations  that give rise to galaxies. So there are another   set of fine tunings involving the cosmological  parameters. So just to summarize, because it's   a bit technical, we've got fine tunings associated  with the fundamental interactions, we've got fine   tunings associated with the various particles  in the universe, and we've got fine tunings   associated with cosmological parameters. And these  tunings seem to be arise, necessary, in order for   planets, stars, and people or maybe just  complexity in general to arise in the universe.   So that is the claim. It's a controversial  claim, because not everybody likes the idea   that physics isn't going to explain everything.  And it comes especially when you try to ask   what is the possible explanation for these fine  tunings. Now, that's another topic, which I can   talk about. But that's the sort of data if you  like, that's what we mean by the fine tunings.   Some people say:. Oh, I don't believe in the fine  tunings, it's all a coincidence, but, and likes   to say, well, no, the final theory of physics will  predict one day all of these constants of nature.   Maybe it will, maybe the final theory will one  day predict these constants of nature, but if so,   it will remain a remarkable coincidence that the  constants predicted are precisely what's required   for life. And, you know, it was originally  hoped, for example, that string theory or m   theory would explain all the different constants  of nature. But that hasn't happened. And in fact,   string theory specifically predicts that  we have what's called the string landscape,   which says this cosmological constant which I  mentioned, rather than having a unique value,   could have a huge number of value, something  like 10 to the power 500. So string theory   itself is sometimes invoked as an explanation  for the fact that you need the fine tuning.   But I now have to come on to the explanations,  but I don't know if you want me to pause.  >>Rick Archer: I do have a question.  How many fine tunings are constants,   are there altogether? Approximately? >>Bernard Carr: Well, I mean,   the number of fundamental constants in physics, I  mean, there are something like 30 40 fundamental   constants, so we know what they are. They're  constants, which arise in particle physics,   and they're constants which arise in cosmology.  But the real question is, how many of those   constants are related? Because that some of  those constants are inevitably interrelated.   So they're not independent constants.  So the really important question is,   how many of these constants are fundamental in  the sense that they are independently determined?   And that might only be something like a dozen or  something. I mean, we don't know because we don't   have the final theory. And the whole point about  unification is that the more unified the model,   the fewer the number of fundamental parameters.  But there are, at least, the cosmological   parameters. For example, as far as we know,  they're what we call contingent. They're not   predicted by a fundamental theory. And likewise  in particle physics. So there may be about   12 constants which are involved in these fine  tunings. The number of fine tunings themselves,   again, I would, I could give you something like  20. But I mean, obviously, they have different   statistical significance. The question is really:.  How fine is the tuning? If constants are just   given to an order of magnitude, it is not so  interesting. What's interesting is when the   fine tunings have to be at, you know, they have to  obeyed to something like a fraction of a percent,   that's when it gets interesting. So I will, let  me just say that the number of fine tunings,   and then the degree of fine  tuning, is sufficiently impressive.   There's something weird going on, in my opinion. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, so let's say there's 12 or 20   variables, and if we can imagine them as being  like a Las Vegas slot machine with 12 or 20   wheels, and each of those wheels has, many of them  have vast number of possible values, then we pull   the handle on the slot machine, and somehow  rather, all of these have lined up just right   for us to have the kind of universe we have. And  the statistical probability of that is probably   mind bogglingly small. And yet we ... Go ahead! >>Bernard Carr: It's an appropriate analogy, the   casino one, because the analogy I like to give is,  let's imagine we're buying lottery tickets. Okay,   so you buy a lottery ticket, and of course there  are millions of people buying a lottery ticket,   you win the lottery, and you won, you know, a  million dollars. And you think, wow, that's a   miracle. But actually, it isn't a miracle.  It simply means that a million people have   bought lottery tickets, and you happened to  be the one who was lucky enough to find it.   And that's precisely the analogy which most  physicists like as an explanation for the   fine tunings. They say:. Well, maybe  we got lots of universes, a multiverse,   and we necessarily have to be in one  of the universes where the constants   are right for life. So we're not saying the  other universes don't exist, we're just saying   that there's a selection effect on what sort  of universe we can be in. And so in that sense,   what's called the strong anthropic principle just  becomes a reflection of what I earlier called the   weak anthropic principle. Because remember,  the weak anthropic principle merely says,   the existence of observers imposes a selection  effect on when and where you are in this   particular universe. If you've got a multiverse,  it's saying the existence of observers imposes   a restriction on which universe you're in. And  in that sense, the strong anthropic principle,   which is controversial, becomes an  aspect of the weak anthropic principle,   which is not so controversial, because  it becomes a logical necessity. But then,   of course, it depends on whether you believe  in the multiverse, which is another question.  >>Rick Archer: So it seems to me  that the idea of the multiverse is   kind of a cop out for those who are, feel,  uncomfortable about the suggestion that this,   that all these fine tunings turned out just  right, might be symptomatic of some organizing or   underlying intelligence, you know, that gives rise  to the universe. They can say:. Okay, if there are   a gazillion other universes, we just happened.  Most of them are duds, we just happened to end   up in the good one, so we're lucky then, it was  a matter of random chance there, we don't need to   resort to some kind of theological explanation. >>Bernard Carr: Well, rick, you put your finger   on a very important point, because the reason,  when I first wrote this paper with Martin Rees,   it was very controversial, a lot of visitors hated  the idea. One of my physicist friends even said it   was obscene. The reason it was seen as obscene was  partly because it was seen as philosophy rather   than physics. And that's fair enough, because  it is on the borders of physics and philosophy.  >>Rick Archer: I m just thinking of you could have  a book called pornography for physicists, and it   would just be all these formulae and explanations. >>Bernard Carr: Yes, I've never heard it described   as pornography, but it would be a good  analogy, but I don't want to seem to be   justifying pornography. However, the real reason  I think it got such an adverse reaction was   that it also smelled of theology. Because if  you've got the fine tuning, the alternative   explanation is obviously that there was a tuner,  that in some sense a creator had tailormade the   universe for our convenience. In other words, you  have this, the idea if you like, there was God.   You imagine a space of all coupling constants,  and God, in some sense, puts his pin in this space   at the right value to produce human beings. Now,  that's of course very different from the view in   which you say there are millions of universes or  large numbers of universes, and we just have to   happen to be in one of the small ones which  produce life. So there has always been the   controversy as to whether these anthropic tunings  should be attributed to God, or whatever word you   want to use, or to a multiverse. Now, obviously,  theologians would prefer it to be God. Physicists   would much prefer it to be the multiverse,  because it in some sense, the multiverse does   away with the need for a fine tuner. Now, this is  still a controversy. There are still some people   who prefer to think that fine tuning reflect the  existence of a view like a divine intelligence.   But of course, most physicists don't  like that. Most physicists don't want to   resort to God. Even if they believe in  God, they want to keep him out of physics.   And so there are a lot of atheist physicists, who  converted to the idea of the anthropic principle   precisely because of the multiverse. So you have  people like Stephen Hawking, you have people like   steven Weinberg, people like martin  Rees, people like Leonard Susskind,   all of these people are atheists, who might at one  stage have been very anti the anthropic principle,   but now that they're supporters of the anthropic  principle, some of them are dead, but they are   supporters of the anthropic principle, precisely  because it is naturally explained by the   multiverse. So in some sense, the fine tuning  is almost become evidence for the multiverse.   But I have to say that not all physicists think  that. Some physicists think the multiverse is also   rather too mystical. There are a lot of physicists  who would like to think there's only one universe,   and there's no God. And so they think that the  multiverse is just as mysterious and unpalatable   as the idea of God. So I shouldn't give the  impression that everybody, all physicists,   now accept the multiverse, but at least it is  respectable. And when the word anthropic 40 years   ago, when I first wrote about it with martin, was  really a taboo topic. Now, it's become relatively   respectable, and the fact that variable physicists  now, well, what used to be called the a-word,   anthropic, a lot of people wouldn t even use the  word because it was almost pornographic if you   like, but now, it's much more respectable. I mean,  the field is, physicists are still split about it.   But nevertheless, there are a lot of eminence  supporters. And it's really, I would say,   all because of the multiverse. You can argue  about whether the multiverse is actually proper   physics. I mean, most of the critics don't so  much disagree the possibility of a multiverse,   they just say it's not in the domain of science,  because you can't see the other observable,   you know, you can't see the other universes,  there's no evidence for the other universes,   and therefore, they should be classified as  philosophy rather than physics. I sort of have   some sympathy with that view, but on the other  hand, the frontiers of cosmology and particle   physics have always been on the border of physics  and philosophy. Because there is always a period   in the development of physics on either the  macroscopic or the microscopic frontier,   where your theories go beyond the data,  where you haven't actually got the data to   confirm your ideas. And that, if you like,  lead you into the domain of philosophy.   And so it is true, at the moment we don't  have any direct evidence for the multiverse.   But nevertheless, I don't see, in principle, why  there shouldn't come one day evidence for the   multiverse. In the meantime, we're in a sort of  state of purgatory between philosophy and physics,   I call it between cosmology. Cosmology is a  branch of physics that I refer to meta cosmology,   which is on the border between cosmology and  philosophy. So I'm happy to regard the multiverse   as part of the domain of meta cosmology as a  compromise with those people who don't think   it's proper physics. But the point is, I would  like to stress, is that new ideas in cosmology   have always been on the border, I've always been  in the domain of meta cosmology. Originally,   cosmology was just dismissed as a branch of  physics, until we got the evidence for the   microwave background and big bang nucleosynthesis  and the expansion of the universe. So yesterday's   meta cosmology is today's cosmology.  Today's meta cosmology, as the multiverse,   I think, will be tomorrow's respectable cosmology. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, I heard you give a talk in   which you traced the history of science in terms  of its dismissal of things outside its purview as   being metaphysical. And then it, science, evolved  to incorporate them and to find evidence for them.   And therefore, they were no longer metaphysical.  But then there were other things outside that   periphery and, and it just continued to grow. So  I think when a scientist makes a statement like   that they're really making a statement about the  limitations of their discipline rather than about   the limitations of the universe. >>Bernard Carr: Absolutely.   And the important thing to stress is that it's  not just the universe is getting bigger as we   expand our knowledge of it. The nature of science  is changing, you know, because the history of   astronomy is you go from the geocentric  to the heliocentric to the galactocentric,   to the cosmocentric, and maybe now  even to the multiverse view. But   at each, and that's on the macroscopic scale,  and of course on the microscopic domain,   we've also changed our view on the universe  as we've discovered, you know, atomic physics,   which says the objects aren't really solid,  they're just mainly vacuum particles,   and then we go on to quantum theory, which  says that you don't have particles, but waves.   And then we go into even more exotic ideas such  as higher dimensions and things like that. So in   either the macroscopic or the microscopic domain,  our view of the universe is constantly changing.   And not only the view of the universe, what we  regard as legitimate science is always changing.   So to give a simple example, I mean  Auguste Comte was a philosopher in the   18th century who said that there may be  stars outside the solar system, but it   will never be part of mainstream science, for  the simple reason that we can never study these   outside stars in the normal way of astronomy. And  so he wasn't denying the existence of other stars,   he was just saying, there'll be outside the domain  of science. However, just a few decades later,   they discovered spectroscopy, which of course,  meant we could get information about other stars.   And so immediately, the domain of science expanded  to the whole of the galaxy. And then there was a   time when people said, well, the galaxy is silent,  but we will never see beyond the galaxy, we don't   even know if there's anything beyond the galaxy.  You know, there was arguments about whether the   galaxy was the universe, you know, some people  thought all those nebulae were inside the galaxy.   And there was a big debate about that in the  1920s. But then, Hubble came along in, you know,   the end of the 1920s, and showed that actually,  there were these galaxies outside our galaxy,   the milky way, and indeed they extend from  billions of light years. And now, of course,   we're seeing them with incredible detail and  the James Webb telescope. So the point is that   all these developments are  expanding the domain of science.   And, although I'm talking about a  problem in the domain of cosmology,   I think this is an important message for the  topics we're going to go on to talk about, that   the domain of science itself is always changing in  the time. And science may resist that, scientists   themselves may resist that. The cosmology  has been controversial at the center of it,   at every stage it's developed, there be  more conservative scientists that even   stronger saying this isn't science. So  far, they've always proved to be wrong.  >>Rick Archer: I think it was  Max Planck, who said that science   progresses through a series of funerals? >>Bernard Carr: Yes, well, there is, of course,   that science, of course, goes through these  paradigm shifts, as Kuhn famously wrote about,   these paradigm shifts arise when there are  little anomalies, which can't be explained. But   inevitably, the mainstream people initially are  going to defend the current paradigm. They're not   keen to overthrow the paradigm, because after  all, they spent most of their lives working   in the current paradigm, and if you accept that s  wrong, they might have wasted most of their lives.   And so the idea has been that it's no good  trying to convert some of these people.   I'm not talking so much about the multiverse now,  I'm talking about the topics we're going to go on   to talk about later, more controversial  topics, like, you know, consciousness,   and parapsychology, and things like that. But even  within the context of more traditional science,   in the long run you you're not going to persuade  a lot of people, you just have to wait for them to   die off. And that's why he made that remark that,  you know, science proceeds funeral at a time.  >>Rick Archer: Yeah. Upton Sinclair said, you  can't get a man to understand something, if his   salary depends upon his not understanding it. >>Bernard Carr: Well, that is true. I mean,   and you know, but this is part of science. I mean,  in my professional field of research, I'm very   interested in the dark matter problem. And this  is what we're going to discuss. But I have my own   theory, that the dark matter existed primordial  black holes which formed in the early Universe.   This is something I worked on with Stephen  Hawking for my PhD. And this is, again, this was a   minority view. Not many people took it seriously.  