On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:58:04 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:40:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/8/2019 11:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> 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]> 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. >> >> >> That's why it's called an "interpretation". Every physical theory has an >> ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you don't know how to >> apply the mathematics. >> > > What is "an ontology"? Seems to me this is a red herring; no way to find > evidence that something is real, as opposed to illusionary, unless you > apply Vic's claim; it's "real" if it kicks back! Does S's equation kick > back? Depends on who you talk to, unlike EM waves. Real or not, S's > equation can be used for calculatons. Doesn't matter what its ontological > status is. AG >
That's it right there. the Schrödinger equation does not directly say *what**, exactly, the wave function is [Wikipedia: *Schrödinger_equation] I haven't seen yet where MWI serves any useful purpose. At least path integrals are used in applications. (But not many worlds.) @phiipthrift That MWI entails other, unobservable "worlds" is neither a bug or a >> feature, it's just one answer to the measurement problem. If you have a >> better answer, feel free to state it. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> Did you write that, or are you quoting without attribution? Anyway it's >> common knowledge on this list. >> >> Brent >> > -- 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/cc6f3c5a-1475-4984-92f6-156ca7f3379f%40googlegroups.com.
