subject:"Re\: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book"

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:16 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> And of course nobody but me has bothered to read his book, but everybody
> has an opinion about it.
>
> > *You keep posting that, but I've already posted that I have read
> Carroll's book, *
>

Sorry, I missed that.

>  *I don't think QM is the last word,*
>

Neither do I and neither does Carroll.

> *so it's not a good idea to draw a lot of far fetched conclusions...like
> infinitely many universes in which everything happens. *
>

The trouble is to avoid that far fetched conclusion you must make some far
fetched assumptions as I'm sure you know having read Carroll's book. Many
Worlds is stripped down quantum mechanics devoid of all extraneous bells
and whistles.

> *it leaves open questions like whether the split "propagates" at less
> than light speed or is instantaneous because it happens in Hilbert space.
> Carroll cops out by saying either one works...which is what Bohr would have
> said.  *
>

True, and the exact same thought occurred to me when I read that in
Carroll's book, well,... Bohr was the second greatest physicist of the
20th century so I guess it's not surprising if sometimes he makes a good
point.

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv01cdM40_HsBROP%3DL4bjfZFWit_mmgegXJyCoqYEyvZ6g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/10/2019 6:39 AM, John Clark wrote:
And of course nobody but me has bothered to read his book, but 
everybody has an opinion about it.


You keep posting that, but I've already posted that I have read 
Carroll's book, and I've watched his recent video.  I don't think QM is 
the last word, so it's not a good idea to draw a lot of far fetched 
conclusions...like infinitely many universes in which everything 
happens.  Reconciling QM and GR may very well impose some bound on an QM 
probabilities and those might limit the "worlds" to quasi-classical one 
we live in.  Also MWI doesn't actually provide a physical mechanism for 
the "splitting"; decoherence combined with Zurek's envariance provides a 
partial mechanism but it leaves open questions like whether the split 
"propagates" at less than light speed or is instantaneous because it 
happens in Hilbert space. Carroll cops out by saying either one 
works...which is what Bohr would have said.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/09292d92-2214-8edd-06e4-10cb5439dc6f%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 6:35:11 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 à 11:30, Philip Thrift  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 2:40:53 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 à 09:34, Philip Thrift  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:59:50 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:55 PM Philip Thrift  
> wrote:
>
> *> Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used 
>> in writing programs for computational QM.*
>
>
> Like what?
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
 Multiple Histories.

>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories  ?
>>>
>>> So there are multiple "worlds", if multiple past histories are real 
>>> so as you dislike MWI, what's different here for you to accept multiple 
>>> past ? (because if each event has multiple *real* past then likewise it has 
>>> multiple *real* future).
>>>
>>> Quentin
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy 
>>> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's one way to look at it.
>>
>> In Fay Dowker's debate with a Many Worlder:
>>
>> via https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/f.dowker
>>
>> In this public debate  I 
>> argue that the path integral (or sum over histories) approach to quantum 
>> mechanics provides a One World interpretation
>>
>
> I didn't have time to look at it for now (I will), but could you resume 
> her position and explain how considering an event has *multiple* *real* 
> past histories provides a *one* world interpretation ?
>
> Thanks;
>  
>
>>
>>  
>> Bottom line: multiple histories are cheaper than many worlds.
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
I don't know how Adrian Kent, Fay Dowker, et all would put it, but:

We live on One World, but beneath the surface of One World lies a Sea of 
(the births and deaths of) Quantal Histories. 

@philipthirft 

-- 
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/1b7851f7-452e-4533-93f9-d5e5d05ae2ee%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 7:30 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> >> The MWI needs renormalization just like its competitors, but nobody
>> said many-worlds theory is the be all and end all and needs no
>> improvement, but at least it provides a quantum-mechanical model however
>> imperfect it may be.
>>
>
> *> So, in accordance with the logic you used above to be dismissive of
> path integral methods, MWI is entirely in sympathy with the Shut Up And
> Calculate Interpretation?*
>

No, MWI is entirely unsympathetic with Shut Up And Calculate however it is
needed at least for part of it, at least for now, but at least it's trying
to find something better, the other ones have given up. And Many Worlds
doesn't have to worry about why the Schrodinger wave equation behaves
differently when it is being observed as the other interpretations must,
Carroll explains why this is true in his hour long talk that nobody except
me seems to have watched even though it's supposed to be the subject of
this thread. And of course nobody but me has bothered to read his book, but
everybody has an opinion about it.

>> I think it's a important step toward a theory that is significantly less
>> wrong. I am, of course, not sure of that.
>>
>
> *>I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps you could be more tolerant of alternative
> views?*
>

I am tolerant of alternative views as long as they are not in conflict with
experimental results, if several theories make the same prediction I'm not
embarrassed to say I favor those with the fewest assumptions, and Many
Worlds is very cheap with assumptions, yes that results in it being
expensive in universes but in my opinion that's worth it. And some things
are not views at all they're gibberish, I freely admit I have nothing but
contempt for that.

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv0DwX17z2xvbHnro3nh3c6jkrerO6HxJ4fspCH08FQ3tA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-10 Thread Quentin Anciaux

Le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 à 11:30, Philip Thrift  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 2:40:53 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 à 09:34, Philip Thrift  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:59:50 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:55 PM Philip Thrift 
 wrote:

 *> Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used in
> writing programs for computational QM.*


 Like what?