Now it s becoming much more popular. Because   partly because we haven't found the particle  physics dark matter, and partly because of the   detection of gravitational waves, which might  conceivably have come from primordial black   holes. We know black holes exist, there's no,  there's lots of evidence for that. But we don't   know the primordial black holes, because these  are the ones that form in the very early universe.   And so it's a strange thing I've spent 50 years  working on these things, is a minority view. If   primordial black holes turn out to be the dark  matter, then I've done something quite important.   If they don't turn out to be the dark matter, then  I wasted a lot of my life. But the strange thing   is, I probably won't know within my lifetime,  and sciences like that. You just don't know   what's right or wrong in a way that what makes it  interesting. But the point is, if the dark matter   is black holes, primordial black holes, then there  are 1000s of physicists who devoted their lives to   showing this elementary particles. And they're  going to be very upset, because that means they   wasted a lot of their lives and the billions of  dollars, trying to find these particles. So this   is a strange thing about science. You never quite  know the truth until you get there. And when you   do get there, you're inevitably going to find  that many people have been wasting their time.   But it doesn't matter because the joy  of science isn't necessarily being   true, because it takes a long time to discover the  truth, the joy of science is actually working your   way to the truth. And even if an idea turns out  to be wrong, it very often turns out to be useful.  >>Rick Archer: Yeah. I mean, Columbus was actually  a horrible man, when you look at what he did,   but you know, he thought he was finding India  when he sailed across the Atlantic, and he   was wrong. But hey, look, what we got. >>Bernard Carr: Yeah, well look at the   great contribution he made. So I don't think  you should judge scientists by whether their   ideas are right or wrong. >>Rick Archer: Right  >>Bernard Carr: Because the point is,  are the ideas useful? And you know,   and for example, primordial black holes, even if  they don't exist, even if they didn't form in the   early universe, they've been incredibly important,  because these black holes are small, very small,   much less than the mass of the sun. And this is  what Stephen Hawking, why Stephen Hawking, started   studying their quantum effects. And Hawking came  up with this remarkable result, the black holes   aren't black at all, they radiate like black  bodies with a temperature. And the temperature   is inversely proportional to the mass. So it's  tiny for something like a star, the sun, but this   was an incredibly important result, one of the  most important results in 20th century physics,   because it unified relativity theory, quantum  theory, and thermodynamics. Now, ironically,   we still don't have direct experimental evidence  for this. This was discovered in 1974, you know,   so it's nearly 50 years old, we still don't have  any evidence, but it's such a beautiful idea   that almost everybody accepts it must be true. >>Rick Archer: So it worked out   mathematically, I guess. >>Bernard Carr: It just is   so beautiful mathematically. John wheeler, who  coined the word black hole, he once told me,   it was such a beautiful theory that talking  about it was like rolling candy on the tongue.   Not the idea. But the point is that even  if primordial black holes don't exist,   thinking about them has led to this  enormously important development in physics.   So there's just a small example of how an idea  can be useful, even if it's, it doesn't turn out,   the idea of primordial black holes can be  useful, even if they don't actually exist.  >>Rick Archer: Okay. I see some questions have  come in, but we won't get to them quite yet.  >>Bernard Carr: We obviously, we  spent a long time on this, what,   surely respectable in inverted commas,  discussion of physical ideas, but that's good  >>Rick Archer: Yeah >>Bernard Carr: I don t want people to   think I only work on controversial, crazy ideas. >>Rick Archer: I've been playing with the thought   that what if we could somehow verify  the existence of the multiverse? And we,   lo and behold, we discovered that all these other  universes are fine tuned for life also. I mean,   what then, would there have to be  some kind of super multiverse that   we would jump, to in order to you know? >>Bernard Carr: Well, that is interesting. I mean,   of course, in a certain sense, if all the universe  had, the universities had, the fine tuning,   you wouldn't have needed the universe  in the multiverse in the first place.   Tentatively, you could say, you could say the  constants are fixed by the final laws of physics,   but there are just lots of universes in  which all the constants are going to have   those fixed values. >>Rick Archer: Yeah.  >>Bernard Carr: You know, the point is, cosmology  is trying to explain the big bang. That's what   quantum cosmology does. If it can explain  one big bang, it can make other big bangs.   If the fundamental theory of physics is going to  uniquely determine the constants, you're simply   going to have the constants being the same in all  the universes. But you're asking a question, well,   what your question really comes down to is this:.  Is the are the fraction of universes containing   life really very, very small? Because you see, the  assumption in the arguments I've given you is that   you've got the millions of universes, we haven't  said actually how many, you've got all these   universes, they have different constants. But the  idea is only a very tiny probability that we get   the constants are going to be right for life. So  we're going to be only one of the tiny fraction of   the universe, universes, which can produce life.  However, that doesn't imply that there's only one.   For example, one isn't saying that the  constants may be uniquely determined,   there might be different values of the constants,  which would allow life of a different form. For   example, we are carbon based life, and maybe life  could be based on something else. Or maybe there   could be some form of life, it doesn't even  depend upon planets. So one isn't saying that,   you know, it's only one small set of concepts make  life, there could be other sets of constants. But   the idea, at least, is that it's only a small  fraction of islands, if you like, in this   multiverse where life can arise. So it's a tiny  fraction. That's the idea. It's a tiny fraction of   the multiverse, which can allow life to arise.  But I have to say, that's not the only view.   There is another physicist called lee Smolin,  and he has a different view of the multiverse.   I'll briefly describe, he says that, you form  black holes, the black holes form baby universes,   and they create another universe. And then they  form black holes, which create more universes.   And he has the idea that every  time you form a baby universe,   you mutate the values of the constants.  So this is a sort of analogy to evolution.   And he argues that what happens is,  therefore the universe naturally evolves   to one in which all the constants have values,  which optimize the production of black holes.   So that, this you see, of course he's putting  the emphasis on black holes rather than   observers, but this has an interesting feature  that most of the universes end up being found,   well, having been required for black holes. So  that's an interesting it is not the view I favor,   it's another view, which says that, you know,  in fact, most of the multiverses have got the   right tunes, but for black holes, rather than >>Rick Archer: Interesting. But by the same token,   they could also be fine-tuned for some form  of life. And black holes are just the physical   mechanism through which new universes are spawned. >>Bernard Carr: Exactly. The point is, he's got,   I think it's more natural within the fine tuning  universe for the life rather than black holes,   but the point about the black holes is that  he has a particular mechanism for creating   the multiverse. But then the point is that we  have other models, we have plenty of mechanisms   for making multiverses anyway. They can come out  of cosmology, out of what's called inflation,   they can come out of string theory, out of  what's called a string landscape theory,   they can come because you've got, come out of the  many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.   So there are lots of scenarios, which would  predict the multiverse. And in fact, although   it's true that we don't have direct evidence for  the multiverse, unless you regard the fine tunings   as evidence, but the point is that there are  theories which predict the multiverse, and that's   the reason physicists take it seriously. There are  theories coming from both cosmology and particle   physics, which seem to predict the existence  of a multiverse. That's why physicists take it   seriously. It may be disconcerting if we don't  have direct evidence for the other universes,   but that happens a lot in physics. I mean, you  know, there's no evidence, no one can see a quark,   because you can't see a quark in  isolation, but nobody doubts the quarks and   the fundamental particles that make up protons  and things. Nobody can see inside a black hole,   by definition, but that doesn't leave  without regard of black holes on physics.  >>Rick Archer: Yeah, and the Webb has taken  us back to perhaps 200 million years after the   big bang, but that's, even that's a pretty  great distance, and we can't see outside   this universe to see other universes out there. >>Bernard Carr: That's absolutely true. I mean,   what is undoubtedly true within the concepts of  the big bang, is that the universe doesn't end,   the edge of what's called the observable, at  what's called the horizon, which is how light can,   how light can propagate since the big bang,  there is no doubt that the universe, there is   a bigger reality that goes beyond our observable  universe. And indeed, that there are different   types of multiverses. But I won't get into that  it becomes a bit too technical. But just to go   back to your original point about intelligence,  you know, is it evidence of intelligence? This   has been a long running debate, I want to organize  a day a workshop on, entitled God or multiverse,   because obviously, theologians wanted to see the  fine tuning as evidence of God, the physicists   wants to see the multiverse as the explanation of  those fine tunings. But I've always said that it's   not as simple as that. It's not a choice of God  or the multiverse because, as we'll hear later   when we talk about other topics, I'm not against  God at all, whatever, whatever the term means.   And it seems to me that if you're going to  believe in God or some great intelligence,   I see no reason why that great intelligence can't  create a multiverse as well as create a universe.   I think the problem is, if there's only one  universe, you do, may, maybe you do have to invoke   some special tuner. But if there's a multiverse,  it doesn't exclude the possibility of achieving.   It merely says you don't necessarily need one. >>Rick Archer: Well, the Hindus have this   image of Vishnu lying on a couch and just sort of  almost like blowing bubbles churning out multiple   universes. Yeah, so they have the idea. >>Bernard Carr: That's a nice image,   I felt I should use that in one of my articles.  It's a beautiful image blowing bubbles,   creating different multiverses, and in fact,  you know, in some of the inflationary scenarios,   that's what you have, your universe correspond  to different bubbles, all of which you have   different values of the constants, but it's just  the standard picture doesn't include vision.  >>Rick Archer: You ll have to work that in. You  may have heard the quote from Brian, cosmologist   Brian Swimme, whom I'm going to interview in  September. He says:. You leave hydrogen alone for   14 billion years, and you end up with giraffes,  rose bushes, and opera, something like that.   I have a question to tag on to that:. However  the constants in our universe or any universe   may be configured, why should there be any  constants? Or anything at all? Why wouldn't   any constants or laws of nature be  expressions of some form of orderliness?   Or one might argue intelligence? So if the  constants in other universes don't give rise,   rise for life as we know it, doesn't the  emergence of any degree of complexity   suggest some form of organizing intelligence? >>Bernard Carr: Well, you raise a lot of   issues there. First of all, I'm glad  you use the word complexity because   I don't like the word anthropic when we talk about  the anthropic principle, I tend to think of it in   terms of the complexity principle, because these  fine tunings aren't specific to human beings,   I mean, they will be required even for making  television sets or something like that. But the   key thing is the big bang, the history of the  big bang has manifested the created complexity,   it s created a hierarchy of complexity. And that's  indisputable, we can see what happens, you know,   we start off with the void or whatever and then  we create elementary particles, hadrons. And   then as the time goes on, the hadrons, you know,  you've got the atoms, the hydrogen undergoes   nuclear interactions and produces the light  elements like deuterium and helium, then you   produce the stars, and the stars then produce  the planets and heavy elements, and then you get   molecules and biomolecules. And then you end up  with the human beings and then making brains and   things like that. So this is, embodies, the quote  you gave before. There's no doubt that there is   this hierarchical buildup of complexity. But what  isn't always appreciated is that that buildup   of complexity only arises because you have fine  tunings. Unless you have the fine tunings, which   I've talked about, you won't end up with that. I  call it a pyramid of complexity with, if you like,   mines at the top. Without the fine tunings won't  go through the various critical stages, end up at   that at the top of the pyramid. So for example,  you won't have any chemistry elements, unless you   have the fine tunings between the strong and the  electric coupling constants, for example. But, so   to me, the crucial issue is complexity. But then  you, and then you got to ask the question what,   how does complexity arise? Now a lot of people  say, well, doesn't this go against the second   law of thermodynamics, because the second law of  thermodynamics, also says the universe should be   you know, the entropy should increase. In other  words the order decreases. And so for a long time,   if you go back to the 19th century, people  used to say, well, you will have a heat death,   the universe inevitably will run down and any form  of life will disappear. However, we know that's   not the case, because what actually happens is  that we know there are nonlinear processes, which   inevitably generate complexes, complex structures,  this is called chaos theory. And this doesn't   go against the second law of thermodynamics  because although you're locally producing order,   increasing degrees of order, the entropy is  increasing in the outside in the rest of the   universe. Okay, so the total entropy of the  universe is increasing. But it's just that in   a small fraction of the universe, the order is  increasing. And as that's why it's a pyramid,   because as you go up towards the top, the fraction  of the universe in this assembled order is going   down, but the total entropy of the universe  is still increasing. So the idea is you get   pockets of low entropy, pockets of order, which  are folding in a universe where the total entropy   is increasing. So there isn't a direct conflict,  and with the thermodynamics, and it means the   original view of a heat death, which people used  to talk about a long time ago, fortunately, that   turns out not to be correct. There's no reason why  the order can't continue to grow, at least if the   universe has got these fine tunings. But actually,  you started off with an even deeper question.   I think. And you were asking the question,  I think, quite apart from the fine tunings,   why is there anything here at all? >>Rick Archer: Yeah, yeah. Like I've   had this discussion with this guy for some  time. And he says, well, you know, we don't   know how the laws of nature came to be. But if you  grant us the laws of nature, we can explain how   the universe evolved. But I won't grant him the  laws of nature, because why should those arise?   If everything is just random billiard balls, why  should there be these local pockets of order? Why,   you know, what is the force which forms those?  And to me, it's, I keep resorting back to   the idea of a field of intelligence rising in  impulses of intelligence, and giving rise to order   against all, you know, forces to the contrary? >>Bernard Carr: Well, yes, but I think   you have to be careful here. Because  really, it comes down to the question of   what came first, you know, matter or mind.  Ultimately you're asking how did the universe   arise? I mean, I don't like to address the  universe, I don't like to address the question why   is the universe here, because that is a clearly  philosophical question, which I'm not qualified to   answer. But I think you can ask the question. When  you ask, you're really asking the question, is   there an intelligence that underlies the universe? >>Rick Archer: And by mind, yeah, the word mind   often has an individual connotation, but  we're talking about some kind of cosmic   mind or oceanic field of pure intelligence. >>Bernard Carr: Absolutely. When you study,   you know, physics has been triumphant in coming to  understand the laws of physics, the way everything   is connected, you've got the links between the  macro domain and the micro domain, we know then   there's interactions between all the forces of  nature, we even think we're close to a final   theory of physics. Now, I don't believe,  I think that's a rather pretentious claim.   