Podcast &Video clip at the bottom of the page
The article is now available on the Harvard Dataverse:
Under the license CCO 1.0
The article is now available in ZENODO.
Information about this article:
Date of publication of this article in the original language (Persian): March 10, 2023
Date of translation of this article into English and German and publication of the translated articles: April 3, 2025
Publication date of the English version in the research institute "Andishe Online Germany (AOG)": April 11, 2025
Author and translator of the article into English and German: Faramarz Tabesh
A critical evaluation of
a scientific misstep
prelude
A few days ago, in the morning, before attending to other tasks, I was reading various online newspapers and publications, as usual, when a strange headline in a Persian online publication caught my attention. The title of this article was "American Cosmologist and Physics Professor: Life After Death Is Impossible". When I referred to the body of the article and read it, not only did my surprise increase but I was also astonished for several reasons. [Refs. & Sources 1]
The first reason was that this article was published without providing any supporting documents, including the name of the translator, the producer, or a link to the original news source. Obviously, the lack of this essential information reduces the credibility of an article, because, without access to the original article in English, it is not possible for a reputable research institute that is also active in such fields to analyze and verify it in the original language.
The second reason was the rather unconventional arguments presented by Professor Sean Carroll, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology and a well-known atheist. His unproven arguments, which lacked substantiation and support, reminded me of the arguments put forward by his atheist counterpart, Stephen Hawking, who would look up at the sky and say:
"There is no God, and we are the only beings in this universe." [Refs. & Sources 2]
And of course, without providing any evidence or stating the necessary facts.
It would be logical to expect that physicists like Professor Sean Carroll or Stephen Hawking, who believe that one should only believe in physical and scientific results, could prove their claims with physics. But they, and we, know that this is impossible. Because with physics you can prove that something exists, but you can never prove that something you did not believe in as a hypothesis in the first place does not exist. Simply put, physics can prove that X exists, but it can never prove that XP does not exist. Such metaphysical content can only be made acceptable by logical arguments.
In the rest of this article, I will pursue this argument scientifically, philosophically, and in detail.
In this article, I would like to respectfully offer my perspective on Professor Carroll's views and statements that are commonly available. In the interest of brevity, I will only focus on the more controversial aspects. Another important point is that I have no intention of proving God or the soul or any such concepts in this article. Therefore, I will refrain from entering the realm of philosophy and metaphysics.
If there are any objections to the analyses I present here, I invite Professor Carroll and anyone else to share their perspectives via the following email addresses. I am open to a constructive dialogue on this matter.
Part 1:
Physics, consciousness, and Death
I would like to begin by analyzing one of Carroll's comments. Because I think there might be a contradiction in his words, and I will try to explain it.
“The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no room within those laws for the information that makes up our consciousness to persist after we die.” [Refs. & Sources 3]
It is imperative to acknowledge that the laws of physics are only applicable within the domain of physical phenomena. This domain encompasses the laws of motion, thermodynamics, and energy exchange. As posited by Albert Einstein, alternative formulations are necessary in the macroscopic and microscopic domains due to the predominance of distinct sets of laws.
It is essential to recognize that the laws of physics do not apply to non-physical processes, such as sleep or the generation and measurement of thought frequency. An illustrative example of this phenomenon is the case of the Indian ascetics (yogis) who, after being in a state of absolute death for several hours, returned to a normal physical state. This remarkable experiment was once conducted in a French hospital, witnessed by scientists, and subsequently featured on German television. This experiment directly contradicts the physical laws proposed by Professor Carroll, who postulates these laws as a comprehensive explanation for all phenomena.
In addition to the points previously discussed, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that Carroll should provide a formal definition of "consciousness" and define "death" from his perspective. The absence of such a definition suggests that Carroll has not engaged with these two phenomena to understand them.
It is obvious that the notion of "consciousness" cannot be fully elucidated within the confines of physics, whether in its Newtonian or quantum mechanical forms. I think this consensus is widely accepted within the scientific community.
There is a clear contradiction in Carroll's statement. On the one hand, Carroll claims that "the laws of physics underlying everyday life are fully understood," implying that physics is capable of explaining all the fundamentals of human life. At the same time, he promotes the notion that "consciousness" ceases to exist after death, yet he does not offer a clear definition of consciousness. While this is a subject that is more relevant to our daily lives than any other. Furthermore, Carroll offers no empirical evidence to support his claim that consciousness does not continue after death.