 John K Clark



>>> Multiple Histories.
>>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories  ?
>>
>> So there are multiple "worlds", if multiple past histories are real
>> so as you dislike MWI, what's different here for you to accept multiple
>> past ? (because if each event has multiple *real* past then likewise it has
>> multiple *real* future).
>>
>> Quentin
>>
>> --
>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
>> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>>
>
>
>
> That's one way to look at it.
>
> In Fay Dowker's debate with a Many Worlder:
>
> via https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/f.dowker
>
> In this public debate  I
> argue that the path integral (or sum over histories) approach to quantum
> mechanics provides a One World interpretation
>

I didn't have time to look at it for now (I will), but could you resume her
position and explain how considering an event has *multiple* *real* past
histories provides a *one* world interpretation ?

Thanks;


>
>
> Bottom line: multiple histories are cheaper than many worlds.
>
>
> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a7ea4da6-e578-4432-b580-d021cde8ae03%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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/CAMW2kAqJ%3DFJ4-QxcOC6_bpLzEj7nO8LHpkZgJbafPG0nYu-G%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-10 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:09 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:46 AM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> >>And Multiple Histories uses path integral formulation and path integral
>>> formulation uses renormalization theory which is entirely in sympathy with
>>> the Shut Up And Calculate Interpretation; it's a wonderful way of getting
>>> the right answer, Feynman won a Nobel Prize for inventing it, but he was
>>> never entirely comfortable with it because it gave no coherent mental
>>> picture. He didn't even try to hide the imperfections in his idea.
>>>
>>
>> *> And you have a wonderful many-worlds theory that avoids all
>> infinities? And doesn't need renormalization?*
>>
>
> The MWI needs renormalization just like its competitors, but nobody said 
> many-worlds
> theory is the be all and end all and needs no improvement, but at least it
> provides a quantum-mechanical model however imperfect it may be.
>

So, in accordance with the logic you used above to be dismissive of path
integral methods, MWI is entirely in sympathy with the Shut Up And
Calculate Interpretation? That, according to you, is the consequence of a
method requiring renormalization.

I think it's a important step toward a theory that is significantly less
> wrong. I am, of course, not sure of that.
>

I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps you could be more tolerant of alternative
views?

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/CAFxXSLQKbpoJY1GCYEMro3JqYrDHzv87XH1NDzCEfKPFxZKZ4g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:46 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>>And Multiple Histories uses path integral formulation and path integral
>> formulation uses renormalization theory which is entirely in sympathy with
>> the Shut Up And Calculate Interpretation; it's a wonderful way of getting
>> the right answer, Feynman won a Nobel Prize for inventing it, but he was
>> never entirely comfortable with it because it gave no coherent mental
>> picture. He didn't even try to hide the imperfections in his idea.
>>
>
> *> And you have a wonderful many-worlds theory that avoids all infinities?
> And doesn't need renormalization?*
>

The MWI needs renormalization just like its competitors, but nobody
said many-worlds
theory is the be all and end all and needs no improvement, but at least it
provides a quantum-mechanical model however imperfect it may be. I think
it's a important step toward a theory that is significantly less wrong. I
am, of course, not sure of that.

John K Clark

John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv3E6ninv2C-8xg%2B%2B3_h1AwzBWPGfhcVc8oCZy_EaM%2BBsw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 5:29:32 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:34 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> *>>> Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used in 
 writing programs for computational QM.*
>>>
>>>
>>> >> Like what?
>>>
>>
>> *> Multiple Histories.*
>>
>
> And Multiple Histories uses path integral formulation and path integral 
> formulation uses renormalization theory which is entirely in sympathy with 
> the Shut Up And Calculate Interpretation; it's a wonderful way of getting 
> the right answer, Feynman won a Nobel Prize for inventing it, but he was 
> never entirely comfortable with it because it gave no coherent mental 
> picture. He didn't even try to hide the imperfections in his idea. In his 
> Nobel lecture Feynman said:
>
>  *"I don’t think we have a completely satisfactory relativistic 
> quantum-mechanical model, even one that doesn’t agree with nature, but, at 
> least, agrees with the logic that the sum of probability of all 
> alternatives has to be 100%. Therefore, I think that the renormalization 
> theory is simply a way to sweep the difficulties of the divergences of 
> electrodynamics under the rug. I am, of course, not sure of that."*
>
> He is also well known for saying:
>
> *"**I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."*
>
> John K Clark
>


In any case, PIs are good for grad students:

*Path Integrals in Quantum Physics* R. Rosenfelder https://
arxiv.org/abs/1209.1315  "lectures intended 
for graduate students who want to acquire a working knowledge of path 
integral methods in a heuristic, non-mathematical way for application in 
many diverse problems in quantum physics"

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/90810a81-ffbc-4614-ab2f-e4e58a5e2213%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-10 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:29 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:34 AM Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>
> *>>> Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used in
 writing programs for computational QM.*
>>>
>>>
>>> >> Like what?
>>>
>>
>> *> Multiple Histories.*
>>
>
> And Multiple Histories uses path integral formulation and path integral
> formulation uses renormalization theory which is entirely in sympathy with
> the Shut Up And Calculate Interpretation; it's a wonderful way of getting
> the right answer, Feynman won a Nobel Prize for inventing it, but he was
> never entirely comfortable with it because it gave no coherent mental
> picture. He didn't even try to hide the imperfections in his idea.
>

And you have a wonderful many-worlds theory that avoids all infinities? And
doesn't need renormalization?