But what is remarkable is that this, these laws,  that the universe is all put together in this   coherent beautiful way. I mean, it's all, I think  it was ingenious. And it's almost like there's a,   it's a great thought, you know,  that the universe in some sense,   smells of some great intelligence, simply  because the laws of physics are so clever,   if you like. And so now I'm deliberately not  invoking God, but I'm just saying there is,   there is a, you do get the impression  that there s a great intelligence.  >>Rick Archer: You can invoke God, but  we just have to define the term because   most people's perception of it is  so, you know, anthropomorphic, or  >>Bernard Carr: That's why I didn't, I don't, like  to use the word God, because it's so provocative,   at least to my cosmology friends. But the  point is, I think, there are many reasons for   thinking that mind is a fundamental feature of the  universe and not an incidental feature. I mean,   the normal view is, you know, that you've got  this buildup of complexity, which is all going   on at the level of matter. But then when you get  to a certain degree of complexity, you would use   brains, and then brains would use consciousness  and minds. So one sees mind as simply the sort of,   the end product, as a combination  of complexity if you like.   And that's clearly true that minds are what I call  a little m, a result of that process. However,   I think you have to distinguish between mind  with a little m, which is our individual minds,   and what I would call mind with a big m, you  know, which is some collective mind. Now,   we will probably get onto this later. But so,  for me, there's a big distinction between mind   with a big m and the mind with a little m,  which is the billions of us. Now, clearly   minds with the little m did not exist until  whatever it was, 10 billion years after the big   bang. We know that because we understand how minds  whit the little m did evolve through the brain.   But that doesn't mean there couldn't be some  form of mind with a big m that preexisted,   the big bang, because physics is still  going to answer the question what happened   before the big bang. So I don't really >>Rick Archer: Let me just throw in here   there could be minds with little  m, but bigger minds, because they   are the minds of beings who don't need meat,  meat puppet suits, you know, carbon units that,   you know, celestial beings, things like that,  who would still exist now. And you get into this   in some of your talks when you use the phrase,  what was it specious present. You know, beings   which might have lifetimes of millions of years  and so on, but who existed in subtler realms,   and who could actually be instrumental in some  way in the formation of the universe, like   the agents as it were of cosmic mind.  Anyway, throws a monkey wrench in the works.  >>Bernard Carr: Well, yes, I m not sure if I  should get into that part of the discussion now,   because it sort of goes off on a tangent, but  you're quite right to raise this point because   when I make a distinction between mind  with a little m and mind with a big m,   that's rather simplistic, because I'm  actually arguing that there is a hierarchy   of consciousness, which corresponds to a  hierarchy of minds. And so when I'm talking   about mind with a big m, I'm really talking about  the final step of the, of the hierarchy, really,   there are a series of minds with ever increasing,  decreasing, the size of the m, if you like,  >>Rick Archer: Yeah, we could think of it  as like the ocean versus various waves or   various little ripples, big waves, and so on. But  they're all just expressions of one vast ocean.  >>Bernard Carr: Yes. But I think maybe I  should get into that is a separate topic   later. But the point I'm making is that I see  no reason in principle, why mind with a big   m should not have preexisted the big bang.  And therefore I see no reason, because it   might not only that, in my own perspective,  I think there are levels of reality that go   beyond ordinary physical reality anyway. Now I'm  going against the mainstream view of physics,   I think there is an extended reality, which would  not be described by normal physics at all. And   which, if you like, is a mindlike reality. And  that mindlike reality, I don't see why that,   the universe itself, shouldn't have come  out of that. Indeed, the physical universe   shouldn t have emerged from that. And of course,  that is the view which you get in the standard,   esoteric doctrines, you know:. That you  started off with mind, and in some sense,   it cascaded down to the level of physical  creation. So all I'm saying is, one has to be very   careful, because if mind, what you asked about  intelligence, you see, if mind with a capital m,   preceded the universe, in principle, I suppose,  you could say intelligence with a capital I,   might have proceeded the universe. But then of  course, you're very, you're getting very close   to invoking God. And this is where I get into big  trouble, of course, with all my scientist friends.   So I make a distinction between, I'm not an  advocate of intelligence, intelligent design.   Of course, intelligent design, as fundamentalist  Christians use the word, is really saying there is   one universe and there's one God, who is very  intelligent and created the universe with his   great talent for our benefit. I'm not saying  that. All I'm saying is that because I'm not   saying there's only one universe, I'm just saying  that you don't, because you've got a multiverse,   you don't necessarily need to invoke God. I  said that before, there's no need to invoke   God. On the other hand, that doesn't mean there  isn't some form of mind. And my personal view   is that there is a form of mind. And therefore,  you could say there is a form of intelligence,   because whatever there's, I mean, you can ask  the question, how intelligent is God? You know, I   don't think anyone could ever measure his IQ. But,  I mean, there is a question about whether it's   even meaningful to ask what is if there is such a  thing as a God, what is God's intelligence quota.   So, you have to be very, very careful and  so in these conversations, I try and be as,   as some conventional as possible. I mean, I make  a distinction between intelligent design and the   possibility that there is some level of mind and  some level of intelligence which preceded the   universe, because if you do that, the intelligent  design somehow suggested everything was done for   our benefit. Okay, that implies that humans  are unique and the whole universe is here for   our benefit. This is certainly not the, my view,  because in my view, even if mind is fundamental,   mankind is not particularly special. You know, I  mean, there could be civilized consciousness all   over the galaxy. There could be consciousness, all  sorts of different levels. And it's really just a   question of how much emphasis you put on mankind.  Humanity, I should say, rather than mankind.   How unique is humanity? So that's, there is  a subtle distinction between these, between   this this view and normal intelligent design. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, I would say the way things   are going here, if humanity  is unique and special, then   God isn't a very good designer. >>Bernard Carr: Well, that's true,   I mean, yes, we were apparently created  with the ability of having free will, but   he doesn't seem to be going so well, because, but  that's why I don't think we should put too much   emphasis on humanity, you know. We just happen  to be top dog at the moment, but you know, we   could get wiped out by an asteroid, we know from  the history of evolution that there've been these   catastrophes 60 million years ago when dinosaurs  was wiped out. We face far more immediate dangers   here on earth, which would wipe out humanity, I  mean, asteroids or viruses, or nuclear war, or   natural catastrophes, so I'm just not putting  too much emphasis on humanity. But even that's   controversial, because most people now take the  view that the probably, you know, we know the   galaxy is teeming with planets, okay, and so there  could be, and those planets, many are going to be   like so I see no reason why there shouldn't be  extraterrestrial intelligence within our galaxy.   We don't know because we haven't detected  it yet. So I take the view that there could   be many forms of intelligence, and, therefore  we're not so special. But there is another view,   which actually says that we are unique after all,  that will be a bit of a detour. Brandon carter   himself, who coined the word anthropic principle,  he had an argument that life is very, very rare,   and we're probably unique in the galaxy. So there  is another view. Either way, it's very important,   either way unique, in which case, you know, we  have to preserve ourselves, it's really important.   Or there are 1000s of civilizations, and that's  exciting, too, because it means that eventually,   we will become part of some greater galactic  level of consciousness, if you like.  >>Rick Archer: Yeah, even if we're unique in the  galaxy, which I doubt, there are at least a couple   of trillion galaxies, so ... >>Bernard Carr: Exactly.  >>Rick Archer: You know, there's a song that's  one of the lines is:. God is watching us from   a distance, I won't try to sing it, and  my conception of God is not like that.   I mean, somewhere in various scriptures, it  says, you know, it describes God as omnipresent.   And if you look at Vedanta, they would say, and  many other traditions would say, that it's all   God, you know, and within the omnipresence of  God, there are all sorts of self-interacting   dynamics taking place, which give rise to the  appearance of various types of manifestation.   And I don't know, the reason I find that  inspiring is that whenever I look at anything,   a blade of grass, or one of those animated,  you know, displays of the mechanics of a cell   or something. It's just, I just feel like God  is hiding in plain sight by God, I mean, this   omnipresent intelligence, and the thought that any  of this is happening randomly or accidentally, or   just seems so alien to me. What do you think? >>Bernard Carr: Yeah, and I, but I think that   raises an important point, because I'm not  a theologian, so any theological remarks,   I may be naive, but I can only express  my view. And that is that I talk about   our little minds being part of the bigger  mind, or our little consciousness being part   of a bigger consciousness. But the idea of this  is that the bigger mind is here and now. It's   not just at the beginning of the universe, we are  part of the bigger mind here and now. So I mean,   whatever one's view, I don't like using the word  God because it means so many different things,   but whatever one's view of God or this greater >>Rick Archer: can call it Cosmic   Intelligence or whatever, >>Bernard Carr: Cosmic Consciousness,   whatever it is >>Rick Archer: Or brahman, whatever.  >>Bernard Carr: Exactly, I  feel it has to be evolving. So   it's the big consciousness which is evolving  along with all the little consciousnesses.   The little consciousnesses are born and die  off and they contribute some illumination,   but it's the big consciousness which is evolving.  And so to me, this pyramid of complexity, it's, it   represents the evolution, if you like, of divine  consciousness itself. That is my perspective.   And that, and in fact, so, one shouldn't think  of, from this view you don't just think of cosmic   consciousness that s there in the background,  you know, it kicked things off and then,   and stood outside as the universe carried  on, and human beings arose and carried on   doing all their own things and destroying  themselves. You have to think of this cosmic   consciousness as being there all along.  Because from a philosophical perspective,   I like the idea, you know, you can ask the  question:. Well, why did God create the universe?   Why has Consciousness with a big C fragmented  into billions of consciousnesses with a little c?   The only answer I can give is the answer, which  is given in many religious traditions, that God   was in some sense, he was trying to understand  himself. He was creating all these billions of   beings to view the universe, because  this is how he was understanding himself,   coming to know himself and coming to  evolve himself. So from my perspective,   it's not only, it's God's consciousness itself in  some sense, which is evolving. Now, that may sound   heretical from some religious perspectives because  God is perfect, but it's not a unique view,   of course Teilhard de Chardin has similar views,  and in some sense, consciousness is evolving,   and conscious with a big c is evolving as well. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, St. Teresa of Avila   actually said, It appears that  God himself is on the journey .  >>Bernard Carr: Well she s put it, I didn't  hear that, I hadn't heard that phrase,   but that's exactly what, God himself is on  the journey. In fact, I will use that phrase   in some future writing, because it's a lovely >>Rick Archer: I'll look it up and make sure   that it's exactly as I stated it, because  I made a paraphrase. But it's, that's,   basically what she said, yeah. >>Bernard Carr: Because I think   that's so important, because we  mentioned earlier how in science,   it doesn't matter whether you're right, it's the  journey, which is important, not the destination,   because we may never reach the destination, we  may never have a final physics. And what you're   saying or what St. Teresa is saying is that,  well, actually, God is on the journey too,   which is a nice idea. Of course we've now gone  way beyond my professional cosmological expertise.  >>Rick Archer: Okay, a bunch of questions  came in, I want to try to get some of them in  >>Bernard Carr: OK >>Rick Archer: and at the same time   have us continue on in the points that we're  planning to talk about here. But let me just   throw them out, and you know, you don't have to  give long answers to them, or you might even say   I don't want to answer that one. So let's just see  here. So, Elizabeth Mila-Now in Colorado asks:.   What is the implication of G del s incompleteness  theorem on the search by physicists for a theory   of everything? And would it be fair to say that  the incompleteness theorem allows us to posit   realms of spiritual truth that the conceptual  mind will never, and can never, have access to?  >>Bernard Carr: Well, I mean, this is something  which there's been much debate about. I mean,   G del s theorem is a statement within the context  of mathematics, you know, that there are certain   statements that can either be proved true, or  untrue. And that was a remarkable revelation   by G del, but undoubtedly true. So then  the question is, does G del s theorem   transfer to physics? Are there things in your  physical model, which will never be known to   be true or untrue? And, and again, one has got to  bear in mind that physics basically is described   in terms of mathematics. I mean, all the equations  of physics do relate to mathematics. Mathematics   is the language of physics. And indeed, in  some sense, that's one reason for thinking that   the universe is mindlike, you know, because math  is in the domain of mind, and it's one of the   great miracles, you know, why is, what is the why  is it mathematic is so extraordinary effective?   So then you might think, well, G del s  incompleteness theorem in mathematics should imply   that there's an incompleteness theory in physics.  I don't think I've heard it argued either way,   it depends on what your final theory of physics  is like, and what's the final mathematical theory.   I don't think it necessarily implies that a  final theory of physics is incomplete. But   the question that I think, was it Elizabeth? >>Rick Archer: Elizabeth, yes.  >>Bernard Carr: ...is raising, is really the  deeper question, independent of G del s theorem,   is:. Can you hope for physics to give a  complete description of all experience?   And, of course, that s far from certain. I mean,  physicists claim rather arrogantly they re close   to a theory of everything. I've never believed  that, because it's only a theory of physics.   And the theory of everything it s a theory  of fundamental particles and things and their   interactions. The theory of physics makes no  references to consciousness or my own internal   world. So I want an expansion of physics which  accommodates the mind as well as that matter.   And, so it's clear that the theory of everything  so called, will not do that. Now, there may be   a bigger theory of everything and an extension of  physics will do it. Will do that. And that's, and   I d like to work towards that. However, I would  never claim that whatever that final theory is,   that it's going to explain everything  in experience. I'd never explain that   all mystical experiences can be reduced to  equations or anything like that. So personally,   I fully accept that there is a limit to  what can be explained in terms of physics.   I guess, I just feel because I'm a physicist,  and I've seen how successful physics is,   I just feel that once you push  the frontiers as far as possible,   and I feel they can be pushed much further than  they have been so far, I feel you can push the   frontiers into the domain of mind and spirit.  But I'm not arguing that everything will then   be reused to physics and mathematics. But that s  sort of independent of G del s theorem, I mean,   you might be able to use G del s theorem as a  subtle argument for why physics is incomplete.   