On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL the only one >>> on the list that has actually read Carroll's new book, but he gave an >>> excellent Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics will at >>> least watch that; after all even an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a >>> book is better than no knowledge at all. >>> >>> Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something Deeply Hidden" >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6FR08VylO4&t=1314s> >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >> >> I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more rigorous and >> less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay or nay opinion on this. It >> is something to store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum interpretations >> are to my thinking unprovable theoretically and not falsifiable >> empirically. >> > > > I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick marketing > exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. Too slick by > half. > > > What do you think he's selling? I think Carroll is a good speaker, a good > popularizer, and a nice guy. I feel fortunate to have him representing > physics to the public. He is not evangelizing for some particular > interpretation and he recognizes that there are alternative interpretations > of QM even though he favors MWI. > > Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by > every measure. > > Brent >
Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga who can take math and pull out God. Carroll makes* the big mistake* of a number of physics "popularizers" today. He takes the mathematical language of a physical theory (or one version* of that theory, as there are multiple formulations of quantum theory) and pulls a physical ontology out of his math. The math is not the territory. * The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics>, introduced by Werner Heisenberg <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg>, and the path integral formulation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation>, developed chiefly by Richard Feynman <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman>. Paul Dirac <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac> incorporated matrix mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation. The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say *what**, exactly, the wave function is*. Interpretations of quantum mechanics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics> address questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements. @philipthrift -- 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/dea3ade4-d2f8-4c98-8225-1ff226bbe7e8%40googlegroups.com.
