On 26-09-2019 02:56, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
On 9/25/2019 2:28 PM, smitra wrote:
On 25-09-2019 15:30, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:15:59 AM UTC-5, John Clark
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 9:11 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:54:59 AM UTC-5, John Clark
wrote:
It seems that nearly everyone on the list has a strong opinion about
Sean Carroll's new book, but has anyone other than me actually read
it?
John K Clark
_> He has posted several excepts (images of pages from the book) on
Twitter and this excerpt_
https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
[1]
_and it's nothing new that I can see._
In other words the answer to my question is a resounding NO.
John K Clark
Maybe enlighten the world: What specifically in the book makes Many
Worlds compelling vs. the one-world alternatives? And if there is
nothing in the Many Worlds approach that is really better than a
one-world approach, why multiply worlds beyond necessity? And where
does all the extra matter come from to keep branching off new worlds
again and again?
Seems like there should be some simply stated answers to these
questions.
I haven't read the book (yet) either, but the argument put forward by
Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, David Deutsch, Lev Vaidman and many others
over the years, boils down to:
1) There is no hint from experiments of a violation of unitary time
evolution according to the Schrodinger equation.
Except every measurement ever made in every experiment ever run.
Measurement involves an interaction of the system with another system.
But we can do measurements to verify whether or not the system itself
when it is perfectly isolated evolves according to the Schrodinger
equation. No violation has ever been found.
2) People, equipment used to do measurements etc. consist of atoms
that are subject to the same laws of physics as everything else in the
universe.
Suppose, although I agree is hasn't been done, it could be shown that
QM predicts evolution into a mixed state. Wouldn't that show that is
simply a probabilistic theory and it predicts probabilities and events
occur in accordance with those probabilities (as Omnes' writes).
Even a mixed state can be interpreted as a multiverse. But you could
then argue that the separate worlds are totally independent of each
other and that then gives room for a theory that says that only one of
the worlds is real. Because in QM you never get this situation, that's
strong evidence for the reality of the different worlds.
Saibal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/626842331e11e9e709fcd78292b2622e%40zonnet.nl.