But I don't think you need to use G del  s theorem to come to that conclusion.   You can simply say mystical experiences  are ineffable and go beyond rationality.  >>Rick Archer: I like to think  that a time will come when   the science of consciousness, if we want to call  it that, and physics and other sciences will   merge in a way. And the best of all, both worlds,  will form a single science, which will, you know,   properly integrate consciousness with the methods  of physics. And I think maybe then we'll be able   to have something like a theory of everything. >>Bernard Carr: Rick, that is my own dream. And   maybe we can come on to that in more  details. It's one of our five topics.  >>Rick Archer: We can go a  little long if you want, and so  >>Bernard Carr: Anyway, thank you to Elizabeth  for that question, which I hope I partly answered.  >>Rick Archer: Good. And remember,  since we re pinched for time,   you don't have to give long answers to these  questions. Just answer them as much as you want,   or you don't even have to answer them if  you don't think some of these are relevant.   This one is from Tristan Hanlon in Manchester,  UK:. What is the significance of the cosmological   axis of evil? Does that mean anything to you? >>Bernard Carr: Well, this is a more technical   question it s to do with, you see the standard  cosmological model, I mean, it says that the   universe began with the big bang. But it also says  the universe should be what's called isotropic,   it should look the same in all directions. I  mean, obviously, this is only on a large scale.   Obviously, there's all sorts of structure on  the scale of galaxies and clusters of galaxies.   This is what the James Webb telescope is  looking at. But the assumption of mainstream   cosmology is that on a large enough scale, the  universe looks exactly the same everywhere.   And in particular, when you look at what's  called the cosmic microwave background,   you're looking back to a very hot early stage of  the big bang. And this has the same temperature   roughly 2.7 degrees everywhere, apart from small  fluctuations, and these small fluctuations are   what eventually give rise to density fluctuations,  which generate galaxies and planets and eventually   people. So that's the standard picture. And  it's all based on what is said to be this   standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker's model,  which is a solution which has this property of   homogeneity and isotropy. Maybe that's too  technical. It's basically saying the universe   looks the same everywhere if you look on a large  enough scale, and that underlies all our big bang   cosmology. But all along, people have been  worried about little anomalies which arise,   which suggests that the standard picture, while  very successful, may not be completely successful.   For example, those little fluctuations in  temperature in the microwave background.   They fit in beautifully with what is predicted  by the inflationary scenario. The inflationary   scenario says that the early universe went  through an accelerated expansion phase,   which generated the fluctuations. And one of the  triumphs of this picture is that it was confirmed   by the temperature fluctuations of the microwave  background. However, there are other anomalies   associated with observations of the microwave  background which don't fit in so nicely with the   standard picture. And this axis of evil is saying  that, instead of the universe looking the same in   every direction, there seems to be a preferential  direction, a sort of a symmetry, or there's what   sometimes called the cold spot, you know, in other  words, the universe doesn't seem to be exactly   the same on all scales. In other words, that seems  to be suggesting that the standard picture is not,   does not, work completely. Now, this will  get into too technical of a discussion.   Let me just say that I think there's no doubt  that in some qualities of sense that the big bang   picture seem to be correct in the sense that the  universe started off in a more condensed state,   and probably went through this early inflational  phase. But we certainly don't understand   everything about it, we certainly don't understand  what happened when you go right back to the,   you know, the initial singularity, T equals naught  if you like. We don't know what happened there,   the universe may have bounced, there were all  sorts of quantum gravity effects. And of course,   if we believe we re part of a multiverse,  there could be other universes or other   bubbles with which we interact and cause  anomalies. So the point is, from this perspective,   the multiverse, you know, I'm not saying the  multiverse explains the axis of evil, but   I'm saying we don't understand everything about  standard cosmology. And that could even be, and   some of the things we don't understand might even  indicate that there are other universes as well.   So, but you will occasionally read in the  press, you know, the big bang theory is dead,   and it's facing a crisis, and, of course,  there are little problems which will arise   and we still don't know what the dark matter  is and we don't know what the dark energy is,   there's a huge amount we don't understand.  So, no one would say the big bang theory is   the final theory. But at least I think the basic  idea that we started with a hot condensed stage,   I think that's incontrovertible. >>Rick Archer: Okay. My old friend   Bill Cote from Maui sent in a question. He  said:. What are some of the proofs required   to verify the existence of the multiverse? >>Bernard Carr: Well, I mean, the point is this,   that what do you mean by proof, since you can't  see the other universes in the standard picture,   you can't directly prove, all you can hope to  do is to prove the theories that predict them.   Now, for example, the multiverse may be predicted  by m theory, this is the idea that you've got   all these extra dimensions. And that, and this  is what predict the so called, you know, the   string landscape scenario. And so you might say,  well, okay, m theory is perfectly respectable,   in the sense of some of the biggest brains in the  planet work on it, you know, and it's respectable   physics in the sense that right physicists work  on it. But one has to say that there is no direct   evidence for string theory, either. It  was originally hoped that that string or   m theory would explain all the constants,  but after 30 years, it hasn't done so.   And so some people therefore say, well, therefore,  this isn't physics, it's just mathematics.   And so therefore, we can't count that as  proof. And it's true, we don't have yet   proof that m theory is correct, and therefore we  can't say that m theory has revised proof of the   multiverse, because we haven't yet proven.  But it's just a question of time. You know,   the idea that you're going to solve all these  equations in 20 years is just wishful thinking,   it may take 100 years before we can prove, find  the solutions of M theory, if answer is correct.   You just have to be patient. This is what  I earlier called meta cosmology, you know,   the time gap between having a theory and verifying  it. And, you know, bear in mind that everything   in physics takes time and gravitational waves were  predicted in 1916 but weren't detected until a 100   years later. Black holes were predicted at roughly  the same time but weren't discovered for 50 years.   The Higgs particle was predicted in 60s but wasn't  discovered for 50 years. So you just have to wait   a long time for the proofs you like to arise.  Now, so I would say at the moment, you don't   have proof, you've only got indirect evidence. I  said I regard fine tuning as indirect evidence,   but it's indirect, it's not proof. Now, that's  not to say that there could never be proof.   Some people think you could have stars in the  microwave background, but it could relate to   collisions with other universes. This relates  to the previous question about the axis of evil.   Who's to say. We know in relativity theory you  can have wormholes, you can go to distances which   you shouldn't be able to go to, you know, because  the light travel time is too long. But who's to   say one day we won't go through a wormhole into  one of these other universes. So I think people   who say we can never provide proof of these  other universes are too pessimistic. It may   turn out to be true, which would be a shame. But  it's far too early to say that. I think that,   I think eventually there may be proof  but there isn't proof at the moment.   At the moment, it's just speculation. >>Rick Archer: Okay, good.   Here's a question from Robert Bonomo in Tunis, I  guess that's Italy, or is it? What do you think   of the idea of spacetime having been proven to  be not fundamental? Donald Hoffman argues this   saying that while they work well as qualities of  existence, they are not truly there. Any thoughts?  >>Bernard Carr: Yes indeed. But this  really goes on to like the major topic.   But let me just say that the idea of space and  time are purely classical concepts. And of course,   in relativity theory, space and time emerged as  part of spacetime before dimensional continuum.   But the whole point is, we know that general  relativity itself must break down at sufficiently   high densities. So the idea of space and time  must break down at the big bang itself. And   this was the significance of the work of Stephen  Hawking and roger Penrose, who showed that there   must be a singularity not only in the black  hole, but at the beginning of the universe.   It's a point where general relativity break  down where space and time no longer exist.   So whatever our final theory of physics is, it's  got to be the theory which is going to marry up   relativity theory and quantum theory, whatever  that final theory of quantum gravity is,   space and time will no longer have the standard  behavior. And space and time may not even exist.   And physicists argue about whether space will turn  out to be fundamental and time is emergent, or   whether time is fundamental and space is emergent,  or whether space and time are both emergent.   So we don't know the answer, because we don't  yet have a final theory of quantum gravity.   But what is clear, is that space and time  are not going to maintain their standard form   in our final theory of physics. Now, how that  relates to Donald Hoffman s ideas is more subtle,   because he's talking about the nature of  perception or the nature of mind. And I   think that's another reason to say you have to go  beyond space and time because when you're talking   about experience, mental experience, you have to  go beyond normal physical space and time as well.   But I think I'll postpone that to the later topic. >>Rick Archer: Okay. Might have a break for lunch   before we get the later topics, no, we'll get  to them. Here's a question from Cedric Orange   in Sacramento, California:. What's the possibility  of the James Webb space telescope revealing new,   quote, God particle information, or much more  updated big bang theory information? Do you   think those new discoveries might be related to  spirituality from a metaphysical perspective?  >>Bernard Carr: Well, when you're talking about  the God particle, you're really talking about   discoveries made with accelerators, like the  large hadron collider. Now the large hadron   collider was, is, what detected the God particle.  As opposed to teles I mean, telescopes are looking   out to the largest distances in the macro domain.  Accelerators are looking to the smallest distances   in the micro domain. Because you know, to go  to smaller scales, you have to have more and   more energy. So the God particle itself, is not  being discovered by the James Webb telescope,   that's been discovered by accelerators. But  what is interesting about cosmology is that   the very large meets the very small at the  big bang. This is because when you look   at a great distance you're looking at in the  past, into the past, you look a million light   years away, you're looking a million years in the  past. So when you look to 10 billion light years,   or more precisely 14 billion light years, you're  actually looking back 14 billion years in the past   when the universe was very small. So in some funny  way, the very large merges with the very small. So   there is a link between particle physics if you  like, which is probed by large hadron collider,   and cosmology, which is probed by telescopes.  Now, that said, the James tell us,   the James Webb telescope is going to provide all  sorts of indirect evidence, is going to tell us   about the history of the universe, the history of  galaxy formation, that's going to throw light on   the nature of the dark matter and the nature of  the dark energy. And we don't know what the dark   matter is, we don't know what the dark energy is.  The dark matter might be some elementary particle,   which is going to be, which we re looking for at  the large hadron collider, and other accelerators,   or it might be a primordial black hole, which  I like. In which case, we're more likely to   discover it through astronomical observations. But  whatever the problem is, you never know in advance   what these new telescopes together discover,  it's always the unexpected, which is exciting.   But we can be confident that the James Webb  telescope size, providing these beautiful,   detailed pictures, is going to give us fresh  insights into the history of the universe,   how galaxies formed, you know how the big  black holes in the center have been formed. And   everything is linked together in cosmology, all  these problems, the nature of the dark matter,   the nature of the dark energy, the existence of  the black holes, the big black holes and galactic   nuclei, everything is linked together. And all,  it's like a detective story where the clues come   from all directions. So it's a combination of  something like the James Webb telescope and   something like the large hadron collider, it's  the two together which are going to provide the   answers. So that's what's so exciting. >>Rick Archer: And interesting. Well,   I hope the Webb telescope lasts a long time. One  of its mirrors got dinged by a rock the other day  >>Bernard Carr: I heard that. >>Rick Archer: Oh God, it would be so tragic if  >>Bernard Carr: I was away when this was announced  so I read the paper. But the point is, it's a   million miles away and if anything goes wrong, it >>Rick Archer: It can't be fixed  >>Bernard Carr: unlike the Hubble telescope, where  we just sent the space shuttle up to repair it  >>Rick Archer: right, right >>Bernard Carr: So let's   hope there's not too much damage. >>Rick Archer: Yeah. Okay, this question   might, your answer might be technical and  we want to save time for other things,   but I'll ask it quickly and you can tell  me whether you want to answer it or not.   Ian Mannings from the US is asking:. What is the  expected range of masses for primordial black   holes? And how might they have formed? >>Bernard Carr: Well, this is my field   of specialty so I'm delighted to answer this  question, though, I could talk about it for hours,   which I resist the temptation. Essentially, a  black hole can form at any time in the early   universe. And its mass is essentially what's  called the mass within the horizon when it forms,   that's to say the distance light can  travel, and its mass can be anything   as follows:. If it forms at the very beginning  of the universe, what's called the Planck time,   it would have the Planck mass, which is 10 to  the minus five grams. Okay, that's a macroscopic   object, it's like the, you know, massive a grain  of sand, but it's small. On the other hand,   if it forms at one seconds, it would have  a mass of about 100,000 solar masses,   which is very large. And so really  primordial black holes, in principle,   could have the whole range from microscopic black  holes, 10 to the minus five grams, all the way up   to say a million solar masses, the sort of  black holes which exist in galactic nuclei,   for example. And in particular, there's a very  special mass, it's a mass of 10 to the 15 grams,   which is about the mass of a mountain, but it's  the size, is about a femi, the size of a proton.   And this is the mass of the black hole, which  is evaporating today, due to Hawking radiation.   Because Hawking says that the black hole has a  temperature inversely proportional to its mass,   that means that it evaporates on a timescale  proportional to the cube of the mass.   Now, for something like the mass of the sun,  this is ridiculous, the law, the temperature is   a millionth of a degree and it's something like 10  to the 64 years. But if you take a black hole with   a mass of 10 to the 15 grams, then the lifetime  is precisely the age of the universe. So we were   very interested in black holes of 10 to the 15  grams, because these are the ones which will be   completing their evaporation and exploding today.  Now, the fact is, we haven't seen them, but we   hope we will see these black  holes exploding because if we did,   it would be evidence for primordial black  holes and an evidence for Hawking radiation,   either of which we've gotten the Nobel prize. But  unfortunately, we didn't find the evidence. But,   so we make a distinction between the black holes  which are less than about 10 to the 15 grams,   which are no longer around, and the ones that are  above 10 to 15 grams, which haven't evaporated and   could, in principle, make up the dark mass. So  I personally love the idea that the dark matter   would be primordial black holes, but there could  actually be a range of masses. So you could have   one solar mass black holes, which make up the  dark matter, you could have somewhat bigger,   primordial black holes, which could explain the  gravitational wave detections at LIGO and Virgo.   