On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/2019 2:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> His book? Actually, he is selling a particular approach to QM, and
> claiming, in no uncertain terms, that his is the only "true" approach.
>
>
> No. He explicitly says (at 14:45) he's going to explain the
> interpretation he favors but there are others which he discusses in his
> book.
>
I was talking about my impression of the lecture, not of his book (which I
haven't read).
I take particular exception to his claim that MWI is the SWE and nothing
> else. He elides the many additional assumptions that he has to make to get
> correspondence with experience, but derides other approaches for making
> assumptions! That is just dishonest.
>
>
> What additional assumptions do you mean?
>
What assumptions does he have to make to get a probability interpretation?
Probability is not an evident property of the SE. Like many approaches to
probability in Everett, he has to assume decoherence to distinguishable
branches to get anywhere. But that relies on using the Born rule to justify
ignoring branches with low amplitude -- the notorious "trace over
environmental degrees of freedom". Sean's "self-locating uncertainty" is
not well-defined. In the lecture he hints that the observer is uncertain
about the fate of the cat until he opens the box -- until then he is
uncertain of which branch he is on. But given the timescale of decoherence,
he has branched within 10^{-20} sec, so the is no longer any "self-locating
uncertainty" -- he is definitely on one branch or the other, he just
doesn't know which. And that is just classical probability due to lack of
knowledge -- nothing quantum about it. In another interview, he does
suggest that the "self-locating uncertainty" lasts only until decoherence
reaches the observer, at which time copies become entangled within each
branch. Now if you can think relevant thoughts in 10^{-20} sec, then his
argument might make some sense. But it fails to convince.....
I think Carroll is a good speaker, a good popularizer, and a nice guy.
>>
>
> He is certainly a polished speaker, and is probably a nice guy. But that
> does not make him right.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Maybe so in his book, but that was not apparent in the lecture.
>
>
>>
>> Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by
>> every measure.
>>
>
> Bully for him. Debating William Lane Craig is not the height of
> science......
>
>
> No but several scientists have not done well at it, including Vic.
>
That is probably an interest of yours. I fail to share it, and it is not
science. There will always be people who fail to be convinced by science or
by argument, and debating skills are not a prerequisite for good science.
Bruce
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTFyqvG15LhJXGZPEkt-qReci2_Ws%3DXdqSCRrjsnjZfDQ%40mail.gmail.com.