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/CAFxXSLRR4ioQmFky74gP8c2w%2BG-%3DkX1d9DyjApda92tpNKDp_A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:34 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*>>> Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used in
>>> writing programs for computational QM.*
>>
>>
>> >> Like what?
>>
>
> *> Multiple Histories.*
>

And Multiple Histories uses path integral formulation and path integral
formulation uses renormalization theory which is entirely in sympathy with
the Shut Up And Calculate Interpretation; it's a wonderful way of getting
the right answer, Feynman won a Nobel Prize for inventing it, but he was
never entirely comfortable with it because it gave no coherent mental
picture. He didn't even try to hide the imperfections in his idea. In his
Nobel lecture Feynman said:

 *"I don’t think we have a completely satisfactory relativistic
quantum-mechanical model, even one that doesn’t agree with nature, but, at
least, agrees with the logic that the sum of probability of all
alternatives has to be 100%. Therefore, I think that the renormalization
theory is simply a way to sweep the difficulties of the divergences of
electrodynamics under the rug. I am, of course, not sure of that."*

He is also well known for saying:

*"**I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."*

John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv02NqYYCwxf6dHRUW8KLovj7THx6g2%2BEJVvtiDei%3DNpYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 2:40:53 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 à 09:34, Philip Thrift  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:59:50 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:55 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used in 
 writing programs for computational QM.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Like what?
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Multiple Histories.
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories  ?
>
> So there are multiple "worlds", if multiple past histories are real so 
> as you dislike MWI, what's different here for you to accept multiple past ? 
> (because if each event has multiple *real* past then likewise it has 
> multiple *real* future).
>
> Quentin
>
> -- 
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy 
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>



That's one way to look at it.

In Fay Dowker's debate with a Many Worlder:

via https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/f.dowker

In this public debate  I argue 
that the path integral (or sum over histories) approach to quantum 
mechanics provides a One World interpretation
 
Bottom line: multiple histories are cheaper than many worlds.


@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a7ea4da6-e578-4432-b580-d021cde8ae03%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-10 Thread Quentin Anciaux

Le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 à 09:34, Philip Thrift  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:59:50 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:55 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>> *> Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used in
>>> writing programs for computational QM.*
>>
>>
>> Like what?
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>>
>>
> Multiple Histories.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories  ?

So there are multiple "worlds", if multiple past histories are real so
as you dislike MWI, what's different here for you to accept multiple past ?
(because if each event has multiple *real* past then likewise it has
multiple *real* future).

Quentin

>
> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bafde34d-fa8c-445c-9dd0-be5122a0ea44%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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/CAMW2kAqLubgnoNSV%2BKcVbaoW8GBXTuPJd21Xo641rFLPfGOD9w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:59:50 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:55 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> *> Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used in 
>> writing programs for computational QM.*
>
>
> Like what?
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
Multiple Histories.

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bafde34d-fa8c-445c-9dd0-be5122a0ea44%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-09 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:55 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used in
> writing programs for computational QM.*


Like what?

John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv1M_MtcwNHNWqn25H594%3D4JXgMK2GUzJb1jhZz9cYX3%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-09 Thread Philip Thrift



On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 2:41:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:54 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> > *I haven't seen yet where MWI serves any useful purpose.*
>
>
> If you're only interested in making a better widget then the MWI has no 
> useful purpose and you should just stick with the Shut Up And Calculate 
> Interpretation, but if you have any interest at all in understanding 
> reality at a somewhat deeper level you may not find that interpretation to 
> be entirely satisfactory.
>
>  John K Clark
>


 MWI is not the one and only  alternative to SUACI (Shut Up And Calculate 
Interpretation).

Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used in 
writing programs for computational QM.

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c082577b-cbb2-4b4b-a557-41ab71e2ac31%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-09 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:41 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>> 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.*
>

Such slander gives me rock solid proof that not only have you not read
Carroll's book you haven't even bothered to watch his short one hour talk
about his book. And yet you continue to spend hours writing posts about it.

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv3gF8U-KoKv%3DeHVn%2BBu%3DJeS2FuE0kjVhmvEnhgcuWWE2w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-09 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:54 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> *I haven't seen yet where MWI serves any useful purpose.*


If you're only interested in making a better widget then the MWI has no
useful purpose and you should just stick with the Shut Up And Calculate
Interpretation, but if you have any interest at all in understanding
reality at a somewhat deeper level you may not find that interpretation to
be entirely satisfactory.

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv3TDVc%2BTFHJof8TUriNST5pYCzrfT%3DxPYMzphhUCh13Rw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-09 Thread Philip Thrift