And you could even have million solar  mass black holes, which are making the   seeds for the black holes and galaxies, we know  they're supermassive black holes and galaxies.   You asked how do they form? Well, there are many  scenarios, that the most natural scenario is that   the density fluctuations, which are generated by  inflation, which make galaxies on a smaller scale,   are somewhat bigger, and may make these primordial  black holes, but there are actually quite a lot   of similarities. So that's summarized in a few  minutes what is sort of a lifetime's work, so  >>Rick Archer: Yeah, I'd love to discuss it more  with you but we want to move on to these other   topics. One thing about dark matter, I wondered,  is, you know how in various traditions they speak   of other dimensions or other realms, like, for  instance, in the Vedic tradition, they have 14   logos, or realms, and we're, we occupy only one  of them. Do you think that there's any way that   all this unseen matter in the universe could  actually be those other realms? Or is that just,   is it really impossible to say? >>Bernard Carr: It has been suggested,   I mean, the point is in these theories, that  there can be other dimensions. And for example,   in one of these higher dimensional theories, how  physical world is just one, it's called a brane  >>Rick Archer: Like a memory. >>Bernard   Carr: A brane in a higher dimensional bulk, it's  called b-u-l-k, and so, in these models, you could   assume that you have not only one brane, you could  assume you have lots of branes, you could have,   this is one of the multiverse scenarios where  you have lots of branes in this extra dimension.   And in this case, you can have a theory of the  dark matter where you re, it's called shadow   matter, where in some sense, the dark matter  is associated with the other branes. Now,   this isn't my own favorite scenario, but as I  say, we don't know what the dark matter is, so   all bets are still on in a certain sense.  But later on, if we ever get to the later on,   I'm going to argue these extra dimensions are  very important for accommodating mental phenomena.   In other words, I'm associating the higher  dimensional space with mind rather than matter.   Whereas this other idea is saying that  these hard, you know, these higher,   these other brains are in some sense  just different levels of matter.   But I just wanted to stress that, you know, it is  a possibility that these higher dimensions have   got some connection with the dark matter. It's  just not my favorite picture because I prefer   to use these higher dimensions for other reasons. >>Rick Archer: Okay, good. Now, our other headings   that we want to talk about and we've already  covered some bits from these other headings,   but let me just read them too quickly, and  you can decide where we want to go next.   The second one was time and consciousness, another  was science, spirituality and psychical research,   another was quantum theory and another was post  materialist science and hyperspatial models. So   of all that, where should we go next? >>Bernard Carr: Well, I think because   of its generality, should we, let's talk about  science, spirituality and psychical research.  >>Rick Archer: Ok, good. >>Bernard Carr: So let me explain where I'm   coming from. Because, you know, I mentioned when I  talked about my initial interest in these subjects   arising from reading these three books about, you  know:. Einstein's relativity, Dunne s experiment   with time and the pamphlet and the third eye.  Those are my three interests:. Science, psychical   research and spirituality. And I very much saw  psychical researchers as bridging those two.   I've always been passionately interested in  connecting those three domains. Because I am   a professional scientist, I'm very impressed  with how successful science, and in particular   physics has been, in explaining the material  domain. It s the natural to me to try and expand   science to accommodate not only matter but  also mental phenomena and spiritual phenomena.   Now, there are two separate steps there, and I  guess it's important to differentiate them. The   idea that you can expand science to accommodate  mind is relatively uncontroversial now.   I mean, obviously, the whole of psychology  is based on the assumption that there is a   science of mind. There is also developments  in cognitive science which connects that,   but in particular, what interested me originally,  was my interest in psychical research.   Because psychical research were very controversial  among scientists, it suggests that there is,   that consciousness can directly interact with the  physical world. Well, obviously consciousness,   it does interact with the brains. And we don't  understand that either. But the idea is that   there can be an interaction with the physical  world, which doesn't go through the brain.   So for example, if I here have, you know, here's a  little bear. And if I'm able to focus on this bear   and make it levitate without holding it, there  is an interaction with the physical world, which   is not explained by current physics. And yet if  there is an interaction with the physical world,   and if you believe that physics can  explain all of the physical domain,   there has to be an expansion of physics. So to me,  that is one reason why I think one needs to expand   science to accommodate consciousness. Because  psychical research suggests there is interaction   with the physical world, that's  why it provides a link if you like,   psychical research provides a link between matter  and mind. But even if you don't believe in psi,   in psychic phenomena, I think there are other  reasons to think that consciousness should be   part of physics. I have already argued, you know,  that in some sense consciousness is fundamental.   And I've argued against the idea that all, you  know, ordinary physics is close to a theory   of everything, because although it's been  tremendously successful, current physics is   describing a universe without any reference to  mind. It's basically a mindless universe, okay,   it's a study of mindlessness, as opposed to  mindfulness, which meditators, obviously,   are more interested in. And so, a description, I  want, half my experiences in the world are not in   the material domain. They're the experiences in my  memories, my dreams, my psychedelic experiences,   my out of body experiences, my mystical I don't  have many mystical experiences but people do.   And I want to, I want a description of a real  theory of everything. I want a description   of mind, and if possible, I want to expand physics  to accommodate those, they re some aspects of   mental experience. And so, I, and that's, I feel  very strongly that that should be done and can be   done. And of course, I'm in good company. There  are many other great physicists who believe that   eventually, physics must expand to accommodate  consciousness. They're a minority, but I mean,   you know, someone of the prestige of, like roger  Penrose, for example, clearly believes that   you've, your final theory of physics must somehow  make reference to consciousness. On the other   hand, I have to say that people like roger Penrose  aren't interested in mystical experiences, so,   and probably doesn't believe in psychic  phenomenon. But as a first step, at least,   you have to expand science to  accommodate mental experience.   And not only that, I mean, physics itself is  really only providing a mental model, you know,   classical, clear, the normal materialistic  physics of Newtonian theory. And indeed,   Einstein s theory that died with quantum theory.  We know the normal materialistic view died,   you know, early in the 20th century. So in  any case, we have to have an expanded physics,   because of quantum theory, and we ll need more so  when we get on for things like quantum gravity. So   the question is whether can that accommodate  consciousness? And I personally think it   can. I personally think that, I don't think  that ordinary quantum theory can explain it.   I think there is a link between quantum  theory and consciousness in the sense that,   for the first time, quantum theory suggests that  the observer may play a role in physics. We may   get onto this topic in greater detail later,  because you know, the idea that the observer   consciousness may collapse the wave function. So  there is at least a hint from quantum theory, that   consciousness, the observer, mind does play a  role in physics. And so it's very important.   And of course, that's a link, which is very much  stressed. Personally, I don't think quantum theory   is going to provide a full theory of mind.  I mean, I think it may be relevant to mind,   but I don't think you're going to explain my out  of body experience, my near death experience,   or even my existence in my perceptual experiences,  in terms of quantum theory. It's clear that   you need a deeper theory, which is going to  underlie both quantum theory and mentality.   Because the point is, we don't understand  quantum theory anyway. I mean, there are lots of,   we know quantum theory works, the equations work,  but we know that there's no unique interpretation.   And of course, people have been arguing about this  for 100 years. There are many interpretations of   quantum theory. It's a mystery. And to me saying,  well, to say quantum theory explains mentality,   it's just replacing one mystery with another  mystery. What we need is a deeper theory,   which underlies quantum theory and mentality. But  the whole point is, that s going to happen anyway,   because we know quantum theory and relativity  theory are incompatible. They work very well   with amazing precision in their own domains.  Relativity theory works in the macroscopic domain.   Quantum theory works in the microscopic  domain with amazing precision, you know,   12 places or decimals or whatever. But we know  these theories are fundamentally incompatible,   has been known for 100 years. And so the aim in  physics is to find a unified theory which marries   up quantum theory and relativity theory. And my  point is that it's in that final unified theory   that you'll get to find consciousness. Not  in relativity theory alone, not in quantum   theory alone, it will be in the final theory.  So for example, when you hear physicists like   Sean Carroll saying the existence of psi is  incompatible with physics, to me that makes no   sense, it may be incompatible with known physics.  But we know that no physics is the final story,   we cannot possibly say what will be compatible  with the final theory of physics. So,   all I would say is that if you want an extension  of physics to accommodate mind and consciousness,   it better be at the level of that final theory  which marries up quantum theory and relativity   theory, not at the theory of quantum theory alone.  So, I know a lot of people are very enthusiastic   about quantum theory, because it's got many weird  phenomena like entanglement and nonlocality.   And that's good, because it all hints that  mind is important, but it's not in my view,   the final solution. The final solution has got  to be there with your final theory of physics.   Now, all of this has to do with expanding  science to accommodate the domain of mind. Now,   I want to go even further, I want to expand  science to accommodate the domain of spirit. Now,   that, of course, is much more controversial. But  the trouble is, it seems to me that there is no   clear cut distinction between a psychic  experience and a mystical experience.   In other words, once you accept that mind  is fundamental, it's the first step on a   slippery slope to spirit. Because I mean, just  to take a simple example. I mean, obviously,   I'm interested in spiritual experience, I  told you how I got interested in religion   at a young age, but also I've meditated, and, I'm  not very mystical, but I've had some, you know,   very modest spiritual experiences, which convinced  me that there is a deeper reality out there.   And so I want to accommodate, I want to expand  science, and physics even, to accommodate these   as well. And my argument is that I can't see how  I can make, the phenomena with mind and spirit are   sometimes called transpersonal, the domain of  transpersonal psychology. And if you look at,   and transpersonal experiences include, in some  sense, psychic experiences, but they also include   things like out of body experiences and near  death experiences and psychedelic experiences, and   mystical experiences. And so the point  is, where do you draw the line between   a psychical and a mystical experience? I don't  think there is a clear cut distinction. You see,   if you have a, you could have an out of  body, let's say somebody levitates, okay,   Theresa of Avila levitates. And you can say that's  a psychic experience, because the levitation is   what we call the psychical experience, a physical  body raises from the ground. And you could say,   that's psi, okay, but it's not, because we  know from her perspective, it was a mystical   experience, she is having a mystical experience  when she levitates. So there is a link between   that mystical experience and the levitation. If  I have a near death experience, if I have an out   of body experience, it's not only a paranormal  experience in the sense that I seem to be   wandering around the physical world, it's also a  very spiritual experience, it can lead into a very   spiritual experience, you know, you may encounter  other intelligences, you may enter other domains   of reality. So from my perspective, there is  no clear cut distinction between, if you like,   psychic and mystical, there is no clear cut  distinction, if you like between mind and spirit.   And indeed, it's because I have my own view as to  how I can expand physics to accommodate spiritual   phenomena that I take this view seriously. But  even without reference to a particular theory,   it's very hard to see how you can have  an expansion of science accommodate   mind without also accommodating spirit. >>Rick Archer: Well, you know, when the   lewis and Clark expedition explored the western  united states, they ended up drawing a very,   very crude map of the topology, topography,  of the country. And of course, these days we   have it mapped down, you know, with satellites  and everything else, just to the cubic foot,   everything we know precisely where  everything is. So I think that in a sense,   various traditions have given us maps of the  territory of consciousness and of mind. And,   you know, a lot of them are couched in ancient  terminology. And they all have, they've gone   through various translations, and they all have  varying degrees of clarity and accuracy perhaps,   or correspondence to what actually exists. But I  do think that there are subtler levels of mind,   a great range of them, and the various experiences  you alluded to might fall at various points on   those within that spectrum. And then there's  a level which transcends mind altogether,   which we could say is some kind of ground state  or field of consciousness, which is like the ocean   without ripples. The yoga sutras talks about that  yoga, or union, with that field is the cessation   of the fluctuations of mind. And people have been  exploring this whole territory throughout history,   and people are exploring it currently. But there's  so much work to be done to just completely map it   out and put it in modern terminology. And one  more thing I want to say before I bounce it   back to you is that like, if you were to levitate  that ceramic bear that's on your desk, or if you   were to levitate yourself, as reportedly, you  know, many people throughout history have done.   And, you know, we can brush those authors as  myth. But if someone were actually to perform it,   or to demonstrate it, it would be a huge  anomaly. And, you know, you can call it   a psychic or mystical experience, subjectively,  for the person doing it. But they are in   great violation of the laws of nature,  as physics currently understands them,   you know, and so how in the heck would  physicists come to terms of that, presuming   it could be verified, and they could observe it  and everything else. They would, seems to me they   would have to completely rewrite the paradigm  of the relationship between consciousness and   the laws of the physical universe. >>Bernard Carr: Well, absolutely. So,   I mean, this comes down to what your particular  theory is, what your extension of physics is,   and whether that can explain something such as  levitation. And I could address that question   within my own technical approach, and maybe  we'll come to that later. But of course,   it all comes down to whether you believe the  phenomena. Now, many physicists, of course, would   not believe in levitation. And therefore they  say:. We don't need to expand physics to explain   it because it can't possibly be a real phenomenon  because it s newton's law says that you can't   have levitation, you have to feel gravity. But >>Rick Archer: Well, they say that even now,   with the stuff dean Radin is coming up with, they  say:. Well, I'm not gonna look at your research,   because it can't be true. But if you had enough  people doing it, that they couldn't avoid it, then  >>Bernard Carr: To me it s an absurdly narrow  view, and people take this view, you know,   they say:. Well, I don't need to look at the  evidence, because it can't possibly happen,   according to my theory. But we don't have the  final theory, it is completely absurd, to me,   it goes against the very concept of science,  which is that you should be open to all phenomena.   But if you take something like levitation, I  have to say, for example, that I was, I used to,   I was somewhat skeptical of levitation. On  the other hand, I was interested in out of   body experiences, because I had out of body  experiences. And I could, so in that sense,   I would experience a levitation in the sense  that you, you rise from your physical body.   