Sean Carroll has expressed this view in multiple places, particularly in his discussions on the intersection of physics and consciousness.
"For an afterlife to exist, we’d need some new physics that interacts with the atoms we have. But no such physics has ever been detected." [Refs. & Sources 4]
Part 2:
Soul and the Afterlife
"If the soul existed as a separate entity that influenced our bodies, there would be a new force or particle that we would have detected."
[Refs. & Sources 5]
"If the soul existed and interacted with our bodies, physics would detect it. Since we don’t see any such forces, there’s no reason to believe in an immortal soul."
Similar statement:
“If a soul existed and influenced the body, there would need to be a previously undiscovered force or particle, which physicists have not observed.”
[Refs. & Sources 6]
Indeed, there is compelling evidence to suggest the existence of an as-yet scientifically unidentified force and a particle that exerts a significant influence on the human body [1]. However, the assertion that if such a particle were to exist, it would have been definitively identified by scientists is a remarkable one. This assertion is particularly noteworthy in light of the numerous unanswered questions in the natural world. A salient example of this is the perplexing nature of dark matter.
-The nature of dark matter, including its constituent particles and whether it constitutes a homogeneous entity or a heterogeneous mixture, remains a subject of numerous unanswered questions.
-Does it adhere to the quantum statistical rules of bosons or fermions, akin to photons or electrons?
-Another outstanding question is whether dark matter could exist as a field or wave-like entity rather than as a particle.
Moreover, in the absence of a comprehensive understanding of the soul and its definition, it is impossible to discern the necessary criteria for its identification and the methodology for its search. In this case, using current physics, you as a researcher will soon find yourself like Alice in Wonderland, searching for a big "WHAT!”
Part 3:
Current State of Science
Carroll further postulates that physics has reached a level that would allow it to detect the soul if it exists. To test the validity of this claim, it is essential to consider some crucial, famous unsolved mysteries of quantum physics and quantum mechanics:
- First Report: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that it's impossible to simultaneously measure the position and momentum of a particle with perfect accuracy. The more precisely one is known, the less precisely the other can be determined.
To date, no solution has been found to simultaneously measure these two quantum phenomena, the position and momentum of a particle.
- Second Report: Discovery of the Higgs Boson
In the study of subatomic particles, scientists have not obtained a result that can be used to explain the creation of the universe with the very expensive experiments they have conducted in this regard. To prove my claim, it is enough to take a look at some articles by Professor Sabine Hossenfelder [2], a theoretical physicist and at the same time a science journalist in Germany, to see how far the results of such experiments are from what we are really looking for to bring us a little closer to the secrets of creation. After the first expensive experiment, CERN in Switzerland held a very glamorous scientific conference and claimed to have discovered the Higgs boson. All the fuss and pomp was because the scientists involved in the project were afraid of the objections of the taxpayers, lest they be asked what the result of a five billion dollar experiment was.
Of course, I am not denying some of the achievements of this experiment, but in any case, nothing was achieved that would expand our horizons about how the universe was created.
- Third Report: Albert Einstein's theory of quantum mechanics
Albert Einstein famously disagreed with the fundamental indeterminism of quantum mechanics. In his letters to Max Born, particularly in their 1926 correspondence, Einstein wrote:
"The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us closer to the mystery of the Old One (God). In any case, I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." [Refs. & Sources 7]
Einstein believed that quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory-that is, there should be hidden variables that determine outcomes in a deterministic way.
In 1935, he co-authored the famous EPR paradox (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper), arguing that quantum mechanics allowed for "spooky action at a distance" (entanglement), which he found unacceptable. Ironically, quantum entanglement - which Einstein doubted - was later experimentally confirmed (e.g. by John Bell's theorem and Alain Aspect's experiments).
These events show, first of all, that even great and famous scientists in the field of physics can have incorrect scientific beliefs, which will be proven wrong after their death.
Incidentally, a correct understanding of quantum entanglement can also prove phenomena such as dreams, déjà vu, the connection between two minds, and in a more advanced case, the soul. I will address this issue in a separate article.
Perhaps that's why many eminent physicists and renowned scientists, such as Austria's Erwin Schrödinger and Denmark's Niels Bohr, were interested in the four sacred Hindu scriptures known as the Vedas. This interest stemmed from their profound realization that it would be impossible for modern science alone to provide a definitive answer regarding the origin of creation.