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 6:24:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
> MWI, according to Sabine Hossenfelder, is not an answer - in the final 
> analysis - to the measurement problem
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html
>
>
> The many world interpretation, now, supposedly does away with the problem 
> of the quantum measurement and it does this by just saying there isn’t such 
> a thing as wavefunction collapse. Instead, many worlds people say, every 
> time you make a measurement, the universe splits into several parallel 
> worlds, one for each possible measurement outcome. This universe splitting 
> is also sometimes called branching.
>
> Some people have a problem with the branching because it’s not clear just 
> exactly when or where it should take place, but I do not think this is a 
> serious problem, it’s just a matter of definition. No, the real problem is 
> that after throwing out the measurement postulate, the many worlds 
> interpretation needs another assumption, that brings the measurement 
> problem back.
>
> The reason is this. In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a 
> detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into several 
> universes. Therefore, if you just ask “what will the detector measure”, 
> then the answer is “The detector will measure anything that’s possible with 
> probability 1.”
>
> This, of course, is not what we observe. We observe only one measurement 
> outcome. 
>
>
> The implication is that the above two sentences are contrasting.  But 
> nobody asks "what will the detector measure".  The question asked by the 
> experimenter is "which measurement outcome will the detector detect", which 
> is perfectly consistent with "we observe only one measurement outcome"
>
> The many worlds people explain this as follows. Of course you are not 
> supposed to calculate the probability for each branch of the detector. 
> Because when we say detector, we don’t mean all detector branches together. 
> You should only evaluate the probability relative to the detector in one 
> specific branch at a time.
>
>
> I can't even parse that.  You are supposed to calculate the probability of 
> each possible measurement outcome and those characterize the branch.  It is 
> NOT calculating "each branch of the detector" unless you are defining those 
> "branches" by what the measurement outcome is.
>
>
> That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as reasonable 
> as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely equivalent 
> to the measurement postulate. 
>
>
> It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means.  It is 
> instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation and not a 
> different theory (as GRW is).  It's different from the measurement 
> postulate in that the measurement postulate says the wave function 
> instantaneously changes to match the observed measured value.  MWI says 
> those other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of the 
> Hilbert space and you are only observing one.  Those are not "logically" 
> the same.
>
> The measurement postulate says: Update probability at measurement to 100%. 
> The detector definition in many worlds says: The “Detector” is by 
> definition only the thing in one branch. 
>
>
> What does "only the thing in one branch mean". In MWI there are 
> projections of the detector in subspaces which differ only by the value 
> detected.
>
> Now evaluate probabilities relative to this, which gives you 100% in each 
> branch. Same thing.
>
> And because it’s the same thing you already know that you cannot derive 
> this detector definition from the Schrödinger equation. 
>
>
> ?? You can't derive the definition of any physical object from the 
> Schroedinger equation.  You put in the Hamiltonian of the object and 
> whatever it interacts with and the initial ray in Hilbert space and the 
> Schroedinger equation tells you how it evolves
>
> It’s not possible. What the many worlds people are now trying instead is 
> to derive this postulate from rational choice theory. But of course that 
> brings back in macroscopic terms, like actors who make decisions and so on. 
> In other words, this reference to knowledge is equally in conflict with 
> reductionism as is the Copenhagen interpretation.
>
>
> I agree with that point.  But once you suppose a probabilistic 
> interpretation of the Hilbert space, then Gleason's theorem implies the 
> Born rule.  That still leaves a small gap in saying why it has 
> probabilistic interpretation at all.  Whether "self-locating uncertainty" 
> is an adequate

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-09 Thread Philip Thrift

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 6:21:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

classical probability due to lack of knowledge -- nothing quantum about it
>

> Bruce
>

Even before QM came on the scene, there were competing and differing ideas
of probability, including "knowledge-independent" (3.):

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/

Broadly speaking, there are arguably three main concepts of probability:

1. An epistemological concept, which is meant to measure objective
evidential support relations. For example, “in light of the relevant
seismological and geological data, California will *probably* experience
a major earthquake this decade”.
2. The concept of an agent’s degree of confidence, a graded belief. For
example, “I am not sure that it will rain in Canberra this week, but it
*probably* will.”
3. A physical concept that applies to various systems in the world,
independently of what anyone thinks. For example, “a particular radium atom
will *probably* decay within 10,000 years”.

3. is present in Epicurus to C. S. Peirce.

@philipthrift

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:48 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 5:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2019 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:24 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as
>>> reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely
>>> equivalent to the measurement postulate.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means.  It is
>>> instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation and not a
>>> different theory (as GRW is).  It's different from the measurement
>>> postulate in that the measurement postulate says the wave function
>>> instantaneously changes to match the observed measured value.  MWI says
>>> those other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of the
>>> Hilbert space and you are only observing one.  Those are not "logically"
>>> the same.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by "logically equivalent"? It seems to me that if two
>> assumptions fulfil the same explanatory role -- they are functionally
>> equivalent -- then it is sensible to call them "logically equivalent". They
>> fulfil the same logical role in the argument.
>>
>>
>> I mean X=>Y and Y=>X.  But MWI entails some things that CI doesn't and
>> vice versa.  In the C60 buckyball experiment CI doesn't give a very
>> satisfactory account, because it doesn't have a good definition of
>> "measure".  MWI introduced the idea of decoherence to fulfill that role
>> without actually requiring a human observer.
>>
>
> That explanation of "measurement" is every bit as available to the CI
> theorist as to the Everettian theorist. As Peter Woit pointed out a while
> back, there is not much different between Everett and Copenhagen. Both can
> work with "its quantum all the way down", and develop the same
> understanding of "measurement". There is nothing particularly "many worlds"
> in the notion of decoherence.
>
>
> But at some point where MWI says we can ignore the other "worlds", CI says
> the wf collapses...implying collapse is a physical process.
>

Maybe the difference is just a metaphysical quibble -- and I eschew
metaphysical quibbles. :-)

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/CAFxXSLR7%3DLJT7P7zMYBm2TMnVpC_S62i_qafRqiqb-oiyAgU-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 5:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 10/8/2019 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:24 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just
as reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is
logically entirely equivalent to the measurement postulate.

It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means. It is
instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an
interpretation and not a different theory (as GRW is). It's
different from the measurement postulate in that the
measurement postulate says the wave function instantaneously
changes to match the observed measured value. MWI says those
other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of
the Hilbert space and you are only observing one. Those are
not "logically" the same.

What do you mean by "logically equivalent"? It seems to me that
if two assumptions fulfil the same explanatory role -- they are
functionally equivalent -- then it is sensible to call them
"logically equivalent". They fulfil the same logical role in the
argument.