But of course, it's not a levitation of the  physical body, it's a levitation, if you like,   of the mental body. So I was always open to  that. But I was a little bit skeptical of   physical levitation, because I've never physically  levitated and I've never levitated even the bear.   However, I have to say I somewhat changed my  mind, because you read some of the literature.   For example, you read about Joseph  of Cupertino, and he was witnessed   by hundreds of people levitating. I  believe it's even true that at one stage,   there were so many monks levitating that the pope  declared it will only be a miracle if they weighed   more than 10 stone or something ridiculous  like that. But I mean, the point is that   you have to be open for, you know, when you're  talking about psychic phenomena, there's a   whole range of these phenomena, and I've always  had the view don't accept or reject anything,   you know. So, I don't reject the possibility of  levitation, even though I've never seen it. The   only view I would say, because when you read the  literature on something like joseph of Cupertino,   which is well recorded, it's almost as though he  will be in a mystical trance, a mystical state,   as he was levitating, it was like he was in  a bubble. Like he was like in a dream bubble,   in which the normal laws of physics didn't apply. >>Rick Archer: You mean it would appear that way   to observers that he was in some kind of bubble? >>Bernard Carr: Not like you'd see the bubble,   but for example, his clothes, he would go  through fire and his clothes wouldn't burn. If   he was holding somebody, I think there's a case  where he was holding a child or something, and   the child also was levitating. So it's some, it's  though there's a region, which is, in some sense,   doesn't abide by the normal laws of physics. So  it's what I always call fancifully a dream bubble,   because I'm interested in relating dream space,  the physical space. And so as we'll be getting   onto it later, the idea is that this dream bubble  is associated with a higher dimensional space.   So you've got an intrusion from a higher  dimension, in which the normal laws of   physics don't apply, there may still be laws, as  in a dream, but not the normal laws of physics.   So that's a sort of glimmer of how you might begin  to explain something like this. But of course,   there's no doubt that if levitation does  occur is a tremendously rare phenomenon.   I mean, at least to people, it's never been  observed in the laboratory, for example. And so,   and I'm not saying whether I believe  or disbelieve in levitation, because   you know, all of these phenomena, you have  a sort of boggle threshold as to what you're   prepared to believe. And I really don't know  for certain whether I believe in levitation,   but I don t completely reject it. On the  other hand, I do believe quite strongly,   at least attribute high probability, to certain  psychic phenomena like telepathy and precognition   and micro-pk, the sorts of stuff that Dean Radin  does, for example. I'm fairly relatively convinced   that those phenomena exist. But in some sense,  the more macroscopic the phenomena, the more   you have to question it, obviously. >>Rick Archer: I think also the more,   the higher level of spiritual mastery  you have to have to perform it.  >>Bernard Carr: That is also true.  And what is interesting, of course,   one reason why one wants to draw this link between  psi and mysticism is because traditionally, there   always has been a link. I mean, you know, within  the mystical tradition, the idea that as you   evolve, you develop so called siddhis, or  psychic powers is really standard, you know,   and so it's accepted within a mystical  tradition or a spiritual tradition that   you do develop psychic powers.  It's just that it's not encouraged,   you know, because the psychic powers are  a distraction, a fire on the wayside. So,   although I like to think there is  a link between psi and mysticism,   there is a sort of bridge between them, it s  not a bridge. Either side, they're very keen on,   psychical researchers don't like to refer  to mysticism because they want to give the   impression they're scientists are not mystics, and  they know if they started talking about mysticism,   they're gonna get rejected by their mainstream  science colleagues. On the other hand,   mystics aren't too keen on psychical phenomena,  because it seems to be it's too reductionist,   it tends to reducing everything to physics. So  neither side is so keen on making this bridge,   but I just think you have to build  that bridge. This is the bridge,   if you like, between mind and spirit. >>Rick Archer: So let's say that, for instance,   let's just say that levitation were actually more  common right now, to the point where they didn't   bother to report it on the evening news anymore,  you know, because it just kept happening and   anybody who really wanted to witness it could do  so. So what you're saying, your best guess at an   explanation for it is that there might be  some higher dimensional principles of physics,   which are somehow descending to apply to the  particular you know, the person levitating.  >>Bernard Carr: Yes, but I mean, that, I  haven't yet gone, I can talk later about my   own particular approach at this time, which  is what I call the hyperspatial approach.  >>Rick Archer: You can do it now, if you  want, we can get into it if you want.  >>Bernard Carr: Yes. Okay. >>Rick Archer: Well, that takes   us away from something we wanted to finish here. >>Bernard Carr: Before we get into the technical,   but yes, absolutely, but the key point I'm making  is that:. If levitation were true, and again,   I'm not saying it is, but if it were true, you  would need a theory of physics to accommodate it,   you'd need expansion of physics to accommodate  it. Now, regardless of whether my particular   model is the right one, I would stick by that  statement. Now, of course, you could simply   say I don't believe the phenomenon. But that  is in general not the way to go, because if  >>Rick Archer: but if it became that  common, you couldn't say that anymore.  >>Bernard Carr: Well, you d never expand  science beyond matter, it would always be   connected to the physical. And the fact  of the matter is, some of the phenomena   which arise in physics are just as weird as  some of the phenomenon that's arise in psi,   in a sense. But you made another point, which is  really that, in some sense, that trying to make   a link between science and spirituality is nothing  new. I mean, of course, the ancient religions have   been doing that for 1000s of years. More recently,  the occult traditions, you know, have had   quite sophisticated, be it theosophy or kabbalah  or whatever. They're quite sophisticated models,   which accept there are different levels of reality  that go beyond the normal material reality.   And, so I think that's the key message,  I'm trying to get across at this point,   that the assumption that the only level of reality  is material reality, which is actually what many   scientists assume, I don't think is justified. I  mean, it's very simplistic. Ordinary materialistic   physics died 100 years ago anyway, with  quantum theory. Physics anyway, introduces   all these weird ideas like fields and, you know,  quantum wave functions and extra dimensions   where we have to go beyond materialism anyway. And  so I think you have to be open to that sort of,   to that expansion. And you know, traditionally  you always see science and religion as being   in opposition. You know, ever since the days of  Galileo, you have this vision, that science is   progressing, despite the efforts of the church  to hold back, because they want to believe in,   you know, that God is behind everything.  And there was, you know, therefore,   this antipathy between science and religion.  And historically that's true, but I don't   think there does need to be an antipathy between  science and religion, I think they both represent   valid levels of reality, and which only appear  to be in conflict. I think you've got matter,   mind and spirit and they form a coherent whole >>Rick Archer: Yeah  >>Bernard Carr: And you have to try and unify  them, they're not in conflict. And in some sense,   when you talk about the conflict between  matter and spirit, science and spirituality,   science and religion, it's helpful  to think of this third, this third   world, the world of mind, because that's what  links them, you know. So it's not just reconciling   science and spirituality, it  s reconciling science and mind   and spirituality, the three things go together. >>Rick Archer: Swivel your chair just slightly,   because the sun's peeking over your left  shoulder, and if you just swivel slightly,   you'll block it. A little bit more. >>Bernard Carr: You mean the sun?  >>Rick Archer: Yeah, the sun coming through  the skylight is just there, okay, perfect.   A little bit back the other way, perfect. Okay. >>Bernard Carr: It looks like my halo if I'm   like this, which may impress people. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, it could increase   the view count here. You know, when  we talk about science versus religion,   I think that the two can be reconciled, and I  think that some so called religions are really   very scientific, they are empirical, they don't  place emphasis on belief. If certain things are   taught, that people haven't experienced yet, the  teacher is generally not saying believe in these   things, or you're doomed. He's saying, okay,  here's a vision of possibilities. Now, do your   research, you know, do your practice and see if  you can confirm this experientially, for yourself.   So the eastern religions tend to be that way a  little bit more, at least in their pure forms.   Whereas the western, you know, kind of got  corrupted in my opinion, and became all about   believing things and, you know,  that you can't ever necessarily   experience until perhaps after you die. >>Bernard Carr: Well, as you know, I mean,   I have a bit of a Buddhist  background, I'm a Christian,   but I've also been very interested in Buddhism  and the eastern religion in general. And I think   that science and religion help each other >>Rick Archer: Yeah  >>Bernard Carr: And they do it in various ways.  For example, one, psychical research, for example,   helps religion, I would say, by providing evidence  for certain spiritual beliefs. For example,   I think one of the evidence you get from psychical  research is that our minds are connected,   you know, evidence that there's a level  of reality that goes beyond the physical,   beyond the material evidence, even perhaps the  survival of consciousness after death. I mean,   obviously, that's controversial, but evidence  for reincarnation, things like this. The whole   point about psychical research is that it does  purport to be a science. It's using the methods   of science to study phenomena which cannot be  explained. So in that sense, psychical research   as a science is providing support for religious  beliefs. Not saying all religious beliefs,   but some aspects of religious beliefs. On the  other hand, I would say the religious beliefs,   or religious philosophy, can help science. Now  this is more controversial, but for example,   I've been fascinated in some of the insights of  the buddha into the nature of the visible world,   through what he would call clairvoyance.  Because the buddha would claim that he   could get clairvoyant insights into the nature  of the physical world, you know, that he could,   he would get information about the nature of  interstellar space galaxies, the cosmos. He would   talk about visions of the cycles of the cosmos,  you know, the universe expanding and recollapsing   and things like this. And this is actually  quite very reminiscent of some of the ideas of,   in, modern cosmology even now. Of course, you have  to be careful because there's a lot of scope for   interpreting the ancient texts with the wisdom of  hindsight to make it look like modern cosmology.   But I have to confess I don't see in principle,  if you believe in such a thing as clairvoyance,   in other words, that the mind can get  information about the physical world directly,   I don't see in principle why an evolved spiritual  person shouldn't get information about the   physical universe. And so, you know, you can  even, in principle, if you read the sutras, those   texts which are coming directly  from these quotations, in principle,   you can predict the timescale of the cosmic  cycles, you can work it out. And it turns out to   be something like 40 billion years or something.  Well, of course, any modern cosmologist would be   very skeptical. They're going to say, well, how  could someone in 500 BC have all this information,   which we're only today discovering through the  Hubble telescope and the James Webb telescope?   And of course, it just sounds  a bit crazy. Nevertheless,   that is the claim. So I don't, in principle  see why, if you believe in clairvoyance,   why a spiritually evolved person shouldn't  get clairvoyant knowledge about the nature   of physical reality. And you get the same claims  in theosophy, for example. So that's an example of   how spirituality, if you like, can help science,  as well as how science can help spirituality,   despite the fact that by and large, most  scientists are completely skeptical of anything   becoming spirituality, and vice versa. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, but most scientists are   not purely scientific. They are biased. One way I  look at it is that the human nervous system are,   is, an instrument, which in a sense, is far  more sophisticated than the large hadron   collider or something. And, you know, and it has  capabilities, which no manmade instrument has,   if we just know how to use it, to its  full capabilities, for its full potential.   And in that sense, you know, we could have modern  day buddha's who would be able to do research in   consciousness that could possibly reveal things  about the universe that scientific instrumentation   cannot yet reveal or could also reveal in  its own way, and the two could corroborate.  >>Bernard Carr: Absolutely. I was going to  say, you know, I haven't really spoken about it   explicitly yet, but my own hyperspatial model says  there are these extra dimensions. Well, physicists   are looking for extra dimensions, as well, they're  looking for them with the Large Hadron Collider,   for example, they haven't yet found them. But  I would say that there's more evidence for the   extra dimensions that come from a spiritual  experience, if you like, than there is through   physical experiments. That doesn't mean to say you  will never be evidence from physical experiments.   But nevertheless, the idea that the human  psyche is another very sensitive instrument   for probing reality is crucial, I mean, and  it may not cost a billion dollars to build a   brain. But that doesn't mean the brain can't be  sensitive to these other levels of reality. And   I think that's really important. And, you know,  most physicists aren't going to accept that,   because they don't believe that the mind can  possibly be sensitive to these higher realms,   but I'm afraid that's just where our views differ. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, like we said, a series of   funerals and also, I mean, science might be able  to detect these other dimensions, in some kind of,   in some sort of way. But they wouldn't be able  to provide the experience of them. And yet,   what we're suggesting here is that human beings  can actually directly experience this stuff in   ways that, you know, even if an instrument could  somehow tune into it, and you're just looking at,   you know, indicators on the instrument that  something is happening, it's like the, you know,   you can detect through brainwaves whether a person  is dreaming, and we know they're dreaming. But   that's not like experiencing the dream. It's just  squiggles on a graph. So, science has its realm.  >>Bernard Carr: Nevertheless I hope that science  will detect these extra dimensions. So they are   looking for them in accelerators, they haven't  found them yet. But that doesn't mean they won't   find them eventually, it's all to do with  the size of the extra dimensions. And to me,   what is fascinating is, when physics finds these  explanations, that is what is going to provide the   potential link between physics and mental  phenomena. And, so because, in my theory,   which I still haven't described in detail, the  higher dimensions of modern physics link to,   they provide a space for, if you like,  mental experience, and that's a weird   thought. Because the point is that if you start  finding higher dimensions in an accelerator,   to say that that's something to do with mind  is really, you know, throwing a cat among   the pigeons I mean, as you can see, that won't go  down well. But nevertheless, that does seem to be,   that would seem to be the implication, that you  really are, in some sense, beginning to prove mind   as well as matter. Because when you get to the  limits of our knowledge of matter, usually when   I say that the final theory of physics is going to  accommodate consciousness, that is saying that at   some point proving matter in extreme conditions is  going to become a prove of consciousness. And in   that case, consciousness itself can prove it.  So there is this link. And although I know it   won't go down well with most physicists, the  idea that extra dimensions provide the arena   for dimensional experience, that just happens  to be the paradigm I've been fascinated with.  >>Rick Archer: There's an old Bengali saying,  which goes:. If no one comes on your call,   then go ahead alone . So I think you're gonna have  to stop worrying about what most physicists think,   you know, I mean, you're retired, and >>Bernard Carr: I m now emeritus said that,   and at least, I understand there are at  least a few other people on this call,   so at least some people are listening. >>Rick Archer: Yeah. And maybe you should   explain your theory in full now. But let me just  throw in one quick thing, before we do that,   to wrap up our previous part of discussion.  And that is that I also think science can   help spirituality a lot, because spirituality, at  least contemporary spirituality, is very prone to   imagination, and all kinds of woo woo, you know.  People can just go off on all kinds of crazy   tangents, and think that they're, you know, making  spiritual progress, whereas, in fact, they might   just be going into some fantasy land. So I think  that, you know, without getting all skeptical and   too hardcore about it, there are some elements  of the scientific method, which can be applied   to spirituality, to make it more empirical, more  practical, you know, more insistent upon real,   the reality of what you're experiencing,  to save you from going off into fantasies.  >>Bernard Carr: Yes, but you  have to be careful here, because   what is relative is crazy, you know, what is  crazy is relative to your perspective, because   I referred earlier to the boggle threshold.  Now, I mean, I read, I get sent papers a lot   by people from the spiritual background. And  I might say to myself:. Oh, that's crazy,   they don't understand the physics properly, that's  crazy. But I know that other people might say,   my physics colleagues, they will look at what  I'm writing and they will say that's crazy  >>Rick Archer: Yeah >>Bernard Carr: So what is crazy,   it all depends on your perspective, you have  to be very careful. Because I'm a cosmologist,   because within my cosmological work I'm reasonably  respectable, I think that sort of, in some sense,   adds credibility to, maybe, towards what  I'm saying about mind. On the other hand,   a lot of my cosmological colleagues will  maybe infer that I'm crazy after all  >>Rick Archer: Off the deep end. >>Bernard Carr: are crazy,   or some of them will just say, oh, he's  retired, and physicists often go gaga.   Maybe, all I can say is I've had these crazy  thoughts ever since I was young, since I was 15.   So if they are crazy, it's not a result of age. >>Rick Archer: Well, just maybe another way of   putting it is that just like, just as science  wants to understand what's what, you know,   what is, what's actually happening? What is this  world? How does it work? Spirituality, in its   purest form, wants the same thing. They want,  it wants to, the practitioner wants to become   a knower of reality, to become aligned with the  truth, you know, if there's some deep or ultimate   reality to the universe, and if we ultimately  are that, they want to realize that. So,   but there can be many pitfalls on that path,  where people go off on tangents and become less   grounded, and, or less aligned with what's real,  instead of more. That's what I was getting at.  >>Bernard Carr: Yes. But the other  important point is you're referring to the   eastern religious traditions. The point about  that, especially within Buddhism, which I'm   most familiar with:. It was an attempt to  understand these other domains of reality   of experiences of consciousness, from a scientific  perspective. In other words, it wasn't the idea   that, you know, there's this idea that science  is rational with experiments, and mysticism is   completely irrational. But the whole point of  the eastern traditions is that you're actually   applying rationality to these phenomena. And  they're classifying them in a very sophisticated   way, they're classifying the experiences of  consciousness in a very sophisticated way,   I would say more sophisticated than in western  theology, for example. And, and indeed, you know,   you see references to inner science, it s the  science of inner space as opposed to outer space,   and that's important, that's why I'm saying  you should try and make it pass as science. So   although you have to be careful and discriminating  between what is crazy and what is sensible in this   domain, because some people will say it's  all crazy. I do think a useful criteria is   whether in some sense it's part of science is  whether you're using the procedures and the   rational tools associated with normal science. >>Rick Archer: Good. I think we're in agreement.   All right, we've covered that point. So what else  do we want to cover before we have to finish? Did   you want to more thoroughly explain your theory? >>Bernard Carr: Yes. Give me a timescale though.   How long can the interview go on for? >>Rick Archer: There's no hard and fast limit,   you know, we don't want to go on for four hours.  But if you want to go on for a bit more, go at it.  >>Bernard Carr: Okay. It s just a question of how  it fits in time, but obviously, I'm thinking about   the audience. But anyway >>Rick Archer:   We'll lose some, but some will hang in there. >>Bernard Carr: Let me finish up by giving my   own my own particular view. I've explained that  I think science has to be extended beyond the   material domain. This is part of what is  sometimes called post materialist science.   There is a whole movement now. There's an Academy  of Post Materialist Science, which basically are   wanting to expand science beyond the  material domain into the domain of mind and   spirit. And, for example, there is  something called the Galileo Commission. I'm   associated with what's called the  Scientific and Medical Network and   am currently its president, which is basically  interested in the links between science and   spirituality and the role of consciousness. >>Rick Archer: I'm on their mailing list,   by the way, and people listening to  this could get on their mailing lists,   because they have lots of interesting conferences. >>Bernard Carr: Absolutely. I mean, I should,   maybe you could give the website, because  they're hugely active, especially during this   pandemic, there are zoom meetings and  discussion groups, I mean, obviously, I   would like to propagate as much as I can. >>Rick Archer: I'll provide links   on your BatGap page. >>Bernard Carr: But the   reason I mentioned in the scientific medical  network now is in particular, they are pushing   this post materials science idea with what's  called the Galileo Commission proper. But anyway,   so I'm just putting my efforts in a broader  context. But now I want to talk about why I think,   how I think we can go about this.  So this is my personal view.   As a physicist, I've always been  very impressed with the fact that   physics invokes higher dimensions. And this,  of course we know Einstein:. Newton's theory   was three dimensional, and as you know Einstein s  theory introduced the fourth dimension, time, so   reality became four dimensional rather  than three dimensional. In the 1920s,   two physicists called Kaluza and Klein, they  tried to give a geometrical interpretation   of the electromagnetic interaction in terms  of a fifth dimension, Einstein had given a   geometrical interpretation of gravity in terms of  curved space time. They said, well, we can also   explain electromagnetic interactions, if  we have a fifth dimension. But it has to   be wrapped up very small on what's called the  Planck scale, which is tiny, 10 to the minus 33   centimeters. Now, even Einstein quite liked this  idea, but people basically forgot about this,   because they got distracted by quantum  theory. But then in the mid-1980s,   string theory came along, superstring theory  came along and said we can now have a unified   description of all the forces of nature  if we introduce more extra dimensions.   And in this, in fact string theory originally  had six extra dimensions. So you had three space,   one time and you had six extra dimensions, which  were wrapped up, but on a very small scale. So   this was 10 dimensional. And the hope was that  maybe this will be the final theory of physics.   There were quite a number of different theories,  versions of string theory, though. And then in   mid 1990s, it was realized all of these theories  could be merged as part of another theory called   M theory. And M theory has an extra dimension,  so it has 11 dimensions, but we needn t get into   the technicality. The point is, these theories  which very respectable physicists are working on,   implied there are extra dimensions. Now,  there's still no extra evidence for these   extra dimensions, so some people argue it's maths  rather than physics. So you get a similar debate   about whether m theory is physics as you  do about whether the multiverse is physics.   But nevertheless, the idea of extra dimensions is  very popular in physics. Not everyone believes it,   but at least in certain quarters, it's very  popular. And indeed, a particular model I like   is the model, which I referred to before, in  which our physical world is just a brane, a four   dimensional brane, b-r-a-n and e, in a higher  five dimensional bulk. The idea is one of these   extra dimensions, instead of being wrapped up on  the Planck scale, is extended. But then you see,   if we are just a slice, if the physical world  is just a slice of the higher dimensional   world, you've got to say, well, what else  is there in this higher dimensional space?   So let me just park that thought. But then,  when we come to talk about mental phenomena,   what fascinated me is the fact that nearly all  mental phenomena involve some form of space. And,   I mean, even ordinary perceptual space, phenomenal  space, we know phenomenal space is not the same   as physical space. And this is what Donald  Hoffman, you know, emphasize:. The phenomenal   space is just a representation in physical  space. So there's even a basic philosophical   question there, the relationship between classical  phenomenal space or perceptual space and physical   space. But I'm talking about things like  memory space, I'm talking about dream space.   When I have a dream, it takes place in a  space, just like physical space. In fact,   I sometimes can't even tell whether I'm awake  or dreaming. I mean, I'm hoping I'm awake now.   Nevertheless, I've done it, I have lucid  dreams, and I'm sure other people listening too,   I can't sometimes tell the difference, it's like  physical space. And obviously there are anomalies   in the laws, but it s got spatial features.  If you have an out of body experience, I mean,   I've had out of body experiences, I realize most  people think they're just hallucinations, but the   point of out of body experiences, you re in a  space. And it looks rather like physical space.   But it's not identical to physical space,  because they're subtle differences, and  >>Rick Archer: Although a lot of times  people have them and they actually see things   which are later verified, you know. >>Bernard Carr: You leave your physical   body and you might, you go somewhere else and you  see an event. That's what you call clairvoyance,   or maybe somebody even sees you, sometimes  people's body, so, but then the question is, well,   is it clairvoyance or is something really leaving  the body? But the point is, experientially it is   a space. On near death experiences, now there's  a lot of literature on near death experiences,   people, cardiac arrest or something, but they're  floating around, they go through a tunnel and they   enter another realm and they meet  deceased loved ones and things,   it s in a space. And even most mystical  experiences, many mystical experiences,   the so called extroverted ones, involve a space.  And psychedelic experiences involve a space,   which is sometimes even explicitly described  as higher dimensional. And talk about ghosts,   for example, most people assume that apparitions  are just hallucinations. But it's not as   simple as that, because you have collective  apparitions, where more than one person may see   the apparition at the same time. So it's in some  collective sort of space. So I would say the key   thing of all these phenomenon, mental phenomena,  is that they involve a space. So the question is,   what is the relationship between that space  and physical space? It can't be the same as   physical space, because I don't believe a ghost  has existed in physical space, I don't believe,   when I have a dream, I'm actually in physical  space. But I do believe I'm in some space.   And I'm led to the hypothesis that you need  to be in a in a higher dimensional space.   And in some sense, you have a hierarchy of  experiences in psychic, well, in normal,   psychical and mystical experiences. And this  hierarchy of spaces, in some sense, involve a   hierarchy of dimensions. And I have, in my model,  what's called a universal structure, which is   basically a higher dimensional reality structure,  of which the physical space is just a slice.   And all mental experiences are part of this  structure. So if you like, it's an expanded   reality. So now you got that thought. Now go  back to the original thought about physics having   space as well. So to me, it seems fairly natural  to marry up these two ideas and say that maybe the   higher dimensions of physics can accommodate the  mental space, which I'm talking about. Now, this   is not an idea that most m theorists would like,  they'd probably be rather horrified of the idea   because they're trying to convince people this is  respectable physics, and they're not going to like   the idea is being tainted with all these mystical  connotations. But that's the way I personally,   that's the way my model goes. That you're making  a leap between higher dimensions, and that's why   it's called hyperspatial. Because hyperspatial  means beyond the normal three dimensions. And so   that is my particular approach. And really what  this higher dimensional space corresponds to,   it corresponds, if you like, to a sort of a  universal mind. Because it is, it is it's based   on mental experience, so it is mind, but it's  mind with a big m, to go back to the earlier part   of our conversation. And what it's saying is that  our minds, with a little m, are not just separate   bubbles inside our heads. It s saying our minds  with a little m, are all part of this big mind   with a big m. And that's why in this approach you  can have things like telepathy and clairvoyance,   because all our minds are connected and our two  minds are connected as part of this space. But   also our minds can, the physical world is  part of the space, so this mind can also   experience the physical world directly. So that's  my model, if you like, not only for mind, but for   transpersonal experiences as well.  But then you come to the question   of what are the extra dimensions? And now you  come on to the question of time and consciousness.   Because you remember, we talked about, I've been  talking about consciousness at various points in   this discussion, the distinct from of unconscious  with a big c and a little c, I've never really   tried to define what consciousness is, because  that s rather technical, difficult, but now,   when I'm talking about mind, I'm really  talking about contents of consciousness,   okay, these different experiences:. Dreams, out of  body experiences, the contents of consciousness.   But now, let's come on to the  question of consciousness itself,   what is consciousness itself? Well, one  of the key things about consciousness   is that it involves the passage of time. Okay, we  experience the flow of time from past to present   to future. Now, that cannot be explained by  relativity theory. Even though relativity theory   is that, you know, such a success of emerging  space and time, in four dimensional spacetime,   it doesn't explain the passage of time. Because  in relativity theory, you have the block   universe which says that the past the present  and the future coexist. You might naively think,   if you think of your brain as like the world  liner, your brain is like a line in spacetime. And   you might think that the passage of consciousness  was rather like a little bead going up this wire,   okay, so past becomes present becomes future,  okay, future becomes present becomes past.   So, but the trouble is, the passage of time cannot  be explained by relativity theory, there is no   passage of time. The situation in quantum theory  is a little bit unclear because time, may just   in a certain sense, but time, even the passage  of time in quantum theory doesn't, isn't, well   defined. So it seems to me obvious that you've got  to go beyond relativity theory in order to explain   consciousness. You cannot explain the passage of  time, which is to be part of the consciousness,   in terms of relativity theory, you've  already got to go beyond relativity theory.   And I argue that even the passage of  time, even before you get into anything   controversial, like anomalous phenomena, has to  involve, I would argue, another dimension of time.   Because relativity is talking about physical time,  I'm arguing that you need another dimension of   time to describe mental phenomena. And so I argue  that you need a five dimensional model even to   explain ordinary physical perception. Because  ordinary, the ordinary consciousness in physical   perception, requires a passage of time. So that's  the first remark. Of course, philosophers have   been arguing about this for a century, you know,  centuries, how you describe the passage of time,   and everyone disagrees. But most people seem  to agree that the passage of time is not part   of standard physics, you've got to go beyond  standard. But the other component that fascinates   me, which seems to be very neglected by  philosophers and physicists now, is the concept   of the specious present. Now the specious present  is the minimum timescale of conscious experience.   