To answer the question of why these scholars were interested in the Vedas and not other mystical references, it must be said that the scientific, philosophical, and mystical teachings of
Master Elahi
(1895-1974)
were not yet available to the public, and unlike today, few people knew about their contents.
N
In commemoration of the 129th anniversary of Master Elahi's birth
The extension of relativity's theory
Philosophy
Superstition- Episode 1
Philosophy
Superstition- Episode 2
Philosophy:
Who is Elite?
Persia-Iran: Art & Culture
Episode 1
A short story:
Crossing the River
A short story:
A butterfly´s dream
A short story:
A falling Leaf
Quantum dimension of matter
Tokyo experiment
Ostad Elahi's Tanbourplaying
Unification of the sciences of both dimensions
A short story:
The Saga of Siyawash
Life in space
The question is:
Reincarnation or ascending method?
A short story:
The Matador
The seven factors of creation
Intelligence network
Master Elahi's Prophecies
Laws of creation
Laws of creation
- Fourth Report: Some unknowns that science is unable to answer [Refs. & Sources 8]
The following are several examples of unsolved unknowns in the fields of physics and quantum mechanics. A comprehensive enumeration of these unknowns across various scientific disciplines would undoubtedly yield an extensive and substantial list.
1- The Measurement Problem – What causes the collapse of the quantum wavefunction, and does observation play a fundamental role?
2- Quantum Entanglement and Nonlocality – How do entangled particles exhibit correlations across vast distances, seemingly violating classical locality?
3- The Nature of the Wavefunction – Is the wavefunction a real physical entity or merely a mathematical tool for predicting probabilities?
4- Quantum Gravity – How can quantum mechanics be reconciled with general relativity to develop a unified theory of quantum gravity?
5- The Born Rule and Quantum Probability – Why does quantum mechanics follow the Born rule in determining measurement probabilities?
6- The Many-Worlds Interpretation vs. Wavefunction Collapse – Does the universe continuously branch into parallel realities, or does the wavefunction collapse in a single outcome?
7-The Arrow of Time in Quantum Mechanics – Why does time have a preferred direction when fundamental quantum laws are time-symmetric?
- Fifth Report: Unsolvable scientific paradoxes [Refs. & Sources 9]
In this discussion, I will briefly address a select number of these paradoxes to underscore the salient point that the scientific realm is not as impeccable and unassailable as Professor Sean Carroll might presume.
1. The Information Paradox (Black Holes)
If information is lost in a black hole, it contradicts quantum mechanics. If it is preserved, it challenges our understanding of space-time.
2. The Measurement Problem (Quantum Mechanics)
Why does a quantum system collapse into a definite state only when measured? Is reality undefined until observed?
3. The Arrow of Time Paradox
If the fundamental laws of physics are time-symmetric, why does time only move forward?
4. Fermi Paradox (Extraterrestrial Life)
If intelligent life is common in the universe, why haven’t we observed any evidence of it?
5. The Grandfather Paradox (Time Travel)
If you travel back in time and prevent your existence, how can you have traveled back in time in the first place?
6. The Hard Problem of Consciousness
How can physical brain processes give rise to subjective experiences (qualia)?
7. Zeno’s Paradoxes (Motion and Infinity)
How can motion exist if an infinite number of steps are needed to reach any destination?
8. Russell’s Paradox (Set Theory)
Can a set contain itself? This paradox forced a reevaluation of the foundations of mathematics.
- Sixth report: A critical point in assessing the current state of the science
There are thousands of key points in the world of science that scientists are still unable to explain and interpret. Here I would like to mention one important point of this kind, which is related to the human brain.
Prof. Dr. Hubert Preißl, Scientific Director of the Center for Fetal Magnetoencephalography at the University of Tübingen and Helmholtz Zentrum Munich, answers the question, "When can brain activity be measured?"
"Brain development begins in the third week of pregnancy. The first physical reflexes are already formed from the sixth week of pregnancy, but these are mainly controlled in the brain stem, i.e., at the interface between the rest of the brain and the spinal cord. The brain stem is responsible for regulating heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing, as well as reflexes such as swallowing and coughing. To my knowledge, however, there are no methods for measuring these early brain activities in humans. " [Refs. & Sources 10]
Indeed, this indicates that the precise mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remain unclear within academic science.