I mean X=>Y and Y=>X. But MWI entails some things that CI doesn't
and vice versa. In the C60 buckyball experiment CI doesn't give a
very satisfactory account, because it doesn't have a good
definition of "measure". MWI introduced the idea of decoherence to
fulfill that role without actually requiring a human observer.

That explanation of "measurement" is every bit as available to the CI
theorist as to the Everettian theorist. As Peter Woit pointed out a
while back, there is not much different between Everett and
Copenhagen. Both can work with "its quantum all the way down", and
develop the same understanding of "measurement". There is nothing
particularly "many worlds" in the notion of decoherence.

But at some point where MWI says we can ignore the other "worlds", CI
says the wf collapses...implying collapse is a physical process. I
actually like the QBist idea that collapse is just something we do to
our world description.

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:24 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as
>> reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely
>> equivalent to the measurement postulate.
>>
>>
>> It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means.  It is
>> instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation and not a
>> different theory (as GRW is).  It's different from the measurement
>> postulate in that the measurement postulate says the wave function
>> instantaneously changes to match the observed measured value.  MWI says
>> those other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of the
>> Hilbert space and you are only observing one.  Those are not "logically"
>> the same.
>>
>
> What do you mean by "logically equivalent"? It seems to me that if two
> assumptions fulfil the same explanatory role -- they are functionally
> equivalent -- then it is sensible to call them "logically equivalent". They
> fulfil the same logical role in the argument.
>
>
> I mean X=>Y and Y=>X.  But MWI entails some things that CI doesn't and
> vice versa.  In the C60 buckyball experiment CI doesn't give a very
> satisfactory account, because it doesn't have a good definition of
> "measure".  MWI introduced the idea of decoherence to fulfill that role
> without actually requiring a human observer.
>

That explanation of "measurement" is every bit as available to the CI
theorist as to the Everettian theorist. As Peter Woit pointed out a while
back, there is not much different between Everett and Copenhagen. Both can
work with "its quantum all the way down", and develop the same
understanding of "measurement". There is nothing particularly "many worlds"
in the notion of decoherence.

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/CAFxXSLRdzxCHbcn4uqDN-%2B5wpu_v1toD8H7axQ1gEPogD2CqUA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:36 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 5:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2019 4:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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 low amplitude branches aren't ignored.  Do you mean cross-terms in
>> the density matrix?
>>
>
> Explain to me how these are functionally different from low amplitude
> branches.
>
>
> The branches are projections of the universal Hilbert ray onto
> (approximately) orthogonal subspaces corresponding to the preferred basis.
> Cross terms are what make them approximate.  The cross-terms supposedly go
> to zero when you compute the reduced density matrix, but the diagonal terms
> don't go to zero...they measure the probability of the branches, including
> branches with low probability.
>

It seems to me that that is what I said.


> -- the notorious "trace over environmental degrees of freedom". Sean's
>> "self-locating uncertainty" is not well-defined.
>>
>>
>> I tend to agree with you there.  But if you assume that the human brain
>> is a classical information processor of limited capacity I think you could
>> get there.
>>
>
> Only at the price of re-introducing the human observer into your
> exposition of QM. I thought that was the cardinal sin of the CI, and here
> Sean is bringing it back into Everett
>
>
> Well, if you're going to explain why we experience a classical world,
> you're going to have to say something about experience.  To say it's
> information processing in the brain sounds pretty good to me.
>

But that is what he needs in order to introduce probabilities -- and that
is just as circular as the Deutsch-Wallace use of decision theory -- both
need observers to have a notion of probability.


> 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.
>>
>>
>> So you're faulting him for not calling 1e-20sec zero?
>>
>
> No. I am not faulting him for not calling it zero. I am faulting him for
> calling something that is uncertain in any quantum sense for 10^{-20} sec
> significant for the interpretation of probabilities.
>
> But it's relevant to showing MWI is consistent with the experimenter not
> knowing which "world" he is in. He might not look at the data for a long
> time.
>

Exactly. So his "uncertainty" is purely classical. That is not an
explanation of quantum probabilities. Remember, the Everettian promise is
that the concept of "an observer" is irrelevant for understanding the
theory -- it is all in the SWE. The theory provides its own
explanation..

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/CAFxXSLQnC%3DA2q2T8dCDbmCkG%3D6AA91u24rN4pPb%2BnGfMKivzEA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:24 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as
reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically
entirely equivalent to the measurement postulate.

It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means. It is
instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation
and not a different theory (as GRW is). It's different from the
measurement postulate in that the measurement postulate says the
wave function instantaneously changes to match the observed
measured value. MWI says those other measured values obtain in
other orthogonal subspaces of the Hilbert space and you are only
observing one. Those are not "logically" the same.

What do you mean by "logically equivalent"? It seems to me that if two
assumptions fulfil the same explanatory role -- they are functionally
equivalent -- then it is sensible to call them "logically equivalent".
They fulfil the same logical role in the argument.

I mean X=>Y and Y=>X. But MWI entails some things that CI doesn't and
vice versa. In the C60 buckyball experiment CI doesn't give a very
satisfactory account, because it doesn't have a good definition of
"measure". MWI introduced the idea of decoherence to fulfill that role
without actually requiring a human observer.

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 5:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 10/8/2019 4:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

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 low amplitude branches aren't ignored. Do you mean
cross-terms in the density matrix?

Explain to me how these are functionally different from low amplitude
branches.

The branches are projections of the universal Hilbert ray onto
(approximately) orthogonal subspaces corresponding to the preferred
basis. Cross terms are what make them approximate. The cross-terms
supposedly go to zero when you compute the reduced density matrix, but
the diagonal terms don't go to zero...they measure the probability of
the branches, including branches with low probability.

