News

The Principle Podcast Episode 9: Extended Interview Bernard Carr

PR_interviewGFX_carr_v004_01

Episode 9 from “The Principle” podcast is extended interview excerpts with Bernard Carr.

About Bernard Carr:

Bernard J. Carr is a professor of mathematics and astronomy at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL).

He completed his BA in mathematics in 1972 at Trinity College, Cambridge. For his doctorate, obtained in 1976, he studied relativity and cosmology under Stephen Hawking at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology. He was the president of the Cambridge University Buddhist Society and was friends with Ajahn Brahm

In 1976 he was elected to a Fellowship at Trinity and he also became an advanced SERC fellow at the Institute of Astronomy. In 1979 he was awarded a Lindemann Fellowship for post-doctoral research in America and spent a year working in various universities there. In 1980 he took up a Senior Research Fellowship at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge. In 1985 he moved to the then Queen Mary College, University of London, where he is now Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy.

He has held visiting professorships at Kyoto University, Tokyo University and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and is a frequent visitor to other institutes in America and Canada. He is the author of more than two hundred scientific papers and his monograph, Cosmological Gravitational Waves, won the 1985 Adams Essay Prize.

thePrincipleBuyButton

Comments

7 Responses

  1. If he couldn’t say “The point is” he would be tongue-tied….

  2. Geremia says:

    This is probably the best, most philosophical extended interview yet. Carr’s defense of multiverse theory against Ellis’s claim that it isn’t testable is quite cogent.

  3. moses says:

    I disagree with Carr’s definition of science as speculation and wishful thinking.

    At what point does it become just imagination and what-ifs to the point of science fiction. You can call it investigation or you can call it thought exploration but not science.

    It is the bottom line of what can be proved and not your faith that the theory is true

  4. Jason B says:

    You may consider me a laymen, but I was not born yesterday.
    I see this man as a priest, who wants me to have “faith” in his theory for two hundred years awaiting his “messiah” , aka “the evidence”, of his religion.
    In the meantime, the real documented evidence points in the exact opposite direction.
    Sorry professor, I cannot conjure up the “faith” required to be a part of your cult.
    If I am to expend energy on “faith”, I may as well put it where benefits are offered. Call it an insurance policy, just in case there really is a Creator.

  5. Hello, everything is going well here and ofcourse every one is sharing information, that’s actually good, keep up writing.

  6. The heart of your writing while appearing reasonable in the beginning, did not work properly with me personally after some time. Somewhere within the sentences you actually managed to make me a believer but only for a very short while. I nevertheless have got a problem with your leaps in assumptions and you would do well to fill in those breaks. If you can accomplish that, I would undoubtedly be impressed.

    • Rick Delano says:

      Well, I would certainly be more impressed with you if you had pointed out my leaps of assumption.

      Or even just one.

Leave a Reply