- Summary of this part
I've prepared the following text with some examples to demonstrate that science is not static, but rather a self-correcting process, always responding to new data and deeper understanding.
A true scientist never rejects any thesis, whether philosophical, metaphysical, or mystical, and always considers the possibility that it may be correct. At the same time, he does not consider any of his scientific theories to be 100 percent correct, without weaknesses, or unchangeable.
- Science as a Constantly Evolving Enterprise
Scientific knowledge is inherently provisional and continuously subject to revision. History reveals numerous examples in which theories once considered definitive were later amended or even overturned as empirical evidence advanced and new technologies emerged.
One such example is Edwin Hubble’s early estimate of the universe’s size. In 1929, Hubble proposed that the observable universe spanned merely 1 to 2 billion light-years (Hubble, 1929). Today, based on data from instruments such as the Planck satellite and the James Webb Space Telescope, this estimate has been revised to approximately 93 billion light-years (Planck Collaboration, 2016).
Similarly, Albert Einstein’s introduction of the cosmological constant (Λ) in 1917—originally intended to preserve the idea of a static universe—was later retracted after Hubble discovered the universe’s expansion. Einstein himself allegedly referred to this as his "greatest blunder" (Gamow, 1970).
Another case is the evolution of atomic theory. Models such as J.J. Thomson’s “plum pudding” and Niels Bohr’s planetary atom were groundbreaking in their time but ultimately replaced by the more accurate and complex quantum mechanical model (Scerri, 2007).
These examples illustrate that science is not static; rather, it is a self-correcting process, always responsive to new data and deeper understanding. [Refs. & Sources 11]
Part 4:
Carroll suggests what challenges we might better face.
In this section, we will highlight three of Professor Carroll's statements that he believes you should spend time responding to. We will then analyze these statements in general.
1- “We should face up to the challenge of understanding how consciousness arises from physical processes in the brain, rather than wishing it away or attributing it to mysterious forces.”
2- “We have every reason to think consciousness arises from physical processes. That’s the most fruitful avenue of research.”
3- “Rather than imagining non-physical explanations, the better question is: How does the brain give rise to mind?” [Refs. & Sources 12]
- Statements Analysis
Here, I must say that until you get a proper understanding of the concepts of soul, psyche, animal intellect, human intellect, and other such concepts [3], you will never understand the truth of what the mind is, because to understand it, you must first deeply understand what the immortality of phenomena means. That's why you are forced to present theories like those discussed above, which you are not even personally interested in because you have to present material in return for the research funding you receive anyway.
This kind of thinking reminds me of religious fanatics who are not even willing to think about issues other than their dogmas that contradict those dogmas. Now, the mental state of a religious fanatic is understandable, but when you see this model of thinking in a professor of theoretical physics at a leading American university, you become very concerned about whether or not the research of such a person with such undocumented ideas is worthy of attention.
The matter is very simple: as I have shown above about the constant changes in science to complete the data, science can prove that particle A exists, but it will never be able to prove that particle B, which is currently unknown to science, does not exist.
I think Dr. Carroll's strong atheistic beliefs have led to this point of view because the easiest way is always to sweep the garbage and dirt under the rug and say that the problem is solved.
- What is the real solution?
The most effective solution to this issue is the establishment of a novel integrated science that combines comprehensive scientific metaphysics with academic sciences. However, until approximately a century ago, the integration of metaphysical phenomena with quantum physics proved challenging due to the absence of methodologies to facilitate such integration. But this challenge was overcome when Master Noor Ali Elahi presented his doctrine on the creation of the universe, offering detailed and comprehensive explanations consistent with the academic sciences. At the Research Institute Andishe Online Germany-AOG, the past thirty years have been dedicated to integrating and combining these two sciences, culminating in the formulation of a novel framework for a new science, which we have designated as "integrated sciences."[4] This initiative has laid the foundation for formulating adequate responses to the majority of scientific challenges across diverse disciplines, including Physics, biology in general, philosophy, Psychology, and modern Sociology [5]. The outcomes of this research have been disseminated to the public through six websites in multiple languages [6]. The culminating step in this process is for scientists in various fields to study these articles without any preconceptions and provide the basis for academic collaboration with the Research Institute "Andishe Online Germany (AOG)".