-- the notorious "trace over environmental degrees of freedom".
Sean's "self-locating uncertainty" is not well-defined.

I tend to agree with you there. But if you assume that the human
brain is a classical information processor of limited capacity I
think you could get there.

Only at the price of re-introducing the human observer into your
exposition of QM. I thought that was the cardinal sin of the CI, and
here Sean is bringing it back into Everett

Well, if you're going to explain why we experience a classical world,
you're going to have to say something about experience. To say it's
information processing in the brain sounds pretty good to me.

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.

So you're faulting him for not calling 1e-20sec zero?

No. I am not faulting him for not calling it zero. I am faulting him
for calling something that is uncertain in any quantum sense for
10^{-20} sec significant for the interpretation of probabilities.

But it's relevant to showing MWI is consistent with the experimenter not
knowing which "world" he is in. He might not look at the data for a long
time.

Brent

Seems nit-picky. I see the problem as sloppy introduction of "the
observer" harking back to CI.

Yes, that is a point I have made.

If observers are quasi-classical (no funny stuff in microtubles)
then it should be enough to talk about uncertainty in the location
of the geiger counter or the environment, but I understand Sean is
trying to explain why, according to Everett, people don't see the
superposition.

That is achieved by decoherence and the preferred pointer basis. No
need to introduce observers and self-locating uncertainty.

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/CAFxXSLS0B%3DUBOUD-erZybbGMG86f%3D_Dd8k6wRYxTKqMpuv%2B-1w%40mail.gmail.com
.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:24 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as reasonable
> as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely equivalent
> to the measurement postulate.
>
>
> It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means.  It is
> instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation and not a
> different theory (as GRW is).  It's different from the measurement
> postulate in that the measurement postulate says the wave function
> instantaneously changes to match the observed measured value.  MWI says
> those other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of the
> Hilbert space and you are only observing one.  Those are not "logically"
> the same.
>

What do you mean by "logically equivalent"? It seems to me that if two
assumptions fulfil the same explanatory role -- they are functionally
equivalent -- then it is sensible to call them "logically equivalent". They
fulfil the same logical role in the argument.

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/CAFxXSLRthEzZ6MQYQYzJfzZV6JCa5ut9o4qouRN9gUfFEiCtww%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 4:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 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 low amplitude branches aren't ignored.  Do you mean cross-terms in the
> density matrix?
>

Explain to me how these are functionally different from low amplitude
branches.


> -- the notorious "trace over environmental degrees of freedom". Sean's
> "self-locating uncertainty" is not well-defined.
>
>
> I tend to agree with you there.  But if you assume that the human brain is
> a classical information processor of limited capacity I think you could get
> there.
>

Only at the price of re-introducing the human observer into your exposition
of QM. I thought that was the cardinal sin of the CI, and here Sean is
bringing it back into Everett

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.
>
>
> So you're faulting him for not calling 1e-20sec zero?
>

No. I am not faulting him for not calling it zero. I am faulting him for
calling something that is uncertain in any quantum sense for 10^{-20} sec
significant for the interpretation of probabilities.


> Seems nit-picky.  I see the problem as sloppy introduction of "the
> observer" harking back to CI.
>

Yes, that is a point I have made.


> If observers are quasi-classical (no funny stuff in microtubles) then it
> should be enough to talk about uncertainty in the location of the geiger
> counter or the environment, but I understand Sean is trying to explain why,
> according to Everett, people don't see the superposition.
>

That is achieved by decoherence and the preferred pointer basis. No need to
introduce observers and self-locating uncertainty.

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/CAFxXSLS0B%3DUBOUD-erZybbGMG86f%3D_Dd8k6wRYxTKqMpuv%2B-1w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/8/2019 4:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> 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
mailto: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).


That's what I'm talking about; that's why I gave the time stamp of where 
he says it in the lecture.



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 low amplitude branches aren't ignored.  Do you mean cross-terms in 
the density matrix?


-- the notorious "trace over environmental degrees of freedom". Sean's 
"self-locating uncertainty" is not well-defined.


I tend to agree with you there.  But if you assume that the human brain 
is a classical information processor of limited capacity I think you 
could get there.


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.


So you're faulting him for not calling 1e-20sec zero? Seems nit-picky.  
I see the problem as sloppy introduction of "the observer" harking back 
to CI.  If observers are quasi-classical (no funny stuff in microtubles) 
then it should be enough to talk about uncertainty in the location of 
the geiger counter or the environment, but I understand Sean is trying 
to explain why, according to Everett, people don't see the superposition.






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.


It was a big part of the interests on this list when Vic was writing his 
books.



I fail to share it, and it is not science.


As Vic said, "Science isn't everything, but it's about everything."

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.


No, but they can be important in communicating good science to 
people...and we could certainly use more of that.


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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

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.


Brent




MWI, according to Sabine Hossenfelder, is not an answer - in the final 
analysis - to the measurement problem


http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html


The many world interpretation, now, supposedly does away with the 
problem of the quantum measurement and it does this by just saying 
there isn’t such a thing as wavefunction collapse. Instead, many 
worlds people say, every time you make a measurement, the universe 
splits into several parallel worlds, one for each possible measurement 
outcome. This universe splitting is also sometimes called branching.


Some people have a problem with the branching because it’s not clear 
just exactly when or where it should take place, but I do not think 
this is a serious problem, it’s just a matter of definition. No, the 
real problem is that after throwing out the measurement postulate, the 
many worlds interpretation needs another assumption, that brings the 
measurement problem back.


