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" >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6FR08VylO4&t=1314s> >>>> >>>> John K Clark >>>> >>> >>> I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more rigorous >>> and less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay or nay opinion on this. >>> It is something to store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum >>> interpretations are to my thinking unprovable theoretically and not >>> falsifiable empirically. >>> >> >> >> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick marketing >> exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. Too slick by >> half. >> >> >> What do you think he's selling? I think Carroll is a good speaker, a >> good popularizer, and a nice guy. I feel fortunate to have him >> representing physics to the public. He is not evangelizing for some >> particular interpretation and he recognizes that there are alternative >> interpretations of QM even though he favors MWI. >> >> Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by >> every measure. >> >> Brent >> > > Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga > > who can take math and pull out God. > > Carroll makes* the big mistake* of a number of physics "popularizers" > today. He takes the mathematical language of a physical theory (or one > version* of that theory, as there are multiple formulations of quantum > theory) and pulls a physical ontology out of his math. > > > That's why it's called an "interpretation". Every physical theory has an > ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you don't know how to > apply the mathematics. That MWI entails other, unobservable "worlds" is > neither a bug or a feature, it's just one answer to the measurement > problem. If you have a better answer, feel free to state it. > > > > The math is not the territory. > > > * The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical > systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics > include matrix mechanics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics>, > introduced by Werner Heisenberg > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg>, and the path integral > formulation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation>, > developed chiefly by Richard Feynman > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman>. Paul Dirac > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac> incorporated matrix mechanics > and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation. > > The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of > a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the Schrödinger > equation does not directly say *what**, exactly, the wave function is*. > Interpretations > of quantum mechanics > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics> address > questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the > underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements. > > > Did you write that, or are you quoting without attribution? Anyway it's > common knowledge on this list. > > Brent >
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 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6851abb2-eb22-40f4-8c2b-b60209a4a46a%40googlegroups.com.