If Professor Sean Carroll and his like-minded colleagues make this effort, they will undoubtedly gain a comprehensive understanding of many other issues in the same field, in addition to the issues raised. This courage to take the time to study such material that is not in their intellectual direction will lead to an accurate understanding of the concept of consciousness, the complexities of the mind and its unique relationship to the brain, and many other profound concepts.
Conclusion
First of all, it should be known that according to what we have discussed in the previous sections, science is still in its embryonic stage and will reach a high level of consciousness in the future. However, at present, in the academic centers of the world, they still do not distinguish between consciousness, mind, soul, psyche, and intellect, and therefore they cannot explain death, because they basically do not know what happens at natural death when the physical body turns into a corpse and stops moving, while all the organs are still intact. Thus, consciousness is summarized for them in atoms and electrons, as well as their mistaken idea that our minds are made up of these elements. In this case, we can imagine that Sean Carroll is confused here due to a lack of correct understanding of the concepts I mentioned above.
It is a correct statement that everything comes from subatomic particles, but we all see that Professor Carroll is unable to explain its mechanism because, like Stephen Hawking, he considers science to be perfect on the one hand, and on the other hand he is unable to determine the mechanism of phenomena such as consciousness, soul, and mind. He even imagines that the brain creates the mind. Because of this way of thinking, what he searches for among the subatomic particles is really a search for an unknown in Wonderland. But he calls it physics.
In an interview, Professor Sean Carroll offers the following opinion:
"Science tells us that our best approach is to live a meaningful life while we’re here, rather than hoping for something after." [Refs. & Sources 13]
Yes, I agree with Sean Carroll's statement, but the question is, on what basis can we live a meaningful life? Because physics does not have a plan for how we live. In principle, physics is not responsible for determining the role of the human species in how it lives. Therefore, the solution to this puzzle lies in the realm of other sciences, which, whether they like it or not, deal with metaphysical worlds. So instead of turning away from these sciences, it is better to pay attention to all possible definitions and find the best one that is compatible with logic and science.
A Suggestion for a Peaceful Way of Life for Man on Earth:
1- (If you believe in God) Pay attention to God and speak only to Him and share only with Him your secrets and needs; His home is our heart. (If you do not believe in God) Pay attention to your conscience.
2- What you do not want for yourself, do not want for others, and as you try to avert the harm that threatens you, try to avert the harm that threatens others. Do to others as you would have them do to you, and seek the good of others as you seek your good.
3- You should know why you came to this world, what you should do in your earthly life, and what will happen when you leave this world. [Refs. & Sources 14]
Thank you for taking the time to read this article. You can share your views with us by sending us an email below:
Faramarz Tabesh
Article Archiving Code at AOG:
h övdjdöhg h,g,hdakh, h sdkjdtdö lds hsj#
Footnotes
[1] This refers to the “soul” and a “unique particle” within it that functions as a transponder. For the research institute AOG's position on this subject, refer to the link below.
Video clip: How does the human intellect work?
Andishe Online Germany- Integrated sciences
At the bottom of the page
It should be noted that not all of the material on this worldview, which explains the myriad scientific questions in this area, has yet been translated from Persian into English. We are working hard on this.
[2] Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Missing-Link-Nichts-Neues-am-LHC-Was-nun-4221966.html
[3] To learn more about the research institute's views on these concepts, click on the following link:
Andishe Online Germany - Topics from the University
Andishe Online Germany- Integrated sciences
[4]Andishe Online Germany- Integrated sciences
[5]Andishe Online Germany - Topics from the University
[6]English, Persian (Farsi), French, German, Spanish and Arabic:
Refs. & Sources:
[Refs. & Sources 1]
- Carroll, S. (2011, May 23). Physics and the immortality of the soul. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
- Carroll, S. (2016). The big picture: On the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself. Dutton.
[Refs. & Sources 2]
The following references reflect the ideas of Stephen Hawking about God and existence that come closest to what I have said about his opinion.
Time Online magazine:
https://time.com/5199149/stephen-hawking-death-god-atheist/
Hawking, S. (2018). Brief answers to the big questions. Bantam Books.
Online Purchase Options
Amazon
Available in hardcover, paperback, Kindle, and audiobook formats.
Link: https://www.amazon.com/Brief-Answers-Questions-Stephen-Hawking/dp/1984819194
Penguin Random House (Publisher)
The official publisher, Bantam Books (an imprint of Penguin Random House), offers it in various formats.