The reason is this. In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a 
detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into 
several universes. Therefore, if you just ask “what will the detector 
measure”, then the answer is “The detector will measure anything 
that’s possible with probability 1.”


This, of course, is not what we observe. We observe only one 
measurement outcome.


The implication is that the above two sentences are contrasting. But 
nobody asks "what will the detector measure".  The question asked by the 
experimenter is "which measurement outcome will the detector detect", 
which is perfectly consistent with "we observe only one measurement outcome"


The many worlds people explain this as follows. Of course you are not 
supposed to calculate the probability for each branch of the detector. 
Because when we say detector, we don’t mean all detector branches 
together. You should only evaluate the probability relative to the 
detector in one specific branch at a time.


I can't even parse that.  You are supposed to calculate the probability 
of each possible measurement outcome and those characterize the branch.  
It is NOT calculating "each branch of the detector" unless you are 
defining those "branches" by what the measurement outcome is.




That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as 
reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically 
entirely equivalent to the measurement postulate.


It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means.  It is 
instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation and not 
a different theory (as GRW is).  It's different from the measurement 
postulate in that the measurement postulate says the wave function 
instantaneously changes to match the observed measured value.  MWI says 
those other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of the 
Hilbert space and you are only observing one.  Those are not "logically" 
the same.


The measurement postulate says: Update probability at measurement to 
100%. The detector definition in many worlds says: The “Detector” is 
by definition only the thing in one branch.


What does "only the thing in one branch mean". In MWI there are 
projections of the detector in subspaces which differ only by the value 
detected.


Now evaluate probabilities relative to this, which gives you 100% in 
each branch. Same thing.


And because it’s the same thing you already know that you cannot 
derive this detector definition from the Schrödinger equation.


?? You can't derive the definition of any physical object from the 
Schroedinger equation.  You put in the Hamiltonian of the object and 
whatever it interacts with and the initial ray in Hilbert space and the 
Schroedinger equation tells you how it evolves


It’s not possible. What the many worlds people are now trying instead 
is to derive this postulate from rational choice theory. But of course 
that brings back in macroscopic terms, like actors who make decisions 
and so on. In other words, this reference to knowledge is equally in 
conflict with reductionism as is the Copenhagen interpretation.


I agree with that point.  But once you suppose a probabilistic 
interpretation of the Hilbert space, then Gleason's theorem implies the 
Born rule.  That still leaves a small gap in saying why it has 
probabilistic interpretation at all.  Whether "self-locating 
uncertainty" is an adequate answer seems to me to require more analysis 
of human thought; although showing the brain is a quasi-classical 
information processor goes a long way.


Brent



*And that’s why the many worlds interpretation does not solve the 
measurement

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

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.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 2:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> 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 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?

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.

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/8/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, 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
 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"


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.  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
, introduced by
Werner Heisenberg
, and the path
integral formulation
,
developed chiefly by Richard Feynman
. 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
 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




That's from Wikipedia again (same quote from the Schrödinger equation 
article posted several times before). That " it's common knowledge on 
this list" doesn't appear that way at all, where an undisputed 
catechism is assumed on what is real (QM-wise).


I just don't see how Many Worlds ontology tells us "how to apply the 
mathematics": We don't observe a bunch of worlds, so how can it be 
applied?


It tells us what we see and record is what in recorded by entanglement 
with the environment and ourselves and so solves the Schrodinger cat 
conundrum.  Whether you then adopt an axiom that says the the other 
branches predicted by the

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 5:01:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It [ontology] matters in applying the theory.  In CI you apply the theory 
> by evolving a wf forward in time from an initial state.  So the ontology 
> includes a "state" which is some initial wf.  But you could do a consistent 
> histories calculation in which the ontology includes and initial and a 
> final state.  Or a transactional interpretation in which there  is an 
> initial and final measurement result.
>
> Brent
>



I see where "histories ontology" is used in computational QM, but where is 
"worlds ontology" used (in QM software projects)?

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1fadbca9-eeb7-479b-99bc-70ade0546193%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/8/2019 12:58 PM, 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
 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"


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


It matters in applying the theory.  In CI you apply the theory by 
evolving a wf forward in time from an initial state.  So the ontology 
includes a "state" which is some initial wf.  But you could do a 
consistent histories calculation in which the ontology includes and 
initial and a final state.  Or a transactional interpretation in which 
there  is an initial and final measurement result.


Brent


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
, introduced by
Werner Heisenberg
, and the path
integral formulation
,
developed chiefly by Richard Feynman
. 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
 address
questions such as what the relation is between the wave function,
the underlying reality, and the results of experimental

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

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.
>
>
> Brent
>

MWI, according to Sabine Hossenfelder, is not an answer - in the final
analysis - to the measurement problem

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html

The many world interpretation, now, supposedly does away with the problem
of the quantum measurement and it does this by just saying there isn’t such
a thing as wavefunction collapse. Instead, many worlds people say, every
time you make a measurement, the universe splits into several parallel
worlds, one for each possible measurement outcome. This universe splitting
is also sometimes called branching.

Some people have a problem with the branching because it’s not clear just
exactly when or where it should take place, but I do not think this is a
serious problem, it’s just a matter of definition. No, the real problem is
that after throwing out the measurement postulate, the many worlds
interpretation needs another assumption, that brings the measurement
problem back.

The reason is this. In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a
detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into several
universes. Therefore, if you just ask “what will the detector measure”,
then the answer is “The detector will measure anything that’s possible with
probability 1.”