Now, for humans that something like a 10th of  a second, it's the minimum timescale that you   can be aware of, because of the limitations  of the brain process. So for example, I give,   you imagine a light going around in a circle,  you see it as motion, if the light goes around   more than 10 times a second you don't see it  as motion, it just becomes a continuous light.   Okay, so space has become time. And that's because  basically, your temporal resolution is too low   to see, it's too big to see the motion. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, that's how a movie   works. Really, I mean, so many frames per  second and it looks like a smooth thing,   even though you're looking at static frames. >>Bernard Carr: Exactly. Right. Exactly the   same thing happens with movies, I mean, there  is a, whatever it is, it's a 30th of a second   or something like that, you don't notice the  individual frames because your specious present   is too long. Now there's also an upper limit  to your timescale perception. If it's too long,   if the light goes around too slowly, you  don't see that either, it seems to be frozen.   And that's the timescale for that a little  bit it may be something to do with the   short term, maybe timescale or something. But  the point is, we only experience consciousness   through a window of a specious present. Okay? >>Rick Archer: I just want to tell you, there was   a great Star Trek episode where some beings came  into the ship who are on a different timescale.   And so, from their perspective, the people on the  starship enterprise looked like mannequins, they   were just standing still. And from the perspective  of the people on the starship enterprise,   it was like mosquitoes were buzzing, they just  heard this little high pitched thing, because the   others were moving so fast in comparison to their >>Bernard Carr: Exactly. I was a great fan of   Star Trek, though, oddly enough, I don't  remember that episode. But that's exactly   the point. Because the point I'm making  is that, why do we make the assumption   that consciousness can only exist on the timescale  we experience it? You know, we experience a flow   of time of something like a 10th of a second to  10,000 seconds, why do we assume there can't be   some form of consciousness operating on  a different timescale? Why, for example,   I don't see why there couldn't be a form of  consciousness operating on a nanosecond timescale,   like your computer or something. I don't see  why there couldn't be some form of galactic   consciousness, which has a specious present in a  million years. It seems to me incredibly arrogant   to assume that the only level of consciousness  in the universe is human consciousness. And so   it's rather like the electromagnetic spectrum, we  know the only visible light is just a tiny band of   frequencies among a huge range of wave bands going  from, you know, gamma, radio waves to gamma rays.   Likewise, I don't see why consciousness couldn't  exist on completely different timescales. Now,   if it did, we wouldn't be able to experience  those other levels of consciousnesses. Well,   you might have this, you know, you described  the star trek episode where you've got beings   with two different species presents. I mean, we  can change our species present to some extent,   for example, you know, if you're in a  car accident, time slows down. I mean,   I've been in the car accident that many  people have, or you re falling off a mountain.   Time seems to slow down, that's to say your  internal time relative to the outside time.  >>Rick Archer: When you have a near death  experience, then your life flashes before   your eyes in great detail, even though it  only took a few seconds for it to do that.  >>Bernard Carr: In a near death experience,  you can experience your whole life in one go.   In other words, you don't experience is a flow,  your whole life, 100 years if you're lucky,   you see in an instant. So I think there are  experiences in which the specious present   changes even for human beings, I think there  are mystical experiences where the specious   present can change even more dramatically.  I think there are mystical experiences,   sorry, I'm quoting the literature, not going from  experience, but it is claimed there are mystical   experiences where the specious present can expand,  you know, to the whole history of the universe,   or where it can contract us to zero almost. So  I think there's evidence the specious present   can change drastically. And that consciousness  can therefore exist on all these different levels.   And so when you talk about consciousness,  you're really talking about   specious present. And when you're talking about a  hierarchy of consciousness, you're talking about   a hierarchy of species presence. So I don't  see why you can't have a human consciousness,   a global terrestrial consciousness, a galactic  consciousness, maybe even a cosmic consciousness.   So when I talked earlier about the distinction  between mind with a big m and mind with a little   m, or consciousness with a big c and consciousness  with a little c, what I'm really saying is,   it's really a gradation, you know, that you have a  gradation of levels of consciousness corresponding   to a gradation of levels of specious present,  which goes from our mind to a sort of great   cosmic mind, and maybe even to the lowest, well,  you know, maybe to the smallest specious present.   Now, this is all speculation, because the whole  point is that these different specious presents,   you know, these consciousness of different  species presents can't actually communicate   with each other. You can't be aware of them. If  I had a specious present of more than 100 years,   my lifetime wouldn't exist, you and I would not  exist, our identities would make no sense, because   our whole lifetime is less than the specious  present in this higher level of consciousness. So,   to me the whole nature of consciousness, the  whole nature of self-identity, all relates to   the notion of specious present. And just to put  it in a nutshell, because all of this is very,   is very speculative, the specious present to me, I  associate with these extra dimensions in some way,   in some ways these extra dimensions are  compactified, and I'm associating that with   different levels of specious present. So just as  I invoke a higher dimension of time to explain the   passage of time, I'm also invoking these compact,  extra dimensions and associating them with   different levels of specious present. All this is  completely speculative, it made me crazy, I've not   published it in physics journals. But I've just  tried to give an example of how you can try and   link physics to these sorts of experiences. >>Rick Archer: I think there's really   something to it. In fact, in the Vedic  literature, they speak of various   levels of higher beings, a whole hierarchy  of them. And generally, the higher you go   up the hierarchy, the longer they live, and  some live as long as the entire universe.   And even a human, it s said, that when  they go to a heavenly realm, after death,   they dwell there for a long period of time,  even though it may not seem that long to them.   And then maybe they come back and get reborn  again, or something. But anyway, the higher, life   on higher levels, is said to be very long lived. >>Bernard Carr: Absolutely, I mean, and indeed,   I'm partly motivated by some of the, you know,  the religious literature, with ideas, especially   within the Buddhist philosophy of things  like that, because they do talk about beings,   devas or whatever, with the different time scale  uses. And so I am most, I can't quote that in   any scientific paper, but I'm partly motivated  by that. But you see what, the common thing to   all of these approaches, it comes down to  what is the nature of consciousness, and   this is where you come against the rub because the  point is, most people assume that consciousness   with a little c is generated by the brain. Okay,  if these phenomena are correct, consciousness is   not generated by the brain, what happens is that  the brain is merely a filter of Consciousness.   So the idea is, now you've got consciousness  with a big C, if you like this ocean,   and wherever you have a physical system,  which is sufficiently complex, like the brain,   that it can have memories and a model of the world  and things like that, then it can act as a channel   for this consciousness with the big c, and it can  produce a localized consciousness with a little c.   But of course, that is not the mainstream  view of neuroscientists. In fact, almost all   neuroscientists would reject it and say, no, the  brain generates consciousness. But I would claim   and many other people have claimed, that actually,  it's very interesting to study the correlates   between brain function and consciousness. But  it's only evidence for correlation. It's not   evidence for causality that there is clearly,  you know, if you hit someone on the head,   it affects their brain, their consciousness,  there s no doubt about that. There's no doubt   that so long as consciousness is filtered through  the brain, when you do something to the brain,   it affects the conscious experience. >>Rick Archer: Smash a radio with a hammer,   the radio doesn't work so well. >>Bernard Carr: Exactly,   if you smash a radio with a hammer, it  doesn't mean the station stops broadcasting  >>Rick Archer: Right, right >>Bernard Carr: And this is basically   saying that the brain is a bit like a tv set, that  you know, that we experience the world through   the tv set, but just because the television  breaks down or gets a fuse, doesn't mean that   the transmission isn't there. Now, of course, this  then leads to all sorts of suggestions that will   may be that if consciousness isn't generated  by the brain, maybe consciousness can survive   the death of the brain. And then you get into  even more controversial areas. But I'm afraid   those are the areas I'm also interested in. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, me to. And some will take   it a step further to say that not only does the  brain not create consciousness, but consciousness   creates the brain. And by that I mean the kind of  stuff I was alluding to earlier that, you know,   this ubiquitous field of, of consciousness or  intelligence, the whole physical universe emerges   out of that and becomes increasingly complex.  In order for consciousness to become a living   reality, which is kind of a value added situation,  it's more than just flat ocean of consciousness,   it's consciousness embodied. So I suppose  from, we could say that's a lot of fun,   for consciousness or God. Lila is often the term  used in Sanskrit, the universe is a play, which   is scripted or are given manifestation by divine  or by, I'm trying to not use those kind of words,   by the ocean of consciousness in  order for it to entertain itself.  >>Bernard Carr: I like that  idea. Because actually,   I was having this discussion the other  day, there is this idea that the whole   world is a computer simulation, the whole universe  is a computer simulation. And I suspect, probably   even more crazy than some of the ideas I've been  talking about. But the point is there's very   intelligent people talking about this. But then  the question is, if we're all in a simulation,   who is the programmer? >>Rick Archer: Right  >>Bernard Carr: Is the programmer God? And then  I said to this person, I said, well, if the   programmer is God, normally, when you program  computers, you're trying to solve a problem,   so I remember saying, if the programmer s  God, what problem is God trying to solve?   And then somebody else came in, they said, oh,  no, you got it all wrong, nowadays computer   programs aren't written to solve problems. Most  computer now, programs, are now written for games.  >>Rick Archer: Exactly. Very good. >>Bernard Carr: So in other words, the purpose of   this computer simulation would not be to solve a  problem, it would just be to entertain, you know?   Well, I'm not saying that God created this for  His own entertainment. But those are the sort   of amusing issues you have to confront, because it  relates to what I said at the beginning, you see,   if the universal structure, which is mind, if  that's the more fundamental thing, if the material   world is just a slice of this higher dimensional  mind, it suggests that well before the big bang   itself, and the big bang is a physical description  of physic, you know, the physical world,   it says, well, this mind should have preexisted  the physical world. Mind with the capital m,   should have preexisted the physical world.  And so in a way this relates to the question   we started off talking about, you  know, did some form of mind or some   form of spirit create the universe? It all  links, but the point is, this form of mind,   with a capital m is, as I say, on a much longer  timescale, this will be on a specious present   which can tell you the whole history of the  universe. So the question is, what is the ultimate   level of this hierarchy? Does it transcend space  and time altogether? And I think that actually,   again, going from the literature, you know, the  mystical literature, the final state peruser is   supposed to transcend space and time altogether.  So I can well except that the final state   transcends any form of the space and time, because  the idea of a specious present is, even when you   talk about a hyperspatial approach, assuming  there are some dimensions. You know, you're   gonna be on space and time, but you're still  assuming that dimensions. So the question is,   is there a final description, which goes beyond  any space and any time all together? And maybe   that's the level at which you get the big end? >>Rick Archer: Yeah, good. Well, maybe that will   be a good stopping place. Maybe if we've ended  up where we started in this interview. We're like   that T. S. Eliot poem, you know, that at the end  of all our seeking, we shall arrive from whence   we started and know the place for the first time. >>Bernard Carr: Well, that's right. So there is   a pleasing symmetry and that we've started,  we ve ended where we began. I can see we've   really gone on for three hours. So I hope  this isn't going to cause any problems.  >>Rick Archer: No, no, it's fine. >>Bernard Carr: It's only with regard   to our species presents, a regard for a  being with a different species present.   Three hours could be nothing, or the eternity. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, well, I could trivialize   the whole thing and quote Kermit the frog here,  who said time's fun when you're having flies .  >>Bernard Carr: I've never heard that before. Yes,  that s lovely. Somebody remarked infinity s a long   time, especially when you get towards the end. >>Rick Archer: Who said that?  >>Bernard Carr: I don't know,  but it's a famous statement.  >>Rick Archer: Groucho Marx, what'd  he say? He said:. Time flies like an   arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. >>Bernard Carr: And it's like,   now we re exchanging jokes. I love the woody  Allen jokes where he says he's not afraid of death   as long as he's not there when it happens. >>Rick Archer: Yeah.   He also said, I don't want to attain immortality  through my work, I want to attain it by not dying.  >>Bernard Carr: Yes indeed. It's good to end on  a joke. And I really enjoyed this conversation.  >>Rick Archer: Me too, Bernard. >>Bernard Carr: There probably other questions,   which we haven't answered from the second part. >>Rick Archer: Oh, yeah, we could go on another   three hours, I'm sure. But maybe  we'll do that one of these days.  >>Bernard Carr: Well, I  enjoyed it very much anyway  >>Rick Archer: Me too. >>Bernard Carr: And let me to let   me know when you got the link. >>Rick Archer: Yeah, I will. Just in a few days.   So yeah, thank you so very much. And thanks to  those who've hung in there with us, probably   some of you have had to do this in separate  sessions. But it's really been a lot of fun.   And it's really been, you know, an enjoyable  week for me, sort of delving into your work   and then having this wonderful conversation. >>Bernard Carr: I'm very flattered that you spend   so much time reading all my articles >>Rick Archer: I love it.  >>Bernard Carr: And I see we have  actually more or less got through   all of the topics which were on this sheet. >>Rick Archer: Okay, great. Well, a lot of   it was way over my head, but it kind of expands  my head to try to understand what you're saying.  >>Bernard Carr: Lots of it's way  over my head too. But you have to,   you can only try and make your head bigger. >>Rick Archer: Okay, good. All right, thanks   so much and thanks to those who've been listening  or watching and next week, I'll be interviewing   Jeffrey Mishlove, who has interviewed Bernard a  number of times. And he does the thinking allowed,   and then now it's called the new thinking  allowed interview show, which has been going   on for a long, long time. So I think that's  going to be a fascinating conversation.  >>Bernard Carr: It's another wonderful  interviewer. And he of course, has also   just won the Bigelow prize for the survival. So  you ve lots of interesting things to discuss.   So you will be interviewing the interviewer, >>Rick Archer: I will, there will be some kind of   feedback loop that will be happening, he s  Jimi Hendrix or something in front of his app.   All right, thanks, everybody. Thanks, Bernard. >>Bernard Carr: Okay, thanks. Thanks very much,   Rick. Bye bye for now. >>Rick Archer: Bye for now.

Channel: BuddhaAtTheGasPump

Views: 11,350

Keywords: fine tunings, consciousness, multiverse, constants, black holes, quantum theory, cosmology, primordial black holes, mystical experiences, ‘Stephen Hawking’, physics, truth

Id: 1hMLmDAZ3zw

Length: 166min 35sec (9995 seconds)

Published: Thu Jul 28 2022