Bookshop.org
Supports independent bookstores with your purchase.
Link: https://bookshop.org/books/brief-answers-to-the-big-questions/9781984819192
Libraries and Digital Borrowing
Local Library: Check your local library’s catalog (e.g., via WorldCat.org) for physical copies or eBooks through services like OverDrive or Libby. You’ll need a library card, but it’s free if available.
Internet Archive: Offers a digital version for borrowing if you create a free account, though availability depends on lending status.
Link: https://archive.org/details/briefanswerstobi0000hawk
Physical Bookstores
Barnes & Noble: Available online or in-store.
Link: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/brief-answers-to-the-big-questions-stephen-hawking/1127798119
Independent Stores: Use a site like IndieBound.org to find it at a local bookstore near you.
[Refs. & Sources 3]
- Carroll, S. (2011, May 23). Physics and the immortality of the soul. Scientific American Blog Network.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
- Carroll, S. (2016). The big picture: On the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself. Dutton Books.
[Refs. & Sources 4]
- Carroll, S. (2011, May 23). Physics and the immortality of the soul. Scientific American Blog Network.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
- Carroll, S. (2016). The big picture: On the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself. Dutton Books.
[Refs. & Sources 5]
- Carroll, S. (2011, May 23). Physics and the immortality of the soul. Scientific American Blog Network.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
- Carroll, S. (2016). The big picture: On the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself. Dutton Books.
[Refs. & Sources 6]
- Carroll, S. (2011, May 23). Physics and the immortality of the soul. Scientific American Blog Network.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
- Carroll, S. (2016). The big picture: On the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself. Dutton Books.
[Refs. & Sources 7]
Einstein, A. (1971). The Born-Einstein letters: Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955 (I. Born, Trans.). Walker and Company. (Original work published 1926)
[Refs. & Sources 8]
Here you can find some more information about the unknowns that science has not yet been able to answer:
1. Origin of Consciousness
Chalmers, David J. 1995. “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 (3): 200–219.
Dehaene, Stanislas. 2014. Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. New York: Viking.
2. Nature of Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Freese, Katherine. 2014. The Cosmic Cocktail: Three Parts Dark Matter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Peebles, P. J. E., and Bharat Ratra. 2003. “The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy.” Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2): 559–606.
3. What Triggered the Big Bang?
Krauss, Lawrence M. 2012. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. New York: Free Press.
Vilenkin, Alexander. 2006. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes. New York: Hill and Wang.
4. Are We Alone in the Universe? (Fermi Paradox)
Ward, Peter D., and Donald Brownlee. 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe. New York: Copernicus.
Webb, Stephen. 2015. If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens... Where Is Everybody? 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
5. The Final Theory of Everything (Quantum Gravity)
Greene, Brian. 1999. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Smolin, Lee. 2006. The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
6. Origin of Life (Abiogenesis)
Lane, Nick. 2015. The Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Luisi, Pier Luigi. 2016. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Limits of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Consciousness
Kurzweil, Ray. 2005. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Viking.
Tegmark, Max. 2017. Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
8. Quantum Mechanics and the Role of Observation
Rosenblum, Bruce, and Fred Kuttner. 2011. Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carroll, Sean. 2019. Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. New York: Dutton.
9. General Overviews of Unsolved Scientific Questions
Ball, Philip. 2004. Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Barrow, John D. 1998. Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[Refs. & Sources 9]
Here you can find more scientific paradoxes:
1. The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics
Paradox: Why does observation collapse a quantum system into one definite state? This challenges the nature of reality and objectivity.
References:
Rosenblum, Bruce, and Fred Kuttner. 2011. Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carroll, Sean. 2019. Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. New York: Dutton.
2. The Arrow of Time (Thermodynamic Time Asymmetry)
Paradox: Why does time move only forward when the laws of physics are time-symmetric? Entropy increases, but why?
References:
Carroll, Sean. 2010. From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. New York: Dutton.
Price, Huw. 1996. Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. The Boltzmann Brain Paradox
Paradox: If the universe is eternal and random fluctuations can create anything, shouldn’t it be more likely we are disembodied “Boltzmann brains” floating in chaos?
References:
Albrecht, Andreas, and Lorenzo Sorbo. 2004. “Can the Universe Afford Inflation?” Physical Review D 70 (6): 063528.