This, of course, is not what we observe. We observe only one measurement
outcome. The many worlds people explain this as follows. Of course you are
not supposed to calculate the probability for each branch of the detector.
Because when we say detector, we don’t mean all detector branches together.
You should only evaluate the probability relative to the detector in one
specific branch at a time.

That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as reasonable
as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely equivalent
to the measurement postulate. The measurement postulate says: Update
probability at measurement to 100%. The detector definition in many worlds
says: The “Detector” is by definition only the thing in one branch. Now
evaluate probabilities relative to this, which gives you 100% in each
branch. Same thing.

And because it’s the same thing you already know that you cannot derive
this detector definition from the Schrödinger equation. It’s not possible.
What the many worlds people are now trying instead is to derive this
postulate from rational choice theory. But of course that brings back in
macroscopic terms, like actors who make decisions and so on. In other
words, this reference to knowledge is equally in conflict with reductionism
as is the Copenhagen interpretation.

*And that’s why the many worlds interpretation does not solve the
measurement problem* and therefore it is equally troubled as all other
interpretations of quantum mechanics. What’s the trouble with the other
interpretations? We will talk about this some other time. So stay tuned.

@philipthrift

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

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. 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.

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..

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/CAFxXSLSwD2JdFyQ8vBiZP2ssmO83JVcVseADWMGCCFazb4pAPg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



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 <
>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> 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" 
> 
>
> 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 
>> , introduced by Werner 
>> Heisenberg , and the path 
>> integral formulation 
>> , developed 
>> chiefly by Richard Feynman 
>> . 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 
>>  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

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, 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 <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> 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" 
 

 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.  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 , 
> introduced by Werner Heisenberg 
> , and the path integral 
> formulation , 
> developed chiefly by Richard Feynman 
> . 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 
>  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
>



That's from Wikipedia again (same quote from the Schrödinger equation 
article posted several times before). That " it's common knowledge on this 
list" doesn't appear that way at all, where an undisputed catechism is 
assumed on what is real (QM-wise).

I just don't see how Many Worlds ontology tells us "how to apply the 
mathematics": We don't observe a bunch of worlds, so how can it be applied?

Path-integral methods are already used extensively in computational quantum 
mechanics CQM) and applied in materials science and other application 
areas. So we know they are useful. 

Where are the many-world methods used in CQM.

@philpthift   

-- 
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

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread Alan Grayson



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 <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> 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" 
 

 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 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 , 
> introduced by Werner Heisenberg 
> , and the path integral 
> formulation , 
> developed chiefly by Richard Feynman 
> . 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 
>  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ed9d040a-9853-4e53-9ddc-ad7683aead2f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

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
> 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"

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. 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
, introduced by Werner
Heisenberg , and the
path integral formulation
, developed
chiefly by Richard Feynman
. 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
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

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

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  > 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" 
>>> 
>>>
>>> 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 , 
introduced by Werner Heisenberg 
, and the path integral 
formulation , 
developed chiefly by Richard Feynman 
. 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 
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dea3ade4-d2f8-4c98-8225-1ff226bbe7e8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell
> 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"

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

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread John Clark

on Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:36 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

* > I watched most of the lecture, and was put off by the style and the
> lack of substance.*
>

How much of Carroll's talk did you actually watch? If it was more than 90
seconds you'd know it did not lack substance. And I liked his style because
it was crystal clear and he did not do what so many do, explain what he's
going to say, then say it, them explain what he just said; instead Carroll
cuts the crap and just says it.

John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv0%2BBaCga69LJQe8N%3DAOPUKZHRjyoqACNBgj8BD8_DY8mQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:11 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:10 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.*
>>
>
> So you haven't read a word of Carroll's book and you even stopped watching
> his talk about his book after a few minutes, and you did so not because you
> could find anything substantively wrong with the talk but because you just
> didn't like his style for some vague reason; but none of that prevents you
> from saying with great authority that the book is all wrong and writing
> ponderous screeds damning his book to hell.
>

I think you are over-reacting somewhat, John. I haven't read Carroll's book
because it is not available in Australia yet. I watched most of the
lecture, and was put off by the style and the lack of substance.

I don't know what ponderous screeds from me that you have been reading that
damn Carroll's book -- I haven't written anything about his book, although
I have written at length about the troubles with MWI, and the failure of
MWI to provide an adequate local causal account of the violation of the
Bell inequalities. Now, maybe Carroll has a convincing explanation of this.
If he has, and you have read it in his book, then please reproduce it here
so that we can all share in this insight.

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/CAFxXSLRgcWx2LrYpvN04HEDn7s34mUocx-0_Y%3D_t8KbOUAF3zg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:10 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.*
>

So you haven't read a word of Carroll's book and you even stopped watching
his talk about his book after a few minutes, and you did so not because you
could find anything substantively wrong with the talk but because you just
didn't like his style for some vague reason; but none of that prevents you
from saying with great authority that the book is all wrong and writing
ponderous screeds damning his book to hell.

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv3EL2qvvSa3vG8P4RvptV115%3DDStg7A7nibaYB4mJwdPg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:10:33 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell  > 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" 
>>> 
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Bruce 
>


It's like watching an indoctrinated religious missionary.

@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/210a74b4-1965-4789-be26-329f7910ae29%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> 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"
>> 
>>
>> 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.

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/CAFxXSLSFQTGKmKD%2BPLxepCzVmN-o%2B9ikQu54AAg5xvqDcLrq4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book