On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:56:31 PM UTC-6, Brent 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. >
*But if every interaction with the environment in decoherence satisfies unitary time evolution, how can the result deny unitary time evolution? AG * > > > > > 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). > > Brent > > > > > 3) Due to locality of interactions, the evolution of the physical > > state of a system comprising of people, measurement apparatus and > > whatever is measured, will be the same whether or not there would be a > > boundary located at a distance of c T such that the interior would be > > perfectly isolated from the exertion, making the interior a perfectly > > isolated system. > > > > 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/aabf1e78-82d1-4425-bc6a-bf482720b866%40googlegroups.com.