Carroll, Sean. 2017. “Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad.” Nautilus, August.
4. The Black Hole Information Paradox
Paradox: Does information that falls into a black hole disappear forever, violating quantum mechanics?
References:
Hawking, Stephen. 2001. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam.
Susskind, Leonard. 2008. The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics. New York: Little, Brown.
5. The Fine-Tuning Problem
Paradox: Why are the constants of the universe precisely tuned to allow life? Is it coincidence, necessity, or a multiverse?
References:
Rees, Martin. 2000. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. New York: Basic Books.
Barrow, John D., and Frank J. Tipler. 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. The Hard Problem of Consciousness
Paradox: How does subjective experience arise from physical processes in the brain?
References:
Chalmers, David J. 1996. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nagel, Thomas. 1974. “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” The Philosophical Review 83 (4): 435–50.
7. The Grandfather Paradox (Time Travel)
Paradox: If you traveled back in time and prevented your own existence, how could you have done it in the first place?
References:
Deutsch, David. 1997. The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications. New York: Penguin.
Lewis, David. 1976. “The Paradoxes of Time Travel.” American Philosophical Quarterly 13 (2): 145–152.
8. The Simulation Hypothesis (Epistemological Paradox)
Paradox: If advanced civilizations can simulate entire realities, how can we ever be sure we’re not in one?
References:
Bostrom, Nick. 2003. “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” Philosophical Quarterly 53 (211): 243–255.
Chalmers, David J. 2022. Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Here’s the compiled ATA-style bibliography for all the above:
ATA References:
Albrecht, Andreas, and Lorenzo Sorbo. 2004. “Can the Universe Afford Inflation?” Physical Review D 70 (6): 063528.
Barrow, John D., and Frank J. Tipler. 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bostrom, Nick. 2003. “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” Philosophical Quarterly 53 (211): 243–255.
Carroll, Sean. 2010. From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. New York: Dutton.
Carroll, Sean. 2017. “Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad.” Nautilus, August.
Carroll, Sean. 2019. Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. New York: Dutton.
Chalmers, David J. 1996. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, David J. 2022. Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Deutsch, David. 1997. The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications. New York: Penguin.
Hawking, Stephen. 2001. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam.
Lewis, David. 1976. “The Paradoxes of Time Travel.” American Philosophical Quarterly 13 (2): 145–152.
Nagel, Thomas. 1974. “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” The Philosophical Review 83 (4): 435–50.
Price, Huw. 1996. Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rees, Martin. 2000. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenblum, Bruce, and Fred Kuttner. 2011. Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Susskind, Leonard. 2008. The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics. New York: Little, Brown.
[Refs. & Sources 10]
Bear, Mark F., Barry W. Connors, and Michael A. Paradiso. 2020. Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.
Hooker, Davenport. 1952. “The Prenatal Origin of Behavior.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96 (2): 132–137.
Kandel, Eric R., James H. Schwartz, and Thomas M. Jessell. 2013. Principles of Neural Science. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Rahilly, Ronan, and Fabiola Müller. 2001. Human Embryology and Teratology. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley-Liss.
Prechtl, Heinz F. R. 1984. “Continuity of Neural Functions from Prenatal to Postnatal Life.” Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica 73 (305): 121–127.
Preißl, Hubert, et al. 2004. “Fetal Magnetoencephalography: Current Progress and Trends.” Experimental Neurology 190: S28–S36.
Sadler, T. W. 2012. Langman's Medical Embryology. 12th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.
Schleussner, Ekkehard, and Hubert Preißl. 2015. “Fetal Brain Activity.” In Fetal MRI, edited by Daniela Prayer, 141–148. Berlin: Springer.
[Refs. & Sources 11]
Gamow, G. (1970). My World Line: An Informal Autobiography. Viking Press.
Hubble, E. (1929). A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15(3), 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.15.3.168
Planck Collaboration. (2016). Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A13. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201525830
Scerri, E. (2007). The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance. Oxford University Press.
[Refs. & Sources 12]
Carroll, Sean. 2016. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. New York: Dutton.
[Refs. & Sources 13]
Carroll S. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. New York: Dutton; 2016.
[Refs. & Sources 14]
The Principles of Master Elahi's Beliefs. Part Two
Video clip
SOON
Audio format for the visually impaired
SOON
